CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSOCIATION Vs. SAMPANGIRAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition instituted by the landlord is directed against the judgment and order d 21-2-76, passed by the District Judge, Mandya, in HRCA.5 of 1974 on his file, confirming the, order d| 27-2-1974, passed, by the Principal Munsiff, Mandya in HRC.14 of 1971 on his: file.

(2.) The landlord instituted action for eviction of the tenant before the learned Munsiff a|t Mandya in HRC.14 of 1971 under Clauses (a), (b), (c), (f) and (o) of sub-sec(1) of Sec.21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act). The landlord averred in the petition that the respondent in, the petition, viz P.Sampangiramaiah was a tenant under him by virtue of a registered lease deed d, 20-12-1965 for a period of 25 years from 1-1-1966. The landlord further averred that the tenant defaulted in the payment of rental and that he was; due in a sum of Rs.2245-16 as on 30-9-71 and that he had not paid the same inspite cf notice of demand. So he was liable to be evicted under Sep.21 (1) (a) of the Act. The landlord further affirmed that the tenant under took to put up new constructions and renovate the existing building in the suit premises as per the agreement in the lease deed Ext.P-1 at a cost of Rs.60,000 within five years of the lease as per the plan approved, by the landlord. He had failed to do go and thus, he had forfeited his tenancy and, was liable to be evicted under Clause (o) of Section 21(1) of the Act. The landlord further asserted that the tenant had sub-let the) portions of the suit premises without his consent and, so, the tenant was liable to be evicted under Clause (f) of Sec.21(1) of the Act. The landlord also stated that the tenant had put up some permanent structures without his prior consent and so, the tenant was liable to be evicted under Clauses(b) and (c) of Section 21(1) of the Act. On these averments, the landlord instituted, the petition before the learned Munsiff on 14-10-1971.

(3.) The tenant resisted the petition by filing his statement of objections on 30-5-72. He contended that the lease was for a period, of 25 years as per Ext.P-1 and, that the landlord could not terminate his, tenancy earlier. He denied, that he was defaulter. The landlord had failed to pay the Municipal tax as per the terms in Ext.P-1, the lease deed, That being so, the Municipality issued him a notice as per Ext.D-21 to pay the tax. He paid the same under coercion. He has further averred that he had paid the rest of the rental to the, landlord, immediately on receipt of the notice. Thus, according to the tenant, he was not a defaulter.