Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Audrey Francis Dsouza vs Charles Rego . on 1 September, 2021
Bench: Hemant Gupta, V. Ramasubramanian
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).11812 OF 2016
AUDREY FRANCIS D’SOUZA APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
CHARLES REGO & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the High Court of Karnataka on 18.12.2008 whereby the revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’) directed against judgment and decree dated 30.11.2006 passed by the Learned District Judge was set aside and the present appellant was ordered to be evicted.
One Joseph Pinto was inducted as a permanent lessee way back on 13.09.1901 having permanent lease hold over the land admeasuring 50 cents. Joseph Pinto transferred his permanent lease hold rights over land admeasuring 18.75 cents to one Lilly Theresa Machado and Antony Salvadore Machado on 05.10.1928. There was further transfer Signature Not Verified of lease hold rights by Lilly Theresa Machado in favour of Antony Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2021.09.03 16:07:43 IST Reason: Salvadore Machado.
2Subsequently, Antony Salvadore Machado transferred the permanent lease hold rights in favour of Father Mullers Charitable Institute, the respondent No.1 before the civil court. It was on 06.08.1964, consent was given to Father of Mullers Charitable Institute to divide and sell the plot to the extent of 18.75 cents by the lessor.
On 19.09.1964, Father Mullers Charitable Institute transferred its rights to one Mathilda D’Souza – respondent No.2 who in turn transferred his right to Narayana Bhat, respondent No.3 on 07.07.1975 before the civil court. Mr. Narayana Bhat transferred his rights to one B. Ganesh vide deed dated 25.04.1997, impleaded as respondent No. 4. The petition for eviction was filed against the aforesaid sub-lessees and transferees. The appellant is the successor in interest from the original lessee by transfer.
The eviction was sought by the lessor for non-payment of rent in terms of Section 21(1)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and on the ground of unlawful subletting in terms of Section 21(1)(f) of the Act.
We do not consider it necessary to examine the question of eviction on the ground of unlawful subletting but the fact remains that the appellant has not offered to pay arrears of rent in terms of Section 21(1)(a) of the Act to avoid eviction. Thus, the appellant has incurred the liability of eviction. We find that the High Court has correctly appreciated the provisions of the Act to pass an order of eviction.
3Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
……………………………………………………J. [HEMANT GUPTA] ……………………………………………………J. [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN] New Delhi 1st SEPTEMBER, 2021 4 ITEM NO.109 Court 11 (Video Conferencing) SECTION IV-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 11812/2016 AUDREY FRANCIS D’SOUZA Appellant(s) VERSUS CHARLES REGO & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 01-09-2021 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN For Appellant(s) Mr. D.P.Chaturvedi, Adv.
Mr. S. N. Bhat, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Basava Prabhu S Patil, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, AOR Ms. Rakhi M., Adv.
Ms. Sruthi Iyer, Adv.
Mr. Vaibhav Sabharwal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(SWETA BALODI) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order is placed on the file)