R GOVINDASWAMY Vs. C S PANNALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the tenant of a premises situated in Robertsonpet, KGF under the respondent. The respondent filed HRC.31 of 1970 on the file of the Munsiff, KGF under Sec.21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Karnataka Act') for eviction of the petitioner and h,is sister, Rajammal, who was also Impleaded as Respt-2 to the said petition. The respondent contended that she was entitled to recover possession of the premises on several grounds, but in the course of the hearing of the petition, he confined his case only to the ground mentioned under Sec.21(1) (f) of the Karnataka Act. His case was that the petitioner had unlawfully sublet the premises in favour of Rajammal and thereby had become liable to be evicted from the premises. The Petr contested the case. The petitioner pleaded that the respondent was not entitled to recover possession of the premises as the tenancy which was a monthly one had not been duly terminated by the issue of notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and that the case of the respondent that the petitioner had sub-let the premises was not true. The learned Munsiff allowed the petition and directed the petitioner and Rajammal to deliver possession of the premises to the petitioner within two months from the date of his order. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Munsiff, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge, Kolar, in HRC Appeal no / 28 of 1973. Rajammal was not impleaded as a party in that appeal. That appeal was dismissed. The petitioner was, however, granted a month's time to vacate the premises. This revision petition is filed against the order of the learned District Judge.

(2.) This petition has come before us on a reference made under the proviso to sub-sec(2) of Sec.8 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, by Venkatachaliah, J.

(3.) It is not disputed in this case that no valid notice issued under Sec.106 of the Transfer of Property Act was served on the petitioner be- fore the petition for eviction was filed before the learned Munsiff. The first submission made by Sri R.Nagaraj, learned Counsel for the petitioner, was that the Courts below were in error in allowing the petition for eviction even though no notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act had been served on the petitioner. In support of the above contention, he relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Dattopant Gopalrao Devakate v. Vithalrao Maruthi Rao(AIR.1975 SC 1111.) in which it had been held that without termination of the contractual tenancy by a valid notice or other mode set out in Sec.111 T.P.Act it was not open to the landlord to treat a tenant of the permises as a statutory tenant and seek his eviction.