BASHA BAIG Vs. CHOODANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision filed under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, is directed against the order of eviction dated 31-1-1983 passed by the 19th Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City.

(2.) Premises bearing Nos.1 & 2 situated at Chinnappa Garden, Lalbagh Road, Bangalore, more particularly described in the schedule to the original petition is the subject of dispute. It belongs to the family of Respondents-1, 2 & 3, who are related among themselves as full brothers. C.H. Keerti Sunder and C.H. Lokanath are their other two brothers. When the family was still joint, Keerti Sunder, as Karta of joint family, leased the said premises (open site) under a registered lease deed dated 20-9-1965 (Ex.P-1) in favour of S.K. Khader Sheriff, original respondent-1, since deceased whose legal representatives have been arrayed as respondents in this revision, on a monthly rent of Rs. 275/- for a period of five years commencing from 20-9-1965 for the purpose of running an automobile workshop and parking buses, the rent being payable on or before 10th of each following month. In terms of the lease, the lessee was permitted to take water and power connections, but in the name of the lessor and bear the charges himself. In terms of the lease, it was also agreed that the lessor shall apply for licence enabling the lessee to put up temporary structure, for the use for which the premises was let out, at the cost of the lessee and to obtain power and water connections and after the expiry of the period of lease to remove the temporary structure and deliver vacant possession of the premises in its original condition but without removing water and power connections. It was however agreed that neither he should put up or erect any permanent structure nor mortgage nor transfer in any manner nor part with the possession of the whole or any part of the demised premises and shall not also use the premises for any other purpose other than the purpose for which the premises was leased.

(3.) After the premises was so leased, on 4-5-1970, there was a partition among the five brothers and the premises in question was allotted to the share of respondents-1 to 3, each taking 1/3rd share, as described in the partition deed Ex.P-2. There is however controversy if immediately after the partition, the lessee was informed of the partition. While according to respondents-1 to 3, Keerti Sunder had informed and requested to attorn to them, according to the lessee Khader Sheriff - for the first time he came to know of the partition in August, 1971, when notice of termination of tenancy Ex.P-4 was received. However, the respondents-1 to 3 instituted proceedings for eviction on 27-10-1971 on the grounds mentioned in Clauses (a) and (h) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act contending inter alia that he had committed default in payment of rent and the premises were also reasonably and bona fide required for their own use as they intended to bifurcate the property by metes and bounds into three equal parts and take their share and erect new structure thereon for their own use and occupation ; that is for erection of industrial shed with stores and office accommodation for the 1st respondent herein and for construction of houses for residence of respondents-2 & 3. The original lessee Khader Sheriff, who contested the application denied that he had either deliberately committed default in payment of rent or was aware of the partition until receipt of the notice of termination dated 17-8-1971, and after receipt of the said notice a cheque for Rs.3,575/-representing the rent from July 1970 to July 1971 was sent to Keerti Sunder, but the same was returned by him and, therefore, there was no default on his part. He also denied that respondents-1 to 3 required the premises reasonably and bona fide for their own use and the application for eviction as brought by them was also not maintainable without they terminating the tenancy or serving quit notice (According to him, notice regarding termination issued by Keerti Sunder was not available to them). He also contended that in terms of lease, he had put up sheds and workshop at the cost of Rs.37,000/- and invested money for enclosing the premises and any order passed for eviction without reimbursing him the amount would cause great hardship to him. The respondents-1 to 3 thereafter amended their original petition by adding paras 5(a) and 5(b) claiming eviction of the original tenant Khader Sheriff on the grounds mentioned in Clauses (c) and (f) of Section 21 (1) of the Act, contending inter alia that he had not only erected a permanent structure on the premises by digging a well of the depth 35' to 40' and 4' to 5' diameter without their consent and had thus damaged the property to a great extent, but he had also unlawfully sub-let the "part of the premises" to one D. Jayaram doing business under the name and style of Janatha Automobiles and therefore also he is liable to the evicted forthwith. It may be mentioned here, Khader Sheriff did not oppose the amendment, but A.R. Sheriff (since deceased, whose legal representatives have been brought on record), who claimed to have purchased the running concern Janatha Travells from the original tenant-respondent Khader Sheriff and paying the rent to the lessors since then, having got impleaded as respondent-2 on the application made by him as I.A-7 opposed the amendment. The petitioner herein Basha Baig, who claimed to have purchased the running concern from A.R. Sheriff was impleaded on the application I.A-17 in the teeth of the objections to his impleading. It does not appear the case was set down for objections or the petitioner herein filed any objections. The case was straightaway posted for evidence.