RAGHUNANDAN PRASAD GARG Vs. SREERAMIAH SETTY
LAWS(KAR)-1970-7-25
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Decided on July 31,1970

RAGHUNANDAN PRASAD GARG Appellant
VERSUS
SREERAMIAH SETTY Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BENOY KRISHNA DAS VS. SALSICCIONI [REFERRED TO]
SHA MANUMAL MISRIMAL VS. NATHA RUKMANI AMMAL [RELIED ON]


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.