1. Eviction proceeding — Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 — grounds of personal necessity and sub-letting — dispute over whether a brother qualifies as a family member. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 2039
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K T Thomas, M M Punchhi
S. A. VENGADAMMA AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS
VERSUS
JITENDRAP VORAAND ANOTHER, RESPONDENTS.
Civil Appeal No. 15007 of 1996 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9037 of 1996), decided on November 29, 1996.
Important Points
Under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, a brother is not included in the definition of 'family.' A tenant vacating the premises while leaving a brother in possession constitutes a transfer of interest or sub-letting, justifying eviction, unless the tenancy was originally obtained by a joint family.
Subject
Eviction - Sub-letting or Transfer of Interest
Act Referred
Kamataka Rent Control Act, 1961: S.3(fl)
Headnote
Kama taka Rent Control Act, 1961 – Payment of rent - Transferring interest in premises - It is not disputed that tenant under Kama taka Rent Control Act, 1961 can be a person as also a family - Under Section 3(fl) of said Act word "family" has been defined in relation to a person to mean wife or husband of such person and his or her dependent children - Brother nowhere figures in such definition - Had tenant-respondent been living in premises and his brother was living with him permissibly, then one could perhaps rule out a case of sub-letting or otherwise as transfer of interest - But, when tenant-respondent himself had vacated premises and had gone to live elsewhere, it does not lie in his mouth to say that in leaving his brother behind in tenanted premises, he has left behind a member of his family, unless of course he could have successfully pleaded that tenancy at inception was obtained by a joint family of which brother was a member - This plea, even though raised, has not been accepted by courts below - Very act of tenant-respondent of vacating premises shows that he had abandoned his interest in tenancy in favour of his brother and in the eye of law effecting a transfer, if not sub-letting - But, sub-letting it would be even on these facts and circumstances because tenant- respondent has abandoned his possessory interest in the demised premises - Thus, view of High Court on that score needs upsetting which we hereby do, by allowing this appeal -Landlord- appellant gets an order of ejectment against both brothers, respondents herein – Held, Thus, view of the High Court on that score needs upsetting which court hereby do, by allowing this appeal - Landlord- appellant gets an order of ejectment against both brothers, the respondents herein - A prayer has been made on behalf of respondents for grant of some time to vacate premises - They have offered to do so on - Learned counsel for the landlord-appellant is willing to give them this measure (sic much) time subject to respondents executing usual undertaking before Registry within six weeks - Let that be done within time allotted, failing which they be required to hand over possession of premises to the appellant forthwith – Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Tenant's contention — lease obtained for family members including brother — denial of sub-letting or transfer of interest. (Para 2 )
3. Tenant vacated premises and lived elsewhere — brother left in possession — abandonment of possessory interest — transfer or sub-letting. (Para 3 )
4. Section 3(fl), Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 — definition of family limited to spouse and dependent children — excludes brothers. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed — order of ejectment granted against both the tenant and his brother. (Para 3 , 4 )
6. Does a brother fall within the definition of family under Section 3(fl) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961?
No. Under Section 3(fl) of the Act, the word family in relation to a person is defined to mean the wife or husband of such person and his or her dependent children; a brother is not included in this definition. (Para 3 )
7. When does leaving a relative in tenanted premises constitute sub-letting or transfer of interest?
If a tenant vacates the premises to live elsewhere and leaves behind a person who does not qualify as a family member under the law, it constitutes an abandonment of possessory interest and effects a transfer or sub-letting. (Para 3 )
8. Does the permissive occupation of a relative by a tenant who continues to reside in the premises constitute sub-letting?
The court observed that if the tenant were living in the premises and a relative was living with them permissibly, such an arrangement might not be ruled as sub-letting or transfer of interest. (Para 3 )
ORDER
1. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel at length.
2. The High Court of Karnataka upheld partial eviction of the tenant- respondent, preserving the truncated tenancy to a room, left with him. There were two grounds for eviction, (i) for personal necessity and (ii) sub-letting or otherwise transferring whole or part of interest in the tenancy. The admitted facts are that the tenant had obtained the lease of the premises in writing, ex facie singularly. The defence put up in the eviction petition was that the need of the landlord was not bona fide and that as per terms of the deed, the lease had been obtained for members of his family, which included his brother. The ground of bona fide requirement was satisfied by the courts below by ordering partial eviction. The ground of sub-letting or otherwise transferring interest in the premises was however repelled. The point thus for consideration is whether the brother of the tenant-respondent was by himself a a tenant allegedly being a member of the family of the respondent.
3. It is not disputed that the tenant under the Kamataka Rent Control Act, 1961 can be a person as also a family. Under Section 3(fl) of the said Act the word "family" has been defined in relation to a person to mean the wife or husband of such person and his or her dependant children. The brother nowhere figures in such definition. Had the tenant-respondent been living in the premises and his brother was living with him permissibly, then one could perhaps rule out a case of sub-letting or otherwise as transfer of interest. But, when the tenant-respondent himself had vacated the premises and had gone to live elsewhere, it does not lie in his mouth to say that in leaving his brother behind in the tenanted premises, he has left behind a member of his family, unless, of course, he could have successfully pleaded that the tenancy at the inception was obtained by a joint familv of which the brother was a member. This plea, even though raised, has not been accepted by the courts below. The very act of the tenant-respondent of vacating the premises shows that he had abandoned his interest in the tenancy in favour of his brother and in the eye of law effecting a transfer, if not sub-letting. But, sub-letting it would be even on these facts and circumstances because the tenant- respondent has abandoned his possessory interest in the demised premises. Thus, the view of the High Court on that score needs upsetting which we hereby do, by allowing this appeal. The landlord- appellant gets an order of ejectment against both the brothers, the respondents herein.
4. A prayer has been made on behalf of the respondents for grant of some time to vacate the premises. They have offered to do so on or before 31-12-1997. Learned counsel for the landlord-appellant is willing to give them this measure (sic much) time subject to the respondents executing the usual undertaking before the Registry within six weeks. Let that be done within the time allotted, failing which they be required to hand over possession of the premises to the appellant forthwith. No costs.
