2004 JTR(SC) 968
2004 22 AIC 48 ; 2004 AIR(Kar)(R) 3102 ; 2004 AIR(SC) 4876 ; 2004 AIR(SCW) 5419 ; 2005 1 AllCJ 752 ; 2004 57 AllLR 268 ; 2004 2 ApexCJ(SC) 516 ; 2004 4 AWC 2976 ; 2004 3 CivCC 582 ; 2004 5 CTC 363 ; 2005 ILR(Kar) 1369 ; 2004 7 JT 45 ; 2004 6 KarLJ 505 ; 2004 2 MPWN 365 ; 2004 2 RCJ 62 ; 2004 2 RCR(Rent) 485 ; 2005 1 RentLR 121 ; 2004 7 Scale 250 ; 2005 1 SCC 493 ; 2004 Supp3 SCR 949 ; 2004 2 WLC 604 ; 2005 KHC 358 ; 2004 6 Supreme 415
2004(6) Supreme 415
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Karnataka High Court)
R.C. Lahoti, CJI, G.P. Mathur & C.K. Thakker, JJ.
M/s. K. Ganesh Shet -Appellant
versus
Sri A.K. Jayarama Sheka and Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 1440-1441 of 2004
Decided on 27-8-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : R.S. Hegde, Ms. Savitri Pandey, Chandra Prakash, P.P. Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent : G.V. Chandrashekhar and T.N. Rao, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Ground of eviction that tenant had sub-let premises unauthorisedly could not be defeated by fact of death of tenant.
Act Referred :KARNATAKA RENT CONTROL ACT : S.21(1)(f)
(A) The proceedings involve eviction of a tenant under Section 21(1)(f) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, read with the principles governing sub-tenancy and succession rights. The Act, as it stood at the relevant time, provided the statutory framework for determining the legality of sub-letting and the consequences of the original tenants death. The provisions of the 1961 Act were in issue, and although the Act was later repealed and replaced by the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1999, the applicability of the old law was preserved for the determination of these appeals, as held in a subsequent decision of this Court.
(B) Key legal principles include that sub-tenancy created without the consent of the landlord is illegal, the death of the original tenant does not automatically absolve sub-tenants from eviction for such illegal occupation, and the doctrine of granting relief on grounds of mercy to sub-tenants cannot override the landlords right to evict. The law does not permit sub-tenants to claim protection merely because they are in occupation under the legal representatives of the original tenant.
Facts of the case:
The landlord initiated eviction proceedings against the tenant and sub-tenants under Section 21(1)(f) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. The Trial Court dismissed the claim, but the Court of District Judge allowed the revision and ordered eviction. The High Court upheld the finding of illegal sub-letting but refused eviction, directing an enhancement of rent and dismissing the landlords claim.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in refusing eviction solely on the ground that the sub-tenants deserved mercy after the original tenants death. The sub-tenancy was created in 1978 without the landlords consent, constituting illegal occupation. The legal consequences of such unauthorized sub-letting necessitate eviction of both the original legal heirs and the sub-tenants.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in denying eviction to the tenant and sub-tenants on the ground of mercy following the death of the original tenant, in view of the illegal sub-tenancy created without the landlords consent.
Ratio Decidendi:
Sub-tenancy without the landlords consent is unlawful, and the death of the original tenant does not extinguish the right to evict. The principle of mercy does not apply to condone illegal sub-occupation, and the landlord is entitled to evict both the tenant and the sub-tenants.
Result:
The appeals are allowed, the High Courts judgment is set aside, and the District Judges decree for eviction is restored, subject to a four-month suspension and the filing of a bond by the tenants.
(A) The proceedings involve eviction of a tenant under Section 21(1)(f) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, read with the principles governing sub-tenancy and succession rights. The Act, as it stood at the relevant time, provided the statutory framework for determining the legality of sub-letting and the consequences of the original tenants death. The provisions of the 1961 Act were in issue, and although the Act was later repealed and replaced by the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1999, the applicability of the old law was preserved for the determination of these appeals, as held in a subsequent decision of this Court.
(B) Key legal principles include that sub-tenancy created without the consent of the landlord is illegal, the death of the original tenant does not automatically absolve sub-tenants from eviction for such illegal occupation, and the doctrine of granting relief on grounds of mercy to sub-tenants cannot override the landlords right to evict. The law does not permit sub-tenants to claim protection merely because they are in occupation under the legal representatives of the original tenant.
Facts of the case:
The landlord initiated eviction proceedings against the tenant and sub-tenants under Section 21(1)(f) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. The Trial Court dismissed the claim, but the Court of District Judge allowed the revision and ordered eviction. The High Court upheld the finding of illegal sub-letting but refused eviction, directing an enhancement of rent and dismissing the landlords claim.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in refusing eviction solely on the ground that the sub-tenants deserved mercy after the original tenants death. The sub-tenancy was created in 1978 without the landlords consent, constituting illegal occupation. The legal consequences of such unauthorized sub-letting necessitate eviction of both the original legal heirs and the sub-tenants.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in denying eviction to the tenant and sub-tenants on the ground of mercy following the death of the original tenant, in view of the illegal sub-tenancy created without the landlords consent.
Ratio Decidendi:
Sub-tenancy without the landlords consent is unlawful, and the death of the original tenant does not extinguish the right to evict. The principle of mercy does not apply to condone illegal sub-occupation, and the landlord is entitled to evict both the tenant and the sub-tenants.
Result:
The appeals are allowed, the High Courts judgment is set aside, and the District Judges decree for eviction is restored, subject to a four-month suspension and the filing of a bond by the tenants.
JUDGMENT
R.C. Lahoti, CJI-Proceedings for eviction of tenant on the ground available under Section 21(1)(f) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter, the Act for short) were initiated. The Trial Court dismissed the claim for eviction. The landlord preferred revision before the Court of District Judge which was allowed and the tenant and the sub-tenants were directed to be evicted. The two sub-tenants preferred revisions in the High Court. The High Court has upheld the finding of fact recorded by the District Judge that the premises were sub-let without the consent of the landlord. However, still the High Court has granted relief to the sub-tenants and denied relief of eviction to the landlord. The High Court has formed an opinion that in spite of the sub-tenants having been illegally inducted into the premises, the original tenant had died and the sub-tenants were holding under the legal representatives of the original tenant and the sub-tenants deserved to be shown mercy. The High Court directed the rent which was being paid by the sub-tenants at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month to be enhanced to Rs. 1000/- per month and that too directly to the landlord bypassing the tenant and having done so directed the claim for eviction to be dismissed. Consequently, these two appeals by special leave have been filed by the landlord.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are satisfied that the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained.
3. During the pendency of these appeals, the Act of 1961 has been repealed and replaced by the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1999 with effect from 31.12.1999. Dealing with Section 70 of the New Act we have today held in M/s Mahendra Saree Emporium Vs. G.V. Srinivasa Murthy (Civil Appeal No. 6296 of 1998 decided on August 27, 2004) that these appeals shall not abate and shall be heard and decided as if the 1999 Act was not passed.
4. The sole question which arises for decision in these appeals is whether the High Court was justified in refusing to evict the tenant and the sub-tenants simply because the original tenant had died and the sub-tenants deserved to be treated with mercy. The High Court drew support from the decision of this Court in A.S. Sulochana Vs. C. Dharmalingam (1987) 1 SCC 180 according to which if the sub-tenancy was created by a tenant and the tenant had died then the legal heirs of the tenant and the sub-tenants could not be evicted "for the sin committed by the deceased tenant". The view of the law so taken in A.S. Sulochana s case, stands overruled. (See Parvinder Singh Vs. Renu Gautam and Ors. - (2004) 4 SCC 794). The sub-tenancy was created in 1978 without the consent of the tenant. The finding as to creation of sub-tenancy has been recorded by the learned District Judge on appreciation of evidence within his jurisdiction and has been upheld by the High Court. We find no reason to interfere with that finding of fact. The legal consequences must therefore follow. The landlord has successfully made out a ground for eviction and the tenant must be evicted along with the sub-tenants.
5. The appeals are allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and instead that of the District Judge is restored. However, the decree for eviction shall remain suspended for a period of four months from today subject to the tenant and the sub-tenants filing the usual undertaking within a period of four weeks from today in the Executing Court. The appellant shall be entitled to costs throughout from the respondent-tenant and sub-tenants.
Appeal allowed.
*****************
00030
00031