Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. In the light of the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties, the only question that arise for consideration is:

Whether eviction petition is liable to be dismissed on account of death of a original tenant as hit by Section 5(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 My answer to the above point is in the negative for the following reasons:
Section 5 of the Rent Act reads as under:
"5. Inheritability of tenancy:-(1) In the event of death of tenant, the right of tenancy shall devolve for a period of five years from the date of his death to his successors in the following order, namely:-
(a) spouse;
(b) son or daughter or where there are both son and daughter both of them;
(c) parents;
(d) daughter-in-law, being the widow of his pre-deceased son;

Provided that the successor has ordinarily been living or carrying on business in the premises with the deceased tenant as a member of his family up to the date of his death and was dependent on the deceased tenant:

Provided further that a right to tenancy shall not devolve upon a successor in case such successor or his spouse or any of his dependent son or daughter is owning or occupying a premises in the local area in relation to the premises let.

Section 5 of the Rent Act which came into force with effect from 31.12.2001, says that the right of tenancy shall devolve for a period of five years from the date of death of the tenant, on his successors. It is pertinent to mention that in view of Sections 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 of the Rent Act, the Trial Court, holding that the eviction petition was hit under Section 5 of the Rent Act, is not correct. Section-5 in Chapter II of the Rent Act, dealing with regulation of rent, cannot be read in isolation. In other words, Section 5 shall be read in conjunction with Sections 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 of the Rent Act. Section 5 of the Act neither takes away nor postpone the grounds of eviction given to the landlords under Section 27, and the right conferred upon certain landlords/persons under Sections 28, 29, 30 and 31 of the Rent Act. The learned Trial Judge has misconstrued the provision. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.