Judgment

MOHAN, J.- The short facts leading to civil appeal are as under. The respondents executed a lease agreement on December 6, 1971 for a period of 32 years. The subject-matter of demise was a vacant site for the purpose of erection of cinema theatre by the tenant, appellant. He was put in possession. Thereupon, he applied for a licence for construction. The construction was not completed within a period of two years. The appellant made an application for renewal of licence. On objection by the respondents, the renewal was not granted. As a result, the construction of cinema theatre was not completed. The appellant defaulted in payment of arrears of rent. Therefore, the respondents filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and for bona fide requirement under Section 21(1)(h) of the Act. Pending the eviction proceedings, respondents filed an application under Section 29(1) and (4) of the Act because the appellant had not paid the rent in spite of notice.

2. On August 18, 1990, the trial court passed an order on I.A. VI directing the appellant to pay the arrears of Rs 3,69,000. For compliance of this, thirty days time was granted. Inasmuch as the said amount was not paid on October 25, 1990, an order of eviction was passed. Against this order, Civil Revision Petition No. 725 of 1991 was preferred to the High Court of Karnataka. The said revision came to be dismissed on January 29, 1991. Hence, this civil appeal.

3. The only point that is argued by Mr N. Santosh Hegde, learned counsel for the appellant is that during the subsistence of the contractual tenancy for the period of 32 years under the registered deed, it is not open to the respondents/landlords to seek eviction under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. No doubt, Section 21 of the Act says notwithstanding. But this does not mean that provision can be availed of by the respondents since this is the beneficial legislation in favour of the tenant. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on the Full Bench judgment of Karnataka High Court reported as Sri Ramakrishna Theatres Ltd. v. General Investments & Commercial Corpn. Ltd.{ILR 1992 Kant 1296}

4. This stand is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents, Shri M. Qamaruddin. He would submit that insofar as Section 21 of the Act clearly postulates even the abrogation of the contract and the statute, namely, Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 takes over in such a situation, the parties are governed only by the provisions of the Act. The civil court cannot have jurisdiction in view of the non-obstante clause contained under Section 21.

5. This Court in V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal[(1979) 4 SCC 214} categorically laid down that contractual tenancy will lose its significance in view of the Rent Control Act. In that case, even the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was held to be a surplusage. It is, therefore, urged that if a landlord could found an action on any one of the enumerated grounds under Section 21 of the Act, the action would be maintainable notwithstanding the existence of a contractual lease.

6. Having regard to the above arguments, the only question that arises for our consideration is, whether during the subsistence of a contractual tenancy, it is open to the landlord to resort to proceedings under Rent Control Act?

7. We must first refer to Section 21 of the Act.

"21. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or other authority in favour of the landlord against the tenant:

Provided that the court may on an application made to it, make an order for the recovery of possession of a premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely :

[Clauses (a) to (p) are omitted as not necessary.

Clauses (a) to (p) enumerate the grounds enabling the landlord to re