1. Unauthorized occupant later becoming owner — Claim for benefits under Sections 31-B and 31-C, Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 1169
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. T. Thomas , Kuldip Singh
GYABIRAM, APPELLANT
Versus
R. GANGADHARAN AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
Civil Appeal No. 4433 of 1996,
decided on August 1, 1996.
Important Points
The court held that benefits under Section 31-B of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, are restricted to landlords or tenants. An unauthorized occupant cannot avail themselves of these provisions, as the status of landlord or tenant must exist on the date of occupation.
Subject
Property Law - Landlord and Tenant
Act Referred
Headnote
Amendment Act, 67 of 1976 - Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 - Sections 31-B and 31-C - Landlord nor the tenant - Contravention - Person who has occupied such building as tenant in contravention of Section or Section may within sixty days from date coming into force of this section make declaration in this behalf to prescribed authority Provided that prescribed authority may entertain declaration after expiry said period of sixty days if it is satisfied that declaring was prevented by sufficient cause from filling declaration in time – Held, On plain language section appellant cannot take benefit said provisions - It is obvious that on date of occupation as well as on date of declaration occupant must either be landlord or tenant - It is an admitted case that on date occupation appellant was neither landlord nor tenant - In this view matter amended provisions Act are not applicable to case of appellant - Court see no ground to interfere with conclusions reached by High Court – Appeal dismissed
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Eligibility of an unauthorized occupant to seek benefits under the voluntary declaration provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. (Para 1 )
3. Section 31-B requires the occupant to be either a landlord or a tenant on the date of occupation and the date of declaration. (Para 2 )
4. Benefit under Section 31-B of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 is restricted to those who were landlords or tenants at the time of occupation. (Para 2 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 2 )
6. Who can make a voluntary declaration under Section 31-B of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961?
A landlord who has occupied or let out a residential building, or a person who has occupied such building as a tenant in contravention of Section 4 or Section 5, may make such a declaration. (Para 1 )
7. Does Section 31-B of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 apply to persons who were unauthorized occupants at the time of occupation?
No, because the plain language of the section requires that on the date of occupation as well as on the date of declaration, the occupant must be either a landlord or a tenant. (Para 2 )
ORDER
1. The appellant became owner of the premises while he was occupying it unauthorisedly. There is a protracted litigation between the parties. Suffice it to say that while the matter was pending in second appeal in the Karnataka High Court, the appellant withdrew the appeal with a permission to initiate proceedings before the appropriate court to take benefit of Sections 31-B and 31-C of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 as amended by the Amendment Act, 67 of 1976. It is thus obvious that the appellant gave up all the points which were pending before the High Court in the second appeal and wanted to agitate only the question of law arising out of the amendment. It would be useful to reproduce the provisions of Section 31-B :
"31. (B) Voluntary declaration. - (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Act -
(i) any landlord who has occupied or let out a residential building or
(ii) any person who has occupied such building as a tenant, in contravention of Section 4 or Section 5, may within sixty days from the date of coming into force of this section, make declaration in this behalf to the prescribed authority :
Provided that the prescribed authority may entertain the declaration after the expiry of the said period of sixty days if it is satisfied that the declarant was prevented by sufficient cause from filling the declaration in time.
(2) Such declaration shall contain the following particulars namely -
(a) Name and address of the declarant;
(b) Name and address of the landlord and tenant; if any;
(c) Location of the building along with its municipal number;
(d) Date on which it was occupied or let out;
(e) Whether such landlord or tenant or any member of his family owns any residential building in the same city, town or village and if so, details thereof;
(f) The person in occupation of the building referred to in clause (c);"
2. On the plain language of the section the appellant cannot take benefit of the said provisions. It is obvious that on the date of occupation as well as on the date of declaration, the occupant must either be a landlord or the tenant. It is an admitted case that on the date of occupation, the appellant was neither the landlord nor the tenant. In this view of the matter, amended provisions of the Act are not applicable to the case of the appellant. We see no ground to interfere with the conclusions reached by the High Court. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
