JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This is a defendant's second appeal against the decree passed by the
Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore, in RA No. 163(1968. The respondents
who are the plaintiff's filed O.S. No. 1648 of 1964 in the court of the first
Munsiff, Bangalore, for eviction of the defendant from the suit schedule
premises and for recovery of possession of the same.
(2.)The suit premises consists of the first floor and the second floor
including latrines and bath rooms in premises bearing corporation Nos. 3,
4, 5 and 6 except one room in the first floor, situated in Dewanakhana Galli,
Chickpet, Bangalore city. It is not disputed that the suit premises is a non-
residential premises where the defendant is running a lodging house. The
case of the plaintiffs is that the entire suit premises was leased to the
defendant for a fixed period of ten years, the terms of the agreement in that
behalf having been incorporated in a lease deed dated 20th of October 1954
produced in this case as Ex, P. 2. At the time of the execution of the lease
deed, the second floor was not constructed. Therefore, possession of the first
floor only was given to the defendant. It is clear from the terms of Ex. P.
2 that the plaintiffs were required to construct ten rooms with attached
bath rooms and latrines on the second floor and give possession of the same
to the defendant. The rent agreed for the entire premises consisting of the
first and the second floor as per Ex. P. 2 was Rs. 500 per month. But, as
the second floor had not yet been constructed, the document recites that
the defendant should pay only a rent of Rs. 300 per month until the plaintiffs
construct and deliver possession of the second floor also as per the
agreement. In pursuance of the terms of Ex.P-2, the second floor was
constructed by the plaintiffs. It appears that by mutual agreement, the
nature of the construction and the number of rooms to be constructed was
altered. As per mutual agreement, instead of ten rooms with attached bath
rooms and latrines, twelve rooms were constructed as desired by the defendant.
In view of change in the plan, the plaintiffs incurred additional cost.
Therefore the parties mutually agreed that rent should be fixed at Rs. 580
per month instead of Rs.500 as originally agreed. One room in the first
floor was excluded. After the second floor was constructed as mentioned
above, possession of the same was given to the defendant. All the terms
referred to above were incorporated in another deed which has been produced
in this case as Ex. P. 3 dated 25-2-1959. The said document is described as an
additional lease deed. In the said document, it is specifically
mentioned that the lease for the entire premises would expire on 30-9-1964.
The case of the plaintiffs is that the lease expired on 30-9-1964 as per the
terms of Exs.P-2 & P-3. The plaintiffs brought the present suit for possession
on the 30th October 1964. The plaintiffs alleged that no notice terminating
the tenancy is necessary in this case as the lease is determined by
efflux of tune. It, however, appears, that a notice was given as per Ex. P. 6
dated 7-8-1964 demanding delivery of possession on the expiry of the lease
period on 30th of September 1964.
(3.)The defendant resisted the suit and contended that there are two
separate leases in respect of the first and second floors evidenced by Exts.
P. 2 and P. 3 respectively. He therefore contended that the suit brought on
the basis that the first and second floors constituted a single premises leased
to the defendant is not legal and proper. The defendant further contended
that the suit is barred by the provisions of S. 21 of the Mysore Rent Control Act
1961, hereinafter referred to as the "Act". He also contended that
the lease has not been properly determined. S. 21 of the Act will not be
applicable to non-residential buildings, the monthly rent of which exceeds
Rs. 500 in view of S. 31 of the Act. The defendant contended that S. 31 of
the Act which excepts the non-residential buildings fetching a rent of
more than Rs. 500 violates Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and is
therefore void. The defendant therefore prayed that the Court should make
a reference to the High Court in regard to the validity of S.31 of the Act.
It it unnecessary to advert to the other contentions taken in the written
statement as they are not material for the disposal of this appeal.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.