Smt P M Naga Jyothi vs M/S V A Ramasanjeeva Setty on 3 June, 2009

[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt P M Naga Jyothi vs M/S V A Ramasanjeeva Setty on 3 June, 2009

Equivalent citations: AIR 2010 (NOC) 92 (KAR.), 2009 (5) AIR KAR R 331

Bench: B.V.Nagarathna

 

 

 . E40 . Qiké . ;{'.{.?{?8

IN THEE HIGH {.1()i}R'i' Uh' i'{A!€NA'i'Ai{A Ki' BA£€GA}}:Ci!§E

¥)A'i'B)L) 'm:s'1'm::;3eguAY our JUNE, 2-{$39 ~  " 
BEFORE '
'mu: H€)N'BLEZ MRs.auS1';<_}.§§V3;'»*A.:saA;}£s.i<.;éf'1;:+:;sé;¢;' ' 

H.H.H.P.:s;0.2o4.,f:g;q@

EB?

smr 1» M NA:;A.'q'3o*s'H1 _  _ 
W/0 i.¢¥i'b; SR: PA MAH£}S,H ':«;L3§g3}=u<
R; A'? we 194, 19TH A MAIN, _~%_T'iv§ jS"_I';_#1{}E
JP :x:Ax:sA;<:, BAE\§{}ALff)'RE'~.?'8_ ' " '*

 I~'i:'2'i'l'i'!{)i\iE3§<

(By 811': A ;se:§§;):;é.:;nLs :§r_j_pV.:~§}=LNA: ADV.)

A1m$:_

1

MES V A VRa;i&:VA:§g:3m::t:vA Si:)"§"i"Y
AN [Ti "SONS; RANGANATHA MANSION

A' " rm 144,'A.F_WE;NL:E R{)AD
'~ ;_gA2~zGAL0RE~:a2
_ REPRESENTED BY v R RAMANJANEYA

TA "'e:é'i€.§, V7§&vRAMANJANEYA

SK} SR1 V A KAMASANJEEZVA §:§i:*2'i"i'Y
 ABOUT 53 YEARS

' .. RQIAT N0 2344?, SAIRAM

H CRQSS, BSK II STAGE

BAN GﬁLLC}RE-?'f)

SR1 V R SA'i'HYA.NAi€ﬁYAN

3}' G L1'~'t'i'f:i SR; '.5 A RAMASANJEEZVA Si:€i'i°i'Y
AGED ABOUT 54 Y£3ﬁRS

RIAT NC} '2984, H A MAiN

17TH CfF«.'{)SS,, BSK II STAGE
BANGALORE-'?0

SR} V R RANGANATH
S] O LATE SR1 V A RAMASAN EZEZVA §:3h5i"i"Y



i-1}~i§<£«'.I'\£0. 29¢? . 2008
nu / ...

AGED m:30u'1"52 YEARS
i~<]A(l' NO 76, 
VANIWLAS ROAD, BAN(}ALORE~(}4 PRESENTLY 
R[A'"1'UNi'i'E STATES OF AMERHJA BY His "   "

REGISTERED GPA HOLDER V R RAna.a.N,.§;a;i»::é;f;:§  j__ A' 

 1<1s;:;::=£;_i§a~-g:g;£;§§4If1':s_ 1

(By Sri: YOGA NAr<Asi;iSAH§;'  
SR1.R.K.SR1DHARMU1-"WHY,  RSLUMESH A ~ ~.&
NI.D.RAG~HUNATH FOR M/SMURTHY ASSO§Ifi'iS, ;aDv.}  *

'i'HiS HRH? FILELI.) u/as  KAi€aeA*1'.é;2<A"v;<Eiv'1' AC?!'

1999 AGAINST THE JUDGEMENWANB "ORDER DATED
21.012003 PASSEB.:N..,_Hm:;N<:r.;1g}1VG.5/2007 'ON THE FILE;
01?' THE Xv ADDL. JU.!I)(3yE;_, e.j;QU1*azT- QR SMALL CAUSES,
MAYCIHALL. UNIT, BANG~ALfT)i?:E; {£586};-1:9) BANGALORE,
ALLOWING THE RENT V-P1:{:*wrI"r--rcs1§J r'«':_1,§':3:)" U/.9. 27(:>.)m OF
KARNATAKA_.Rs'=%1N'T Acilzfr r«f0_}j.<s' EXr'i'<?f?I§}N;:'

'this   and msewaci for otdcrs
on  day, £116 _p~1Q7noun_céti the following»

A  y%ik{%T9;RA%g E1;

. _V 'i'h<5i1g_h this Aﬁxéﬁitr was posted for admission, with

 2  _  of  counsel on both sides, it was heard

 '.§"'}3.1.~.: ﬁcvision petition is filed by the tenant challcngng

 me ordér dated 21.?.2uu3 passed in m<<.;.mo.1o1ob;2uu7

A'  inc ﬁie of the xv Addmsmau Causes Judge (Mayo Haﬂ

VA  V. _  Bangalore. The respondents herein are the Landlords.

3. Fit)? the sake of convenience the patties snail be refermd 'tear in terms of their status before the trial court 2», . faétﬁ . . Efiiééii .. 5 ¢--x 43». 'fhe L2-mdierds V§?'h€> are the petitioners before the {rial court fiieti a psﬁtiofu uxiéisr Section 2?'(2)(r) of the Kargamka Rent Act, 1999 ("Kent Act, 1999") sﬁekjxlg €ViCtiC'1i €"h€ tenant in resgaect of the SCh€(i1}l(i't premises c9;ﬁpfisi£i'g-- . shxiap situated in the ground ﬂoor Qfa: ShOj)f3iilé::§i'(Iii2ﬁ:1i§i€X " "

Avenue Road, Bangalam. Accordﬁxg 1:53 tﬁe art: the absolute €)'£'€'}:1€1"'.':'> of .ih:=:__ bearing No. 145 caiied i€angana{}:x:§ Ex4.gLnsi;r}12 é2:£'2:X1vef:gue Road, Bangaiore and p6titiO1'i'€§.Ix"""~NO.~'_El; aﬁsmiaﬁon of gﬁrsons and petitionez' 13103.2 of the ﬁrst pcﬁtiszzmx. :i'53i~3=:;_)OTE_1Tiii'C_Iﬁ;" in-ma 7tena11t in respect Of the portiesasii oi" thr: numbered as 13 on a maniiﬁy i*e:_1i «:;:"VVi~ffs;4'2.;;¢'{}(3;'=»~ apart fmm 9:211:31' chaxges. The ie11:at_5ig1<§32*ris as i:';:¢:1g};isi1 o::aiemia1* month. A notice dated ﬂﬁas sent by the petitje-Hers to the respondent and 21.6.2007 she admitted her reiationship t1'3..__¢::' péﬁﬁoncrs as a tenant. Sincc the 3" peﬁéener T : namely "V.R-Sathyanamyana is a businessman having " ﬁuﬁiéiient business in gtzrid and siivcr articles and the pctitiaun VA .. éshedula pmmisms is suitaiéie for conamcncing his business in the said premises and he has slzﬂicient capital for the comm:-znctament of his intended business, eviction was aougbt unéer Eﬁection :_»'£?{i»3){r} of the Said ﬂat. /%-

&V ﬁRR?.NG.Eﬁ§.£GG8 .»§ _ Q _

5. Atzcoxﬂing ti} thﬁ peiiitioners, they do not have ﬁliihﬁi" accommodatfton in their p<;ssses$i011 to V.i~{.Satyanarayana, the third petitioner, for ~ busmetsss.

§5ri.P.A.Mahc:sh -Kumar, was the f£nargt1't.. premises {3}}, his death on S£4'v4V'r.B'(J'i£.._)f7 $1": bf? virtue of the: provisions of _;<e§§.t.,§_$.g;:v,': 1'L§§99, the I'€Sp0}}€iC':I3it has become Hiaremises which has been a;;;m,:tt;:c;:yV_t;;%% hVVe¥°: V"1fh&§LtvvViE§£éjvv:§$sp011dent is a chronic deihuitéf 'ii;;L,V:.ﬂ3e "£333-E"nié:1'£ 'of but the rents up to 1.7.2136?' --Ir._1 2§'?e "paid. to the peizifiozlers though :i;£:_1e[' "aﬁshumd of possession for one y€:a;*:f1'03:x:1 téitzgiate {jg c1;::.ati:_L:;f saa..Ma:1esh kumar as his iegal Ivpraégnfativé, 3"-Vdgggsmd nczirice was sent to §1cr an receiving :1 rttpiy, a rejoinder was sent {$12. her to vacate the premise-3 but $iI}.£l'€ V _ she Viiiei ;;?i.:r:>-.t'v§¥':; so, ihe petitien for eviction was ﬁisd under _.;"5§c:(:fi§>x1 ié_§'?£2){r) of the Rent Act, 1999. Qifter receipt of Itzotice {mm the trial ceurt, the " i*5épo1:€£eI1t appeared and ﬂied her statement of ebjections : contending interaﬁia, that the petition was not mainta:i1:zable- in as much as it was pmmatmm in View of Section ::> of the Rent Act, 199Q and the same was iiabie to be dismissed in A That the hus¥:>and._ ....<.:>f' t};1_<':W'"z'é§p§$ﬁ£i€11t,» .§'\§€:>. 393} . 2{§{,?1E§ gm kimine, While traversing various averments made in the evicﬁml petition, respondent contended that after the death sf her husband, she had inherited tmgancy of her hﬁsgaga and was entitled to be in possession of :;;;fe*"- a;ch¢j&+.-;);§k%.% premises in View of the pmvisions of Secti0:9....3:"ofVtE1;£: Kexit Act, 1999. She also submitted that bthcjj. ﬁéiﬁifiiiili premises was not required by:petiﬁ'di1£;I: 'N0.3 éiéao ijt1.é1*:=:V ¥' were Omar premises in the 'c=9_1j:i'pl€~:x iaihere the petitioner could make of t§ir:- évéizt of t:h<:"Aré§;uirem.en1:

being genuinﬁ. She else _$.'he'_'_.was a Chronic defaulter in t§1e'p3§3m1ént g:".i'.reui5~v%'a;;.a_" .~:;§a'tcd that she had paid rents Vi%»T1v4.4'1Z,>.l.'2£}i}'7 which was up ta date. She also c£enié?r'.i.__'si1¢ '<§.1;1':i;"L':'_i'_s.~:-.d to inherit tenancy oﬂiy fox' one }'carf¥aftér the of V 1161" husband, but on the: other hand Si;;c: ' that she was entitled to cnntinue for five sought dismissal ofthe petition.

?. ' 11:; 'gqpport of iairxeir case the petitioners examined third 'V. *~3:A$gc:t1'i';§.;:11€r as PWJ1 and got marked .¥:}x.P: to P4, whiie the fL§si3n§fsndent examined herscif as k~fW,1 and got marked l:1x.R1 V wi.Qo R5.

8. On the basis of the above material the triai court framed the Ibﬂowixag points; ﬂ //3-r ir£§i§~<'i.'z~' . £40 . Ziﬁﬁié . 2{§{..'=E§ 'I, Whether the petition is premature?

.2. Whether 1326 petitioners preve that {he-§V._ 5' the peiiiion scheduie premises fer the "2._1Vse A_rm<:"Z mcupcziianqf the 3"' petitian_ezf?b_ "

3. What order?"

After considering the evidciiw on fecérci i*i:"é§1:_sw¢mci No.1 by stating that the and point No.2 in the a:ﬁx1nativ;=: a«:;d _ﬁ§e«.p¢ﬁﬁ§;§ V.:A-zvmd directed the zespondeinfg to §¢';>ssessio11 of the schedule tgiz-ghe six months {mm the date by the said judgment the t;é3:1ai1'tT"2.§§'.§; xfé§i$ion peﬁtion.

9. i i).a*Jg V:S 1i.A.Madhusudhana Rag, learimd c§)f;;1ii3el for Vpetritioncr herein and S1i.YGga11a3:'asiml3,a, « Sitéiziar UO1i]}.3€i3. for M)' s. Murthy Associates, cc-unsci . =§::;~ 1~€é$}_{':';}£f1c£:é,iz'ENos.3 '(:3 4. isﬁubmsitted on behaif ef the pcﬁticzszxer harem i.€., V " iii: téiiant that in the instant case the €i'\?i€:-ti€)I1 petition ought have been dismissed by the trza" I Cmiri: as not maintainabie in View of the fact that tenant had inheritssd the tenancy under Section 5 {If the Rem Act and that she was eaﬁﬂed to be in possession of the Sehﬁdlilfi premises for as pezrioé 0f five years. Even awarding to $345:

é.

:"Z.i>.LECi£§ .l§f{}OE§ "3 ""' f respondent] landlords, the tenant s-§;;:'a:;§ entitied to be in possession for a perisjrd re" U83 year from the date 0I°V;iez~1f.b_0i' as . '-

the oxigjineé. 3;;-:11a11t namely the husband of the % hence the petition was not maintainabieV--«.siiiee"~.:it Nwxaé premature. He further submits f_tbat_. fa; irxherited tenancy under ES'*the A¢1:.e¢a::n¢;t be K' equated to a tenaxii and heneebiizxgxérieione couid not have been inVokes:i:4"'agaiIie'e':_ He further submits that have not made out a case' ftbe Act in as much as the reegiendeeiféh Rave their petition that they the mid further the absence of a1tema'e'vee4_aceeif;;3§6fia?ie13. bot being proved the trial court "net game. eﬂeweei the petiﬁon. While eiaborating his "eeuilsel for the petitioner has submitted that it i3?'-i1e§vi1ei*ebV_sf£é;;teEi in the petitiozx that the schecinie premieee is Viequbfed, for business ané further by 120': stating that the pzjemiees' in which the {hire petitioner is carrying on " Vbbtxstietess is inaﬁequate, the g:re1md'1mder Section 2?(2){r} VA V. ,,_..El&S not been made but. He has a£so relied upon certain decisions which shaii be advertryé te iater en. 1 1. Per eonua, it is submitted on behalf of the Ieepondent heiein that is the iandierds that a person who inherits /5., i-i}{§{}:'.£'=J{>.;£i(ﬁ§.;3GC}éE§ .. 3 ..

tenancy under Sectien 5 of the Rent Act, 1999 is aiso a tenant within the meaning of the Act. In the ﬁxet ;,;;s1;e,;;.;¢e a person has to compi}? with the ecrnditiozns . Section 5 in order to inherit tenancy: but " = case the petitioner herein has neg conditions and therefeze, she :im:"a_=.: ;

teaaney under Seetien 5 of that she is a tenant Within the was not aeeeseary for the £535 years before invoking Sectﬁoii of Seeﬁon 27 of the said Act "§ppe&é;b1é' ~n,?,~;_--e{ who has inherited tenanef; undef tbezefore, the contention that the peﬁﬁoeeervv *.IVs;z'és:_s. to be in possession of the for ef five years is not correct. He further «--._'§}:1e reeptmeentf landionis were entitied to ﬁie 1"j;1'e'___ eviction of the petitioner by invoking See"tio:1..";2'i'{f§')"{r) of the Act and that they had made 0111: a case h 2:13;cier.tE3e said provision and therefore, the tziai court nlghﬂy _ " '.gi1ie'sa.?eei the peﬁtion which does not eaii for any ixxterfemnee this revising. 'Fine citation relied upon by the ieamed Senior counsel during the course of his arguments shaii else be acivermd to. "

ﬁRRE.NQ.£G4.£GG8 .. ..

12. After hearing learned (;'.011I1$€i (311 both swag, the following points arise for my congidezatien: V ' "'1. Whether the petiiimzer herein had (X}?np?f€?2f'*«. ~'-' "

with the conditions prescribed under Seciiqn 59f"

the Act so as to inherit tenancy Qf the"scIfa;=dé;ie'--A Premises?

2. Whether ca person whe infi'.3rii£;_Tie§nafic3;. V Seciion 5 of the Aci is--<__.a "téngaiet" u:£iE2fra.__t}'ze mearzing <;gf.Se{:Iien 3&1} cgf_:i~:.e Act? ' -- '

3. {f the answer. to the~~:1bavé~-,point 'i$--..in~ £he qjfinrzaffve, wheffzér Such, Va f:32';¢mi«i$ liable to be evicted within ﬁvé 'yeiiréi iia}1é'rit_czrtce_ Qf tenancy under thee provisianxcgf -.S§ectEart'"2?' at under other £3r0visio11SAi?}v°_¥he;A§:i?' V. ' V I « 4, §:{hei:}i--g_ar 'Vﬁze.: }5§:3j50ricie§3zi$/Icmdiords had 'j£hei}*::5 unci£§f"~S::t:tfan 27(2){r) of the Act? --. --

.5." WW: or9_§é,é.:%?'~*. .

13, k'mm we ma:e:ji,a1 011 record, it is not in dispute that .A §:nc_vor:;g:§a,a1.'ie:;ant P.A.Maht:shkuma1' had died on 24.4.2007 the petitioner herein was wnﬁnmng in the schedule premises' It is also not in dispute thgi; 9113 year aﬁcr the death czfti1c oziginal tenant the ' 3._;§e"ii:*,i£>1: under Section 27(2}(r) had been ﬁied. in fact the u ﬁoﬁce awaiting aviation was get issued on 21.6.2067, within {W0 mcnths aftcr the death of the original tenant. Under the circumstaznces, the first poixit to be considered is 33 to £ ff/'-° naR§.Ne.£ﬁé.£@Q8 '% r"v, MON' 3' 'J ......

Whether the pctitionex' herein had inhsritcd tenancy under the provisions cf Section 5 of the Act.

14. Before answering the said question it relevance to extract ésection 5 of the Rent Act i_;11 V£:314«i[e:: V' to find out the terms and c<>11{iition;.~§ iA1»ié:3f:.ig33§:.sL:ci.;t.*f1§:i'<:ti.*1v as":

to find out whether the msgmndeﬁtf 2 with the said C()I1diti{)§1S to be Eﬂﬁﬂﬁd td "{1} in the véverzt (if death .of~a tenant, the right of tenancy sliczif .de:2oE:2£ férfa-.A afﬁve yearsvﬁom the date QfhI'€ €i€é1fh..~'in. }?.§S suocessms in the faflowging .r:»:jde?';* nam£:!_z,%:_ ' ' .ta}v:'5z79u'~t=,e ~ _ .

" (25) Soi2:'a3r d«:;u§:_hic_r' or where there are both S{}f£u{1.fi.ffi dtmgiaiér them;

2 Pare~.zz1S;_ "

A {£:i}..Da:ughi9r»in»Iaw, being the widow cf his . « prédeceasér1'.$_0n;.

_ _V ' _ ~.£'fez;ideci that the suceessar has ordimzmify V , V' hécn ~ fiaihgg or carrying on Zmsiness in the " pfe::lr::7.s_es;; with the drweased tenant as «:1 member of his 'ﬁnimiiy up to the date of his death and' was degareiuiam on the deceased ienamf:

Pravided further that :1 right 29 tenancy "gshalf nut cievolve upon suocessar in case and: °sumessor er his spouse or a:n.y- of his depemiiant sen car daughter is awrzing 0r aecupying a premises in the lam? area in relation to file premises tel.

(23) {f a person, {wing $u00e:ssor mentioned in subﬁedion (2), was ardinarﬂy Iiving in arr oarrzying on imsirzess in the premises with the dens-deed fxénanf but 1011: Hunt dagamwadant than him are the date of his death er he or his spouse or ,4 ,« ﬁﬁﬁ?.NG.ZQé.2SQB any of his ciependant son er daughter is owru'ng_.-.__ 92* éccupying Cl premzses in the face} area. in} ' .

reiatierz to the premises fez to which this A' appfies such successor shall aquire a rigs?i€--«£c»,__L' 5 _._ mmfinue in possession as a tenant for a. .--iiim'ted C h period of one year ﬁvm the date of Hdemffa ' ' tenant; can, on the expiry cf t}1(;£.»pe;iod; arVb':*::h.1?é' death, whicﬁtever is eariier, the ri§,§hr_ eff 'su'c1F'fe» successor to continue in f}%f:é<?8é3'?'{)I'é"~.0;f_. "£3213 ~ :

premises shall become extinguished._"

15. Mom a reading of the Sa§ﬂ.']§I'0ViSiC)"I3' ~i1:VAiS':€:VivL'§C3i11Z that in the event of death GiA.: f£.na1ft, » ;fig:£A:'1*.*...A<::1" tenancy Wouid devolve on certain cattgorieé qt" 11:: a paiﬂcular order for a fmm the date of death. .51""E1eV ordﬁr €ii§?:5s;uci>cssi01i mentioned. However, in orx:iei-,t0' iI1i1z31'it.Vf1'he ""1:cs~.nan<:y certain conditions have to be C0ﬂ'p1ié(:i_ By grlccessor, they are, that 1} the succt§jssoi* had did.i1;axi&;* been living or ca:rryi11g on business 'L11; the deceased} tenant as a member of his Ti:-miiy'«ﬁ'p%.?¢v_V.eiéte of his death; :3; hefshe was dependant cm ﬁizxe tenant; 3} in {sass tha successor er his . . spm;se drsany of his dependant son or daughter is owning or the premises in the 10061} area in relation to the * ~p-1%:n}ises let, than the right to tcuazacy wcimid not devolve can the successor. Tile aberve conciiﬁans are menﬁen-sci in the two provisos to Ssctien 5(1). While acivertixlg t0 the above Cﬂndiﬁﬂfiﬁ. Section. :"3{:.a} staies that if condition No.2 or 3 3» :i§'"~'.§'{i".!"»5i's. £64 . LZ{}{3?*3 above are not satisfied, in that €'£?t"'3I1?. rim successqt--slzaii acquire: the right to continue in possession as a teI§.}é§:1t 'Li%}fv»a limited pﬁri-ad of only one year from the date "

tenant and on expiry of that p&1*i.:-dé of #13333: x Whichever is eariier, the right of slich £6 in possession of the premises lwgzsuid A'i;3{§C(1t11).€5'._f:Xﬁ.Hvg13if§l1€d. r L' }+'a::rr the 3:-zzmovai of doubt, by w s_t}?"c:-f :;X__p1a1ia'::i.r_}1}, itvihas been provideé that in the évﬁsii _<;:f._ tin: $3-i' successor to continue in pos$e3f~:~ia:1.. ﬂof= _ becomes ext;inguished_V j_ :':3_£2":}' x "(K the Act, $u<:11 extingliiﬁhxzzafijt "ngit affé£:t* 'Vibe right of any other su<:ces:sjor"<:;f to cantinue in possession of the preaziseg but if t{i1¢:i'e«.,%S no other successor 0f the same cat£:';§g:+1j;;' than 'Aﬁ1€'.___1fl'jg§}t to continue: in passession of the no pass on to any other successor specified "i.:;1 4a:z1§z V{:§ti'Viér..<ie3§t£§go1'}%" or ca:-1tego1*ies. it is aiso sfatcd that the Itigiit of Aesrisigr successor to continue in p=0$S€S$i{)D of tha xprrgmistfé 32$ ]_T}¢°31"S-{)I{18l to such a successor and sh-aii not on ﬂié' of the successor devoive on any of £1i$ iltizirs. VM .. in mg 0836 03? Rodi Nagappa (deceased by L.£€s} Vs. Smtiiampamma (decaaseﬁ by Lies} 2008 {6} Ema 420 the distinctrien between 21 tenant under the 1961 Act and a /9:...

éﬁﬁE.NO.£$4.£GG5 _ ..

tenant under the 1999 Act has been made by stating that under 1%: Act while mg legal heirs of the c£ecease;14T:'«:}:;:«;nt themselves became tenants and were eI11:it_i::;§' 4' V5i§:1A<<:'n protection under 19925 act, the iegai heirs or. 301' the tenant who Ware, living with me; tena Iii_;. a; :5:

dtitatlfa do not become tenantshy tifltzmseives, 11:--i¢;i4:f thekéizt Act, 1999, the protection to éuéilx p<:1's§C~:1_SV"i:*§-I of Section 5 and it was (3313:.

1?. it is howcvcr thg..r§i}nt3§1fiﬁ):1"~'{)fiE1€°iea1*ned Senior {Iounsei iior tiée i;au§:.;q§ic1s €;._:t':'Tat '+.£.%ii':.:---V;;»f the tenant in the instanjvf , wwﬁfii the condiﬁons prescribed under ﬁwzctioxi 5 as she was not zranjvmg on any busixicﬁsss the daeeascdf tenant up to the

3 " .,€:{a?§""0f,.§is1.%deatii'§ "i;i--::3::cé. she was not entitled to iI}.h€:I'it the L' t::*i::is:"i..'1£3;\i?v-- _«'VTh§:£'efore, while at the first instance coniienciing was not applicable in View cf 11{m~c0mpiia13cc3 (faonditioxxs mentioned therein, aiternativeiy, he 'f_*~$:1ibmitt¢:d that since rents Were: accepted by the ia1}Cﬂ0ITd'S her there was cmation of a 11:::w tenancy and themfom, u Wfleection 3 was again not applicable to the facts of the case. The answer to the said cnntenﬁon is however, foumi in a decision of this court in the case: of B.Chiicka.nna Vs. Nﬂﬂarasinga Ran (dsceased) by L.Rs. reported in 2006{4) /'"

2~§é~<i~<;::w'.Ex£<*;-.;2:L%»:3':.;(_"i£\'3{;ér£.s' W «HIV am Karnataka (R) 375. while dealing with the circumstances in whicil the tenancy are the context of non-resicicntiai premises, this ;'iias: f;f_1i=a1; the words "has ordinariiy been living or oz1r:r;s,:i1jt§,¥VVo?2.V:i:z4sfrz7e"e:su in the premises with the deceasetﬂ £er_;a%t: :23 ii' mehziref tgf {ifs ' famiiy up to the date of his dei:t--£i'15'*- E1aVc;. t0 ibéé izxterpxwcted and not fhczsé Words am literally; i1}.t::;'1)r¢f:'t'§g£'5-. Vﬁviiziiao is not carrying on b*s_1si:ar1<:ss" tfx.'c%: the husband would not b}: at aii and such a gramrnatictai ,l::ac¥ to absurdity and a manifest .012" the apparent purpose of enaciazfieniidi in injusticza hagrdship and i11€§:'~53i1ve:n.i£:11c;t:A. was nevér intended by iegisiatllre. « gstatﬁd that the mere fact that the Wife was Living . as a member of his famiiy" up to the date of de;_fati1 é?éu1d be suﬁiciﬁnt compliance with condition No.1 n so a§£ac$ enable her to ilzherit tenancy rights even in respect 03:' businttsa premises for a period ofﬁva years provided Hétha Qthcr two cronditirmas I'€2f{'3}Z"i'€€{ to above are aise satzisfieci. Hence, the contenficn of the leamed Senior Counsei that use ef ﬁlﬁ W'Oi'dS "living er carrying one busimrss" haw: ta be read in the respective context ef residenﬁaj and n(>1:1~resideni:§ai /fa...

1 P» ("g :'-s _i"i}€i}€E:' . E40 . ".3 . :; <_.s=_.sc:

1

F U?

E pmmises and caxmet be made applicable both in 1=esV§';$f;«:t of resridcntiai as W211 as I3.0n~re3:dentia£ pmmifsgs' . is. 'j11{;t_ acceptable. 'flze 113:1: of the Word "ox" between '£:i:::=_,_fw::;'::i§é; ';l:af{§§$ oxdisaariigr baen iiving" on the 0:15;' 7£*ia:1:i,& a11¢:i.: < "}éa.f;yi11g«' (Sr; business?' 011 the ather hand, 1n£:a1i-5 .that"::iti1r::::«. conditions wouid have to £36 sragiisﬁed '£i:1<:~; Vs:1cV5£?ééSc>f and "

not both. the condiﬁonfag be ifV---:=eu$j§:¥\téi1t3;;ai c}f':1«;3n+.z$si€ienti.al prexmses. Tha said enhalace the object and pur§§rJ=:s¢__ of 5)}: splitting the above words. 91" non-residen'tiai p113mis¢s_,Vvé1s..t§aV got serve. the object and o_f"i".i1f5 it aiéo I'6i.f:V8l"lt to note that $;€.{v;Ce the: wife df _i'1":s=,v té:n.ai;t {»;2£§i;iti0ncr bereixtz} Was; living wiI:h the éeggggﬁéeszi 'i:ﬁna§:;tV_V$ii§i éiependent on her husband at the trims 'V "mid that she has no other premises in the £003} 3:63 330 the premises 14:31:, she Wcsuid be entitled to iiliiarit up to 3 maximum perierd of ﬁve yeam.

"1'£mre:fo2:<"§, the ixxhetitance of tenancy only for a period of one " ,3ﬂ£.--ar..«A*'ass 1361' Section 5(2) of the Act does not arise in the .. iiistam: case. Fur tha afemsaid reasons, the contention of the icamcd Senior Counsei is rejected. Hence, point No.1 :13 I! answered against the resp0ndent}ia;ndio1'd$- Secﬁcm $ of mm Act is a "trznant" within the meaning of Section .':5(n} of the Act.

20. Learned counsel for the talent has" "

contended that a person who i11her1'.t3vtf::1a11'Cy 1Vi'1f1d.;:x' V§3:§:c1;i0Lr; V E3 of the Act is not a tenant iﬁéaﬁiﬂg .§i*f $11101': him <:ieﬁ1"1itio;1 of 1:enan:i i's-.__an inclusive "{i€17§;§1ifiQ1)~~:Wi{h --. L' regard to variaus catctgorics of t1é§1a:1is, in éis«.1ﬁuc.h 33.5; a sub- tenant who has no of c£;§;1.f1*atj'iv.A the landlord is also ilmiudeci within Ath.e _ Said ané a person cenﬁnuiﬁg--Ai1§7jp0éé%:$si€33;"'eveIi""Eifiér tennination of tenancy with iézpdleréi within the said deﬁnition, 1 am of the, View ~_tti:.;£ 'a,~~'LVpc1*s«011 who as a successor has

- V. «_ tsnafiéy .:2;{(;s1;l£i also have to be mcluded within the ~ dkﬁéiniijpn. V0375;-:;1__a13t. Under tba general law, a 3ub--tena:1t or a11fg'--. in possessiou after ma tfzrmination of 'h1£S.4"§if',I1i£3:§{1C.W'€9/'!.Vi381}I;t{)'i ha C(}I3.Si(if:I'f3d ta be 3 tenani: 11315533 the agraéméni: lmtween 13€iI'1'i€23 pmvidcs as such. Hawever, 131$ ' HE_€6ut"Act, 1999 cansiders such categmy of §'1€I"$(}I}.$ 8130 ta be * -~.$,é11an'i:3, which is a siatutery nitcaglxition of such persons to be mcludmi wiihm the definition of 'tanarxt: 3:30}: the puime of the act. '£'}:1erefi::re., a 3:1b--te)3a11'f: car a pﬂrson centizluillg in possession after the trﬁnzaination of hi3 ie§1a:,1cy are in fact /2,, "; <3":

.. i 3: _ stamtorjg' ienants. ﬂy 1316 same €;I£1I}1SiC¥.€I8.ii0I1 a sugccssoz' who has izliaerited t.eI3.az1cy has alscc to be vi:2,w:=,;fi««_4_ésx1=§ a statutory tﬁnant w1't¥:1in the dﬁfiliitiﬂl} of f S€Cf:iOI1 L-$(11} cf the Act since them said :€i¥:'ﬁ3§iti<ji1. is; ;=f§€3€ 'V exhaustive 011 tbs: varicus categorigés Q17tc711a2r1tg_and":53:1jy=:¥;'a*:a::-

categaries have been e111:m€i*atcd.. "§"hv{:ie:fo2'€[.,"é1j;<:1;;:<:eSs0f of L. 3, {$113.1}: who has inherited fﬁfxaéicy un§:{r",'r«_ufI1é:5 pivvisions cf Serctien S is an tenant ;}'§.1'i'i'.l1ZiI3:VA of Section 3(3) of the Act.

21. ,.;;;-~T:~21_i4.s=,co£i':.;::;:: 'i?,_v»:rouiti"'v{2~::v"izseful to the defizlition of tﬁnanf unticr Satin":-tiéixv '2§__1'}" ()1; thﬁt Delhi Rent Contmri Act, 1958 as é::;1c*11s:i{:{i., ss:A?r11<,?"sb§.1"ea£1s as foilows;

"?'é:2--:z3??_.§_;rzeczrzs any person by whom or on 5wh<:éLés=<$: aaxzuni or beftaéf the rent of any premises _V ._i$ag}'r;_ 'but far a speaiai ocmzram, weuid be, pay V ' iim3z;,-;$es:-

(72) szib-ienmii;

{if} " any parser: ccntinuirzg in possessierz czﬁer " 4' the terminaiien. of his tenancy; anti'.

" (ii?) in the even: qf me death cf the person continuing in possession after the terminatican of his tenancy, subject: 6:) the order of suwessian and condzﬁons specraﬁed respeafive, in Exgpfanazion I and Explanation H 1'-:3 this clause, such of the afermaid pers<ms:-

{£1} spause, {3}} atom or daughter or where them an: ézvofh awn and ciaughiezg boIi1.o_fz§tem A In-

(C) '2 « '=: -~\: . -'>r"=.xi n&k£.n$.;v%.

39 (C) parents, (02) daughter-in-iaw, being fire widow of Pas pm» deoecsseci son, as has? been ordinariiy Ewing in the premises with such person as :2 merzzber or 722971252743 %'}f his famiiy up to {he daie of his c2'ea:?g but induda-

does go: _ (EA) any person. awinsi whom an order or _e__"z"é*-.<;:.r€r e';=" ' V- evidion has been made, except §,;_z_h"e:?ife ' Such decree or order for evic:£i(_)_r:....z'$ Iiaiéle '*.re'-. opened under me proviso to Seciic:1 3 of ihé 4:;ezi:i~' Ren,IC0n£ro1gQ=1mendm.enI}}§ct, '9?6, ' {B} any person to whom a. E:'<:i>_r1c;é:,_ £13 cieﬁhed Section 52 of the 1nd3ar'2.._£~:1asem,en.fs Ag,' 353.33 (:2; of188:2}hczs been ' Expianation I,-:" .'§'he g>.r't;ie'r_ qf "ssucoessiorz "in the event of the daagiith cf tire p3':"sé':?_ continuing in pcssession after 1519 ter.3*n£naziai:..;:§;".h:l$ Isrncmxzy shall be qsfallqwsq-_ ' " ..

fa} ﬁrS{l_y,*i:hf;s su"raJfzgfi1g'&__b"o22se;; V ('b}----3-er:cndly,"':i3.is smfror daughtén or both, if there is no sumugng spams, gr if the surviving spouse die? 7:0!' ordifuiiﬁfiy »?iz5e_11é:fth. "the deceased pemorz as a 'membe3'.¢;f' She daze cf his decziiz;

tfi1':f¢:iE?_a;:, his 'patfzzrefzzztsg If there is no surz:iw"rzg V spoiise, 3.0:'; of". ddugizter of the deceased person, 'aszr if si4'ci'; SI.£7"1:~'ii1i?lg spouse, son er daughter or A. of did' not 0rdz'nar1'?y live in the _v prernises as a member of the 'family cgf the "'{i'e¢éa_$é;:i persan up to the date 0}' his death; and his dau.ghIer-in-faw, being the widow qf ;;:'.s~ ._;_:rre~deceased son, if there is me surviving ﬁspctxise, sen, ciaughier or parents of {he deoeaseci gzerson, €33' if such surviving spouse, son, daughter' "'c:rr parents or any of them, did not ordinarily live in the premises as a member af 1323 faznily of the deceased perscm upte the daze of huh death Expfanation II:- If the person, wha acrxguirezﬁ, by szzooessiom the right to otmtinue in poasessian after the tenninazion of the tenancy, was not ﬁnally dependent an the deozased parser: on the date cf ins deatiz, such suceesser shali cmquire such rigfzrfarr a limited peried cf mm year; and, an X...

eeay.Na.3Gé.2a@8 _. P":

J... 'J the expiry of that perioaﬂ or on his death, whidzever is eariier, the right of such sueaeesor to continue in possessien. aﬁer the teI*rm}ta.Iion cgf the zenancy shall be<:x3sm.e exiirzguished. * Expianaiion III:- For the remevczi of doub{§,__ V hereby declared fhaziw . =_ f ' {a} where, by reascm of Ex;Jiana1ioir:.__ H; right of any successor to _zb;-7:3iizueV'*V.VinA possession after z'i1e'"ie'r1nin£II'ien af_ tenancy becomes =.A_e.tting;1.kishe:3,. sué:'*h__ ;~ extinguishment Shae'? 39¢)! eﬁed the zighei §\)f V' any other sucoesseor ofeTf:e" 3ame"cg;£egory; 10 oonifnue in:..__ 'pessessipn c'zf(eii temzinatien qf the°£em:mc:_1;; Em; if there is no 01129:" .s;1<:X>e$$er.{)f.IFee same' vardegory, the righz" '£9 "continue V£fz--;:;cx$ses$:'en afiesr the temaincztieri tgf fF3eV:';'.t{ma:aey shall not, can such exii:1guiS£;me_n£,i IE'; any rather sugncessor' 'épecziffecé any Jti-wer category of eagt»egofies,{ the gﬁraée be;

132} the ':i1};3f11";wj" _e:»er3; -szefceessoz: referred to in 5 i:EX;;1I:iz7i£3Zioé;1--e':'."IA 'ta ...e:x)r';tif'zzze in possession ._2'i1e _,ieni2irw.iion bf the tenancy shall pé?5é0ri£afV"ie i::i;tri.'"t§nd shall net, on the dé*::.f£; bf S"a.zC}1~--.$:2c:c9ssGr, devaftie On any af Vf'iiS e '~.A44.té;-memg of file said deihiﬁon of tenant uxlcier the H =;§eihihAe{_"L--ma;vk.es it appamnt that it is a combmaﬁon of the éeiiniﬁgnhdf meant under Section 3(3) of the Kaxnataka Rent "ﬁ.>~.t, 1999 read with Section 5 of the said Act. The '.ﬁ;é;ii1'eiri"::a§aiiit;v of tenancy which is under Section 5 of the "'TKamataka Rent Aet is in fact incorporated within the definition Sectiozl 2(1) of the Delhi Rent act which chfincs tenant and ;~3ub~ciause {iii} of Secﬁon 22(1) ef the Act, in fact carves out of 3 category of tenant who is a successor of the /3..

ﬁRir{P.N0.ZO4 .;;{3{38 _ 251 _ original tenant who is continuing in possession the txmninatien of tenancy. Under the Kanaataka a person continuing in possession after the his tenancy is a tenant under See_tjon__3(n)_-- .tVfxe eye11_t'' "

of the death. of such a tenant 7.,ais;':',e ..:'3eeﬁ_on:"'5- applicable, subject to theV'jter_;ns complied with. 'i'herefore, both deﬁne a tenant are in pari _ to categories of tenants in as much aeAA.i:-.oet.:h..t:ie e1et*ﬁ1itie?i1s"a1e inclusive in nature. of "V.f,E1c----VVet1efinition of tenant undervtti1e'£Jeiji1i e$aiﬁ"'s:§.te1y be concluded that a persogfgzfto hos' under Section 5 of the Ka1natakoL*§s§eut A93: is; a tenant with in' the meaning of 3{11) ofytahe.

2:3,' eounsei for the tenazlt has however, xeiied upon a iiEweeie§q:;!£ of this court in the ease of Taradcti & mane;-' Bai & ansother reported" in 2903 (1) Vt '$.14 ta) eonitend that the legal representative of '' --..gie¢eei3ed tenant cannot be a 'tenant' within the meaning of VA V. 3(a) of the Act and hence the tenant in the izmtant case who has inherited the teoatney is not a tenant within the meaning of Section 3(9) of the Act and thexefore Section ﬁt':

§"§i*i}"3.ir° . NC}. ;:.'{§i§ . 2{§{%8 23? cannot be agpiieégzi 2 such a person. The facts in the said case wen: "Eat the 1:":i11€ii{}I'€iS had ﬁled :1 ]',)6tiTi;OQV13_i 13}1(iCI' "'%';io1:1 21(1)(h) $5 (i) of the Karnataka Rent Act)" which has bmn repealed by the 1£~)99 against the tenant in 1"esp£-ggct of The tenant died an 30.12.1937 dﬁzjxig theTVpé':1::.«.:vi'§31"1cyH';c:.%'J':'~3'iVii:

ftviction proceeding before <:o1i'r!_a"11:£V-I tfifzg trial court, aiiowed the petition i£1'~.t.:pi:o._«" "1;1ii::L- §::;,3;;é3- ._1fepre:é§éi1téitives crf the dermaseci] tenant took up' .3;1.V»»r§:vision befom the District d11_c£g<::. V who§; hléivision yetition and disn1isseci"V1:li§:---- V"vI:;Sc3i11g aggriteved by the sand' ordéi:_ the revision befc-re this C€}111't, {:iuring« 'i¥;geV+m1§;:ieif3{3y'.-- the 19631 53:21: was mpealed " r::p1ace;':;.. tlfis Rent Act 1999. This Court after Secticm 5 0f the 1999 Act, aite' 1' takm" g note of ::ige=.f f:*:;§jt., fi1:éiVtv.*:ihe magma} tenant: had died on 13.11198? A<3:§nsi§i'c51":§§:i~" éas to whether the iegal mprésmzxtaisives $1' the said AA tenzint Qrouid claim to be tenants in thitir own right under the " Act or Whether they couki be treated mainly as successors of the originai tenant. After comparing the éeﬁnitien 0f a tenant under 1951 Act with that of Kent Act of 3.99'; heid that since the original tenant had died more than five years ago. the maximum psxiod to which a suoccssor of /j«,,.,.

IriR':{§:'. Pic: . Ziifi . ;3,'{3{}8 *2}-

the original tenant coulei succeed to the right of tenancy,__ had Lapsed, Section 5 was applicable axzud after refe1&:Ltig_:"'te Section '7{)(2)(£3} of the Rent Act 1999, held that-A4'ii3t1es}§eeti§}e--sA * operaﬁen of Section age) and. 5 0f,the._ 419ss"'2§;¢£'.':me be '"

infened and the party aﬂected said eonciusion by stating t};1a_t "i;t;:e 1999 Act tween = L' prospective eﬂect. it was aiso ~ When; «flee matter was pending in revision be deemed to be a wndmg '(Section 5 of the 1999 Act was: eﬁect by virtue of the pro*;isia1:t. 7¥3{2}£b}'§and the revision petition was aliiwved sizieeffixfe lapsed and it was beid that the tenants te .v:arf_a"te:£he premises and Weze given three months 'tlxgne and deliver vacant possession of the .Aptez};1eevs;..A'ft1e,:fatio of the said judgment is to the effect that 1"pefepns' ciaim to be tenants in their own right under '1§}€.>1 Act could not do so after the coming inter:

_mi'«:s17r:__e ef""tt:te 1999 ﬁat, as the 1963} Act was repealed' The t' qtzeeﬁon as to whether the person who inherited tenancy as successor to: the origghal tenant eouizi tee a tenant Withi11 the meaning of Section 3(1).) of the 1998} Act, did not arise in the said decision. This court herwever, took into eonsicieration the fact that even if the death of the c>rigina.£ '/3, i"i£{&~i§:*'.£%§é::. 2353 . 2'?{.?'L}é€ tenant had occurred after the enforcement of the 199£~}'----Aet, wouicl have been entzitied to inhezit tenancy for period of ﬁve yeaxe eniy. By heieiing that L' retrospective effect, eonelucieci that:-ﬂr.ie'*1ega§?_e4 re_1)"1:jve'e.i=:_I1iia'§.'i?s*ee'--V& of the original tenant were entitied ;:>e eeees~.io:1 ._ peﬁtion premises up to a V eff yea1*s "

which period had aiso Agapseci;e.2eVffehe"«»sg:d. ease. hence alicswed the eviction 9f the 1999 Act.

The question xeheiher 13:16 were tenants for the of *.:§,E;e" Act was also act €)O11SZ't{if3IV'§3E_L the ratie of the said decisioeea:1Ii;:5§°;;i§i*?§'ebeeifiug the context of the issues raised I'.3:1"1i'h(:'_i:" the aforesaid reasons paint No.1; gisu answefeeeeéiigaizist the tenant and it is held that a {§'.Th'o_'ii:¥;eI'ite tenancy; under S€2C'{iGI} 3 of the Act is a A L'te11zéj:_atA iihe"'meaning 0:" Section ::i(n) of {he Act. 24?. yumeee the case sf Jaye Andrews Vs. Yusuf by L-.Rs) reported in 2004(4) 30:28' 12202 it has "held that if the ecnteiitions mentiozxeci in Section 5 are with, then the right of tenancy would develve upon the iegal repreeentatiwee 013113? for a period of five years which means that up to a maximum period of Eve years, the right 3:.

ERR? . NO . 234 . ZGCEQ5 of ixxheﬂtancé is O0I1ﬁ1'333.(:':d and heyond the said the right gets exﬁnguishcd. However, wouid that mca;1"at any tinge: Within ﬁve }'€8;FS, the iiabiijty of » evicted would not arise at all? The _$am_c: is a1i'sW'e1%eﬁ"n¢x1;,

25. The next issue Wouid '*£§1u°:n 'ue' as A..3a.~.j_1_gV§i1:;e1' successor of the onlginal £enax;fL£:VV'W:i_:10.V_has;.'i:ai'§éi'ite£i tenancy unéer Section 5 can V;f'itgt.li}ﬁ1._'fi"s;&'}?€*3£i1'S Winch is the prescrilimd period of Secticm 2'? of the Act or with obttamilzg possessioﬁ by of iéngztiiords.

26. Ségtién zvﬂis VI of the Fiat which deais with mgulation '{ii'._ evic£i01i'. since Section 1»3'?{2)(r) i1a$ bsen . _ ;;;a;oi:e%d~. ﬁle Case, and the same is»; extracted as iff}ﬂ5'W$ ."._V é ~ A ' = Wseczian 2'x(;;; ﬂiotwiihstanding anytizing ta " Viki: contrary tzontczineﬁ in any other fan; or Gamma, R9 ::;-rder or demee fer the reaavery of V pmsession ofany premises ska}? be nzcede by the mart, Disiriﬁ Judge or High Ceuri mfavour «of the lemdierd against {:1 tenant, save as provided in sub-ﬁeciion (:2).

{2} The Claw? may, on em, appiication made 20 if I the prescribed manner; make an order far the recovery of pos$essicm Qf the premism 03': one Or' more of thefolfowing grounds anly, nameIy:-

/2,.

§i£<.'.+{';--'.i\é€>.;2{}4.2{3 {T} that the premises fer are required, whether in the same form or after re-aenstmdfen or re--buiEd2'ng, by the Ianziiord for occupation _,,2"é'..rr himsegr or for any member of his fmrnily gr the awner ihereeﬁ or far any person forWwhose*._ f K benefit the premises are held and --« .;. Iztmdford or $110}: person has no other reasanabty M suitabie accommodation: "

Provided that whefze 2&5' jjkezgiiqrd " é T acqixired the premises by frctrjzsfer; no c;zppiiq;.¢iGfi'._. for the recovery of pea-3_e33i0iz_ ef sualfrpremisesg shelf lie under this eice¢ee.._u1:Iees.__£2.'peIi9d".{gf"e;1e year has elapsedﬁom thee' of iiaeéczczjruissﬁon. Expfanatien 1*; the Q1 this (meg and Sections :;38to3}:* ' ' ..

where rite ¥'&?§it1'iO?°ci",_iI't' 'this appiicazion. ?_Su;;$p0ﬂee?-. din a_9'}z7d"9;v'i2---$ubzni1s that the 3;-2_"_ein.e'.sf--eS j .r,_z?e.._ 'feqfuired by him for _V opcupciféezg = f:1'mseijZei5for any member of _ '1f:_¥2ni!yV z$epem£_e;x»i an hing the Court ~ ﬂjaaiipresume fhai the premises are so ,r¢:;:;ee_~e¢i,: " ' p:"efr'z:z'ee.s' "Eei"_f'or a particuiar use may be *' " reqizired Eayihe Iandfordfer a d§§'erent use = snefz. use permissibie wider faw.

!§x[3lanai§e?t'***££';'V For the purposes of this ciause 'eredA"See1iens 28 to 31 an eoczxpation by the _ "-z.;z;m:i;:q;~;ci. qf any par: of buifding qf wh.ieI'z any "'pi*i.3ﬂ:£:~3{'e$" Set out by him forms a part ska?! not ciis..-éhiiisffe him to recover the p'{3S$é?SSi(3?'i ef such \.p1'*e?r-iises.

. 'v!W5}cpianaﬁon II}: For the purposes of this ciause, and Seeiion :28 to .3} "owner of ihe premises"

incfudes <1 persan who has been aifotted such premfses by the Bangalore Development z%u:"iwr:'Ify or any other Eocczf auihcrﬁy by way Of an agreement of hire pureizase, lease or sub- Iease, even before fhe ﬁn'! ownereitip rigizis accrue 19 such hire purchaser, Iwsee or sub- Fessee; as the ease mczy be: £ '/.u . EEO . SEES} . ;5;'E3{.ii:*5 _ tr; _ 'i'hat where we landlord is a trustee efzmy Public Charitable Trust, the premises are reg;u:'re§?-- for £3<3(:'t1pa1i£)n,forZ}1e purpose of the trust. " T * 2?. 'i'J.1c~: words "landlord" and "tenant" V. Section ~2'7(_2,) of the: Rent Act, 199%? _hav¢' "ta 5:': givgj; t;%1 c"

same meanings as per the deﬁnition c_'1:5zu¥3c and. ii)t:i'1&{i3;1;*rf;:'_a tenant under Sectien ;Z?(1} ofthg saiii-,_A?c1': V\vo1;:V1¥:iA._k3,g§1ud}::: F succcsmr who has inixmited te;{ié2.::icj.;¢VVundér :3 of the said Act as such a is . zii;aQ»VvVA'a*.Mt;:nant Within the meaning of Section 3(';;}V_ c'3f_ iAc"E'~ a§.S~:..'iV;eVid by me While:

answering point a:«m;e.%%' _

28. he as to whether withixz the 3tatutoryVV§;c:4i0d bf ﬁxfé 3:3:w1m1oJ:;ed in Section 5 of the Ag_gfAa V1_é::d1o1t£"{:a;.1___§ake action against the tenant who has ' i;ii*:.;zit¢:d«.tsn,ét1a.g:y. Before answering the same it is 11eces$a1'y " is-:} a£iv§§§i:*£V".i;£1eV';:§ét*i1;:iti£)n of fanant under 1951 Act. Section 3{rj4'Q1"ﬁ§¢ hlébl AC3: mad as under;

_ 'Tenant means any perg-an by whom or on A whose amaunz rem is payablefar a premgses am? inciudem the $un:iv1'ng spouse or any son. or daughter or father 0?' rrwtherg of a deceased tenanz' who had' been Haring with fire tenani in the premises as a member of me ierzanfs fczrniiy up to me death of the tenant: and a person coniinuing in pozmession cgfter the ierminaticn of the tenancy in his fczzzour, bu? does nof fndude (31 peman. pfaoeci in occupation of :22 premisaﬁ by its tenam /;, ir~§ﬁ»«1i~i:»:'.§~é<;>. ;.2{.'n'£ .;3_'{§€_I?é$ _ ..

or a person to when': the collection of rents cffees in a public market zxzrt stand or sIa.ugh.ter hause or of rents for shape has been framed out 91' Ieaséd by :2 ioezxzi autfwrily. "

29, The said semen included wimm thc A' cieiinitien of tenant his] bar surviving spo11.sa:2V_'§:3:?Vv son' L11 daughtﬁr or father or mother 01'? 131$.:.4§itiCéaSf§fif.%[iiﬂ&;#fj35750 had been ﬁving with the tengmt in fi2c"premis§:--§:§ #3 8 ::t:$31ﬁb€:i'a of the 'eenant's fassaﬂy up "the d§*':a.t1§" T tenant. 'l'here:f<::re, the succeésjgn xirf té13an;§3:*._&was réésiiiictsci to a spouse, 301:: or ciaughiiei" = mother of the deceased] te;1¢*2:¢:§.f, ﬁeen iivzing with the teﬁazii; t§:;:'%:I:1e death of the 129213111. 'H16 conditmizs ff)!' of tgnancy are: mentieneti in é3¢;éﬁ{>:;.5 of iéeaﬁ Act @999.

3&1. " i,_f-33:1 compaiiisaa 01" Secﬁon Sf?) of 1961 Act with Rent Act, 1999 it is I1€)'€f2€3 that the iattcr Act '1:=3 i}::€::t .1"i:g'<m:::>11s both in terms of the c>m1di.ﬁons prescribed fer tenancy and aiso mstrdcts the period of Under the 1961 Pact there was 110 mstticﬁon Wtith ;'cgan:i to inimritaxtme: of tenancy. in fact the succemor of a ' ciaceased tenant was 9. tenarzt umcii he was evicteé by due pmcess 0f law, but under the Rent: Act, 1999 subject to /SE...

ﬁss?.Na.zQé.gsss compliance with the conditions mentioned in Section 5, a successor wou£d achieve the stains sf tenant '§F€?if*h }.'.g*1 the meaning sf Ssctisn £:3(n) 0f the Act but the said _a maximum period of five years only and not b€§*r_§ndjV'st3isfA at the end of five years the tr:n;§:iéy7"s1;tQmar:§:sJiy s:::m§:s extinguished and would not glevoivaés __c> n_s11§; the other hand, under the dé§1sité.9n of 2(1) ofths Delhi Rent A91 no S-}'::';t11'15?'3"~5"u ()f--in!.1i.;:Iita11ce of tenancy has been pressrib;c::d." legislature in its Wisdom has of tenancy"

under secyiss 5§};%';:rne :.1_«:_¢;'1:.:. Act, 111999 119:}; a maximum pezisd of ﬁve; ycafs 'Tifz*<}1:;V1vA3'i:J1c,§;i:::t§: sf_' death of the original tenant. The: quéstion u<;;v¢+m;s as to whether within the pmics of 1% as séicsan petitioxiz could be maintained. V' --. &Hé1vifi1g"saIzssa:eredsWli5éé:dy that a person who inherits tenancy of the Rent Act, 1999 is a tenant, within the Jsecﬁon 391} 0f the: Act, could he be given a specie; treatment when it comes to eviction, under Section V' 'sf the Act or when immediate possession of the premises has be taken by certain categariczs of iandioxtis under Secﬁsn 38 to 31 of the Act or such other yrovisions in Chapter Vi. The right to recover possession sf premises under 1999 Act is regulated by Chapter 6 of the Act which alone can £35' /,'s,...

\Q_¢ E-i_?~'i§<iE . N9. .5.'{}=§+ .

~§§{.?--

invoked by a landlord. While Section 13'?' speaks the gr0uns:is for seeking evicticn by a landloxd, Sccti0n"3 1 gives the right to recover immediate pes3€3si0r:g «f>i" ' to certain categoriss of landlords stash as Wi£:i{i§é$;.--T(~:.z1ipi€§}ie€'5 u to State or {.'cnt:'a3 {.}OV61'I1II1€I1t., £§'it:n1!9§éx's§ and such othti-,1' persons. to ~b{: !1:_:iT'(»i the = L' statutory period of ﬁxfe year:_s__L: a '1;c:11:a :A;A1tV ﬁwi1o has inheriftsci tenancy [.5 Act cannot be cvicied, thﬁlli the.0bjec§Aam:l_ 2'? to 31 and such other Merci}? bceauﬁc a successor inherited tenancy, he caxmckgbe or at a higher icvei as A1}. that the legislature intgyiciéd. was 'of giving a complete inheritance ef : re._§j;i;rri_ctce£ the inheritance to a period of five years. A1;$u-t_b§rré'é;sa{5n, it cannot be: held that for the said period of five the tenant who hag inhcritad the tenancy is ' : :€}:z1mu.n'cd'' from eviction and {i'1ﬁI'€f{)1'€, cannot be evicted or

--.ttaa.t §:1e cannot ha cii3-possessed. In fact, Section 5, when .. Whéarmenizeei with Section 3(a) of the Act which defines a tenani, when read in the context of bccﬁon 2'? of the Act Wouigi mean thai a person who hag iI1i:m1"ite<;i tenancy under Section 5 of the Act is iiabie £0 be evicted Within the said /% //' ﬁ§«::~<l3:'.f%o. 20% .;'€;3L%8 pcri-and of five years if the landiomi can make out a cast: 1301* eviction or seek possession under the vaxéous provi:':é$<in$'~V.9i' the Act.

31. in this catmtcxt it would 'é[§p~f:$it€ §;(; f«:b:1Z;:r '£A6 dczcisicm of the ki0n'bie Supxtme 'of Andmws Vs. 'fusuf (cieceased"'b:§'V--i,.Rs}x 2{}i)4{4) 'V 1<;.tLi{:R 2202, cited by t§:t»a_.coux1éi£:iA.VVi~i:3§=' peﬁﬁonm; wherain it has been held that mg of the: asriginai tenant can coptiéiuﬁ from the death Of deliver vacant [email protected]'V§f5V'. ' The said dictum mdicaézs ' of tﬁ11a.}'j1(:}'" that can be ix1heritr:c£u"Ti$.Aﬁ,véV that cannot be read as the £13 h:1l~fRP.N0.39i3f 2£}()6, Ifiiﬁd upgn by U123 . :f'{:%.v£ §§1<: pctitizmar, dispesed of 011 2£).1:£.:3(}U'?', it 11313; kié£;5{_*v3x; '§.§f1<i'.c0ntcxt of §$€CiT.iOI} 3Z£(1)(a) as foiiows:

._ "What time iegisiature infencis by this . pram-:'si0ns is $0 restrici the heritczbiliiy {Sf an " teamncy depending upon the czirtsmnsianoes under ' which the Sam ienancy is ciaimed. The nzzzxinawn that caoufci be claimed is «:1 period cfﬁve years. It has nothing to (is with the czcxwfs pewer to pass an eviciizm easier agains! the L.Rs of the deceased tenant ciurfng the said period zzfﬁve years. If the ariginal tenant couid be evicted fmm the premises an the Ianzﬂard mzzizing Gut ca: case for evicrtiorm, under Seciien 52 car any oiherr provisians qf the g,.

I-{ant Act, «:3 simiiar eviciion order maid be pa,ss£:d".T against 132:2 LE3 ofihe deceased tenant. " .. ' .V u

32. Though the said ciictum is in the cont£::S{tVof::S§é€:tS.§ﬁ§n 31 of the Act, the: same is squall}: 'éipp1ica'§§ie 1i:i ﬁ;1éVV<:§;$e":>i' Section '27 of the Act also, as becéiiggé ..t3.i::

says that the tenancy is iﬁ.11€:;:itaE}1t:V_Ii)rV TV1"i§:e"V.__}rt:ars§, the':-V ianciiord cannot be mutt: for éaid' 'aithqvﬁgh he has gooé greumiis to evict said .. ' 31:3. in this cgntext i.s reicva;at tﬁvcitéivvﬁie decisioa of the Apex C0111': §i?aéV C333 Vs. State of xagawxan ,"it:¥ £.m 71992 Sc 1739 whmm it is stated tliaﬁ "it, pxincipie of mterpmzation that whgém ¥;he1*e 1:0 be inconsistency in two ssctiens of . "i:.i1& the principie of harmollious constructicrz ._c:;~;;;:;§1" by avoiciing hgad on dash, it s§1m1£d not bé"'----ligh._7ii§?-r§Ss1m1ed that what the pariiamﬁnt has given. with ..€::3';;€ hazlﬂfit task away with the: otimr. The pmvisians Qf one ' '~ 5s2::cﬁo:1 of statute Cammt be usmd to defeat thcrsﬁ of another ...i1ﬂiCSS ii is iinpossible "£0 reconcﬂs the sama. The Apex (301111:

quotmzi another dﬁciﬁiﬁli in the case of 'Venkatarwnana Bevaru Vs. State afﬂysore reported in .&IR 1958 SC 255 wherailz it haﬁ been observed as follows: é/_/_ ﬁXﬁE.NQ.$@4.£GG$

-- 33 --

""i'he ruie qf oenstrudion is wet! settied that when there are in an enaetznenz iwo previsfens wixich mama: be rewncéled wiih each other, thegﬁ.» Sfzeuici 335- so irzterpreted that! 3' poseibfe ejjfeci-..' Should be given both This is what is k2wu;§:z"--c2S'-e:"Ve. the fete of hazrvzwrzieus censfruetion. " ' " ' = V' '-

34. Under the Cireumstazices, tf}{?»£iﬁCiSiO1i iriytixe x Case of J.K.Cotton Spinning 65 W§:g:ug;_i:g"M'ii:,s"¢::é.1}i§i;~,e'EH3;

State of tlfttar Prudesh &"i?tfs1§rs SC 1.l?'O that Where there is §:$emé:ee11 2% specific provision and a ge:1e1*aiI'4-§t'£)'3"i*;s_i€>1;ij1; provision would prevail over" the genera£.13.;a:ﬁzisionAaxnd mie applies to I'CS{)iV1v)J the'AC0i:.ﬂie{1, ditferent provisions in ciiﬁerexlt si:atutesuas« Well' game statues in as much as the gez1er_a_i pro{éisiei3V}i?01A1it:iV€1i3p1y only to such cases which are .. 4. _ n¢q,.f:ri:0¥;e:re£1A by prevzeion is not applicable to the L' View of the appiicabiiity of the mie oi }§a14£33e11io11"$'j_e£311$i::11etion, as hanncxtzious iilterpzetarion is give$1..tcVS;Seetion 5 and &<:t:i<::n 3(a) and Sectitm 2?' of the Rm; Aet, 1999 in the mstam case. In fact in the said h{3.eeiei0I1 it is also stated that in the ixlterpretation of u "eizatutes, courts aharays presume that {he legislature inserteti every part thereef fer a purpose and the iegisiative iiliention is that every part of the statute shouid have eﬁiect, 'i't1eIefc7:re, the su<:cese<:rz' WHO has. égmeriteci tenancy" under Section 5 of 3;,» . ;"~éc:,> . Qjiéé .

... _.

the Act is a tenant with:i11 the meaning of Section 3(3) of the Act and he is liable to be avicted even within the of ﬁve gmars ofi31i1eriia1:1c:::. Hence the said poi11t~~~i:.a I a3:;_Sm.L.?;'-'::1V*'{'~,r.i against the tenant. 'l'he1'eff0r€, the p>etiti0n.Vf<;§'i' f§i.iéd_ vb under Section 27{i»3}{r} {::v:f1;¥1t:': iﬁct _V

35. 1"iaVi1}g helci so the ia3t--vL.ié§suc to $5-,%¢V2&31éswéi#¢r.i"is as t0 whethar the Iand1o1ds"'.%;ave 'Giff casé'I?:>1"v;-§v1c'£:i31g tbs tenant under Section 2'? eftﬁie *

35. '1'i1r;=, ::1::2:1f'p;m:i:i:_:£;¢éi' c£§:;;gs:~,d,é$ we. 1 and in his &:vidé;1c:2__ % M atfiriavit has stated that PA.Méi1<:*.§n%ECﬁ233.é1*'<~.gg;-5%;---._.§:ieﬁtenant axld after his death on ;%4.;4.*;2£){)'?,.V .§:'i.i.SVV§XV'1.:3.{i{}:5}'&? was censidered to be a iimzant by Saaijtion the Kent Act 1999. The resp<>3;1s:ic:1t is A not business in the schedule premises aiimg _i§tr:{ani. "i'.¥;1at £116 is cenversant in the business of gold.'a;.{d silver mﬁcies as j€t\¥'€lEI' and that he does not have independent business of his awn and memibm, requires Ethe schedule premises :£2>:r starting his awn business. The schtaduie premises is in the gmund ﬁezzeor of shopping compiex which has access to the customers and that he (1063 net hava any other preﬁiises or pltvperty which could hr: used for /52 . :"\é~::> . 3-'W? . .i,'{}i"}8 Ln

- 3 his business or which is mean: suitable than {he schedule pzemises. He has also deposed that the reepencienf ﬁeie.}cep{ the schedule premises. under lack and itejg require the same in any manner.

37. in his cross--examinatio11 .:¥r1e"'iL1&3 'i§1_atV 'tha1igh bj' there Were 40 shops 1'11 the "

peﬁtioilers in only one of tlieehiype, 1' iixe 25" V and 4'4' petitiener was ftlrlnrm-g --jeW.el1'y iiixi'-zitieﬁe and that there was no 0thr::1* vaea;::§t-- compiex for PW.1 to commence (113 _i.i1de}5ei1de:1t. "h.;is_i11e4ss... 7}-ie has also stated t};1at::theI_eieV'n;~--«.9ii1er<piietaieee where he can commence his independent busiiiese Vﬂ;1€1'€f{}1'€, the schedule premises is req:1ired 1123 his" bu?5=i11ess.

'V V' _ ﬁe evidence, the respondent had stated V retjiﬁai izef _h*:1ei:anc.'i was runnring a §3'u1.i;io11 bueixzess in the .'eei:eci11ie and that she was dependmg on her huebeiigi Vami that she had inizeriiied the tenancy of her " ~ x1i1;«e&bae1d and was in possession of the schedule psremiszes Jr his death in terms of Secieeizi 5 01" the Act. whiie statmg " that the petitioners have ether premises avaiiabie, she has stated that she is entitled to the pmteetion umiez' Section 5 /'s 3"§i*iir~iE . Féets. 234 . ;7.'{}{38 M NIIM 4 a V '\.«' of the Act and eouid not be evicted. Hence the peﬁtic-11 was yremature and had to be dismissed.

39. in her Cmss-examirzation she has statiid' 'Va her husband. had taken an Gvextiraft to : {If i<s.?5',0{),U(}()/-- from indiau Ovssrseas of business. Ber husband and his Qhééame day; that the seheduie prefgiseﬁ was VS€i'5?.~'ea:>.,vi)'yV":.'ttLkf5,..¥:E§1}k amfi thereafter the possession "over her. She intends to commence in the said shop but due to lack of ﬁ1ndVs"'sht=:f:ha3« not eséﬁlznexlced the same anti t't1:.¢1'_1':x be:eu. s:1_p;-orted by her brother and iiather for he: iiiv:i,ng]..,V_.S}e1:e.iiaes:'}10§ireve1', admitted as true that the 3"' petitiieziefi deiiig .3 family business in jeweuy and that "vesl::e1ﬁiws ¥}§)i doiiigeny business in the scheduie premises. "pas said that it as false that the 3rd petitioner ' ' fias ﬁe premises suitable for his" inxiepexadeni business, she 1.5135 1.10: given any detaiis about any such, izldeperzcient V fnzsiness.

hit). 011 a consideration of the above evidence, it becomes clear: that the echeduie premises is Iequired far the gmipose of the 3*" petiﬁoner commencing an itxcéeggendent business in /J iiiiéi-' . N0. ;-L{}<§ . £;'{}€.}>3' 37 -

gold and silver axﬁcies, that he is cieittlg the said business along with his brothers and that he has the feéjttisite experience for starting his own business. 'l'he~«~~;.1t*e3ft)g1s£~::3 A' is suitable considering the fact that it is on and easily accessible fist customers, Vdb Ikst have any other property Qr premises suitgghiev ;fc;v1'=, petitioners business. After desth. the' respomient has keptvthe sct;edule"pu1'emises« tmdei' Ioek and key and therefore, does $136:"1etiu:i1e_'&'tiie.Vsame. Both in the pleaeiings as vweﬁvss been averted and deposed fpef.£%:i_s1;er:«'V1eq:1i3'es the premises for starting ant Atiiiiiependettt-.V¥3u.si11ess in his name' The said requireireeiit cs.t11ic§t'i:re"i1enl€iV.'.te be one which is not genuine, co::;si€ie1'éng'.Vth.eVfat:t he is doing business along with his he iittends to commence his own business for I Vtw;}:ziei1_:"'--11e' sitsei requisite expezience also. Hence the tinder Section 22?{2}(r) of the Act has been states by theV'_A§:e'£i:tisners in the pieading as well as evidence and hesee yresumgatimrx that the schedule pzemises are required 'for occupation of the 3"' petiﬁoner has to he raised in the instant case. The said presumption is not rebutted by any i evidene . 3 cogent e /9.

HRH?' . No . 3 C34 . 2;?-£368

-~ 38 --~

41. As far as the petitioners having any other reasonabie suitable accommodation is concerned, thougi1e. the respondent in her evidence had stated that the..3?%§» ;§¢:;::i;;=i3,¢r has other suitable accommodation for cdmmeiieiﬁg" his' independent business, no de£a:I1:§"Vef'«fhe.¢ b«.i;aVeV"bee11 7 given by MW. 1 in her evidence. otﬁegf his evidence had said the: 'seeps the shopping compiex _.¥::elo&1:1gi1V1:A.'<i._g'1"s;'$V "flee petiﬁeneirs, there is no vacant shop in ' the schedule premises is for commencing his of there being any material ;.ege1r=c¥h'«te"'*!j1e_a;vailabﬁity of any other suitable :aeeex1Ai11;edai:aLe11,«V be heid that the respondent has not » hex?" b.¥11*de11 of ousting the case of the . = & on basis that there was other suitabie " ,.jz;:cec-1:ﬁz1j:oda$"_i<')_::s:1.

42. " _ 1~Henee it is eoneinded that the petiﬁeners have made ' , a ease uneier Seetiozx ;37(2){r) of the Act and that the presumpﬁon was rightly mised by the trial court and in the absence ef any rebuttal evidence the benefit of preelzxnptiezl has to be upheid in favour of the landlords. Hence point No.4 is answered in favour ef the petitioner] ianciloitie. /51», ﬁRRE.N0.3S4.3@§8

43. Accordixxgiy, the revision petition is dismissed and the order 0f the triai court is cozlﬁrmeati. The tcnazat is gzanted .' two months {time to vacate and hand over vacant posmaaibﬁ 'T of the schtciulc premises from the date of 'rI::i:.-é... '. COSES .

i{'VH*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court