Important Point
Section 31 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 is valid in view of D.C. Bhatia’s case (1986) 3 SCC 385.

Judgment

Rajendra Babu, J.-The appellant filed a suit against Bhaskaran, the original tenant in occupation of a premises bearing No. 199 and 200 situated at Brigade Road in Bangalore city for recovery of possession thereof on the ground that he had defaulted in payment of rent and had sublet the same contrary to law. The original tenant set up the de­fence that he had not sublet the suit premises or any portion thereof, but had only entered into an agreement to run business on his behalf and he was not liable to be evicted. The original tenant died on 8.1.1983 and his legal representatives were brought on record. They filed a written statement on 1.8.1984 contending that their father had parted with possession of the suit premises to respondent No. 1 and no decree could be passed against them. Respondent No. 1 was impleaded as a defendant on an application made by him. He contended that he had become a partner with Bhaskaran with the consent of the appellants and partnership stood dissolved as on 10.12.1982 and thus he was a tenant under the appellant directly. His tenancy had not been terminated and, therefore, there was no cause for suit. By a decree made on 31.3.1993, the City Civil Court directed the eviction of the first respondent. Respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal against the said decree in the High Court. This appeal is against that order made by the High Court of Karnataka in that appeal filed by Respondent No. 1.

2. In the High Court three principal points were formulated for con­sideration:-

(1) Whether the first respondent is a tenant? If not, what is his status?

(2) Whether the suit is maintainable for ejection of the first respondent?

(3) Whether the first respondent is entitled for mesne profits under Order XX Rule 10 of the CPC?

The first two points raised for consideration turned on the question whether the first res­pondent is a tenant or not? If he is a tenant, it was stated that the matter has necessarily to go before the Rent Control Court for eviction under Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). However, if the first respondent is declared to be a trespasser, he is liable for eviction by virtue of a decree in the suit. The courts below took the view that the first res­pondent is liable to pay rents or damages from 10.12.1982 and, therefore, they had no difficulty in answering the third point raised for consideration. What is really in issue before us are the first two points.

3. The High Court held that there is no acceptable evidence to declare the first res­pondent as a tenant and thereby affirmed the conclusion reached by the trial Court. After examining the scope of Section 23 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act which forbids creation of sub-lease or assignment or transfer either whole or any part of the demised prem­ises, the learned Judge was of the view that the original tenant allowed others to carry on the business in his name as he was unable to carry on the business by himself due to old age initially by in­ducting the first respondent as a partner of the firm and then in his own capacity as a owner of the business concern which was not an unknown mode of transfer of tenancy and, therefore, the first defendant was not a trespasser. He, however, noticed that the first respondent was not inducted with the consent of the landlord and therefore his possession becomes unlawful and he is liable to be evicted under the provisions of Section 21(1)(f) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act and no other conclusion was possible in this regard. In view of that finding he held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction as there is a specific provision ousting the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain any suit for eviction of a tenanted premises. On that basis, he allowed the appeal and set aside the decree made by the trial Court and directed the parties to work out their remedies in