Karnataka High Court
Mr Charles Rego vs Father Mullers Charitable Institute on 18 December, 2008
Equivalent citations: AIR 2009 (NOC) 1285 (KAR.), 2009 (2) AIR KAR R 229
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
IN THE HIGH COURT 0}? KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 18"' DAY 02? DECEMBQ2, T Q
BEFOEEJ
THE HON'BLE MR. msrmg Aximfin % A A ,
HOUSE RENT REVISION PET1"z5i§3N VNoV.}£. lb? gavn
BETWEEN: % " % "
Mr. Charles Raga,
Ssh Late Gabriel Regs. I ' 1
Residing at No, J jlp V
?adi!, Manga¥ar¢,:§.'I5"O9? PETITIONER
(By Shxi. Ai' V
AND:
1. Falhcr,Mu§lcr;§ '
V. Imzgitate _____ .. «
%%%MangaIorw=ss7&A009;
icsd jby V
. Mefiiiia D'Sou2:a, Major
" < "'W:'c Vinczeht A Rodriques
4' Si, Anl§:ny's Gandtm
. Cross Road
% .}_I;:§§3pa:Ika£ia
V' A "=,Mangalore-575 002
The Ihrlhcr reasoning uf the District Ju;§g:-if _._:fi'EI$
substaqucnt sub-leases were with the ung.i§ia'§.. ~--
Mmiagar under Ex.R-I is inconta-ct.I_
E2-:.R-I was in mspecl of sale ofihgz mo{)£.agcni Iivgh i1.;whig;h.3is jam! L'
the same; as permission to create zntmléigeriiyor subs-ltsasc.
This is a cardinal District Judge in
pzmxacding on the was permission
aflbrvded to -5.9 snl$¥i_c£V property.
4. would place reliance cm a
passage the of Land Tenum in Kanara' by
J.H,A.£yfawumfi'Etha3 mfids thus:
' f is a rm;-gt ho-Ztiig a ggrggfual (ease,
'=.i'l0jf réi;.;sg_g§al$ie so 30:32 as he paws his ram' and so Io-ma
' as mt vioigje the stimdatioas 0f' the laase
» A gérggtiiiing @_r1eimra*." flgulled out from Wilson's
V ""_Gl<)ssarg Page 3543. Andjfirrher " A mulgeni
' fltetumcv is_g temggcv fiyever at a tween' rent. ?%is
ggecies of {aware is as 2000' as a freaehoid... "' and
"... The muggem' tenure is a permanent herirawe
Z
termre alien-able in some cases by the cor:ciitic3¢z.}s}'.é§?"-. .. *1 ..
rrmtggnichit but' in all cases Qgrmma; t}:¢_>g¢__ 3
to forfizimre under cerfixfié' «fxfrcfizmsfzifkias.
" .... .. Muigeni tenants ;Qérpé'me_i3 .. 'Vaad
ir:defi2a_'_o:ible right to o¢2cy.;_r*g_§«; the ldnd $0 Vl<>r2V's';_f-"'.:'é».s'- vrtaefig
pass the rent which is saarrrea-ri}§ésca;§"%rw>;1ainciki~?'. j *
5. He also rclies an £h§:~ aura' another
v. Kaliycmmn%c»m:~.Srz' "Kri.s}mapur Muff,
1968(2) quoted an extract
fivm of Revenue of Madras,
(I955 " '
_Vm:algVjér;i;iar" lesme of the regisierecf
" u.hoia'er"*; ~ Zease is miles? rnulgem' and the
V ' ';°egs'~s;_'ere<2' hfilder *5 right muli. A' muégeraiciar has
3 _ tease and is' not rerrmvable by the
V régysiéréti holder so {mg as he pays ncarn'
:rég=:i1arZ_y in him am? does net break any cfthe
Z - ...e}:;~rre2'iti¢;-r:.<; afthe lease. "
in a Full Bench decision of this Court in Sri
'T flzeatm Limited vs. General Inve.s'tmen1.s* and
Cwmrwrcial Cmjpomtian Limited AIR 1993 1:43 90, it was laid
%
courxggysa. A
dawn while interpreting lht: effect of sub-Section (I) of Segzii-pa 21
of the Act, that the landlord Should have a vested
gxasscssion and that right cannot be held to ves£_iVn I:?ii-sin
pcziod of a term imam, unless tlwm is k:e1:sg
which provides for the dcienniimfiun i3!f Li1c ,
situation, wen after the dcler1ninaii611 'u4C the' leaéfi manner
stated in the lease, the have to be made
oniy by recourse tQAS§oliu;;-"2'i{ V ., "
Time uphcid by the: Supreme Court in
Laxmxd' asBapm&n ' % Rudmvva, AIR 2001 Supreme
K3, Court, in Raghuram Rm v. Eric P.1Wa1hia.s'
I mi ozxm; L209) SAR ¢Cm't)225, after quoting wiih approval
-' gbsegvgison of the High Court of Bombay, has held as Iblluws:
"[4. me Court in that case traced the history
nfmulgem' tenure and observed thus?»
"These authorities show clearlg that the
muieenis were only termnfs, although tenants in
%
10
imggga, mam ugger tfiir suggrtek A'
landlords, the mulgars, whose estate, ' '
of temmts in fee simgle in 2
at!' to have been the hig:
land known to the law in Ka_r:;=af¢_t." and
that aZ@gh c>rigirmtlg"v.,t}m1,gentV. tetgdtttsgifevetcf
rtot restricted by; the tfuaif
altenaticwt. tite't?tifr:tic¢é h*g;s3tf&'wt;t"!i_Q_--- how
saw it does not agyfi Vr, atmft' ' by: the
bggirugittg aftheipresight cetits$r_;,*. gbfieastg the
_z;_:_;gg_1_._;g3 gt a géggzed with
suéfit.ati¢2'V:}the§* £estFi{#t't¢>;fg;i
that the law has,
_ _ either by.Ste3ttti;:3 _fudt'cia£ decision, défimad
» tier-2 mu lgén'-i .t¢%I.tt«tre.
_ "_the.s'e circumstarsces it woutd be
':m§;§2;$ibZe we think. to hold that restriction
~¢tga;'it3t alietrmtt'on is so» repugnant to the
" 'v:ze;u£gerti tenure in the contemplcttkiw ofiaw. that
a ciause to that efiect must be ham' to be void.
But it was said that such a clause in a
permanent lease makes the Jam! fimawr
malienabie and is, therefore, mid cm the
gnxmd afgmblic policy. That view, however,
'é
12
exception carved out in case of lame, irg
view, there is no substance in the cofiftgtjfitfitii. %
the leamaa' camsel fiarr fhe.<ag)p3££cInfif :h§:f'*:::e xi
czxuiitiora which r¢astrains ---_
aiiermtirag leasehoid g;~Q¢?gr;y'is_ any
11133:?! or mid. " V
And lhercfcms, the impugned order
be set aside and fllcnviciitgn
7. The the other band, would
conwnd vkfimamka Rent Comm} Act,
1961 i:1'éwfar as the cvictiun proceedings
are 'V ihis [he Counsel wuuid seek to place
the 1961 Act, which pmvidas that it
after coming into upemfion of Purl-V of the
' Act, R3: .l:'sfi3;:nt lo sub-kc! the whole or any part of the premises
' but nothing in the Section would apply to a team}!
right to enjoy any premises in perpetuity.
2?
before 18"' V V
20
Thcrefow, the petition succeeds. Tht: '
the District Judgfi Passed in mvisiunfii. WI 31'-'i.(V1t';*':." " V ' .
eviction is cunfirrned. The mspcm<§e;nl:é_'.'siiaI!'Tj
vacant pugsession of the pmperiflfisgt va V
of {hive months and shallgnlsu bg..!.i;£b!c 'iiymg; of rent
due upto the date of vaca"t'i'aié1'1 i:f' -- Thc respondents
shall quit and dvfiivgr v:f:ééaii{ 30f?" prcsmiscs can or sal-
Judge