Validity of notice to quit and inheritance of tenancy by legal representative under the Karnataka Rent Control Act.

( 1 ) L. S. VASUDEVAMURTHY filed an application under S. 21 (1) provisos (a) and (h) of the Karnataka Bent Control Act, for eviction of K. S. Rangaiah setty from the schedule premises in HRC. 441/65 on the file of the First munsiff, Bangalore. The contention of the landlord was that the tenant had fallen due for rent which was in arrears and that the schedule premises were bonafide and reasonably required for his use and occupation. The landlord gave a notice to quit, Ext. P2, dt. 1-10-64 which inter-alia stated :" I terminate the tenancy and call upon you to vacate the said premises no. 1935, Sampige Road, Malleswaram, by 7-11-64 failing which my client will be forced to take suitable legal steps for evicting you. "it was undisputed between the parties that the tenancy commenced from the 7th of each month.

( 2 ) THE tenant contested that so much rent was not due, that the notice to quit was invalid, that the landlord never required the premises for his bonafide and reasonable use and occupation. On comparative hardship it was also pleaded that the tenant is not liable to be evicted.

( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the petition under S. 21, K. S. Rangaiah setty died and his legal representative L. R. Viswanath who is his son, was brought on the record. It was contended before the learned Munsiff that l. R. Viswanath was not a tenant as defined in S. 3 (r) of the Karnataka rent Control Act. 1961, as the schedule premises were non-residential and l. R. Viswanath was not residing in the schedule premises along with his father. For this, assistance was taken from Hamid Shah v. Seshagiri, (1973) 1 Myslj. 127, and M. V. Sundararaj V. Kamalamma , ILR 1975 Kar. 2028= (1975) 2 Karlj. 459. It was contended that the word 'living' in S. 3 (r) of the Act is in the context a clear indication of what is commonly known as residence. The legal effect will be that in a business premises the legal representative although a son cannot be stated to be living with the father who was a statutory tenant. The protection which the father had against dispossession by the landlord was personal to him and could not be transmitted to his legal heir who answers the description of legal representative. The learned Judge further held that by virtue of s. 51 although the landlord is enabled to continue the proceeding against the son, the latter is deprived of his right to claim possession as he derives no title from his father being a statutory tenant. The contention found favour with the learned Munsiff and holding that a reasonable and bonafide requirement of the landlord was proved, the petition was allowed. The question as to the validity of the notice to quit was also held in favour of the landlord. Thereafter, the tenant came in appeal before the learned dist Judge, but remained unsuccessful. The findings of the learned Munsiff were reiterated on all the points Now. the petitioner-tenant has come up in revision.

( 4 ) THE foremost question to be considered in this case would be the validity of the notice to quit. That is so because the tenancy has been determined by taking recourse under S. 111 of the Transfer of Property act. As it was an admitted case between the parties that the tenancy commenced from 7th day of each month, it ended on the expiry of the 6th day of each month. But the notice to quit, Ext. P1, definitely expired with the end of the 7th day of the month. That being so, the notice to quit did not expire with the end of the month of tenancy. In D. G. Dewakato v. V. M. Janagaval, (1975) 1 SCWR. 581,the Supreme Court found that the notice to quit did not expire with the end of the month of tenancy which was the 9th day and rather expired on the 8th day. The notice was held illegal with the natural inference that the tenancy was not determined. With that strict view taken by the Supreme Court with reference to Sec. 106 of the Transfer of property Act, I am afraid, a different view cannot be taken in the present case. The notice no doubt gave 24

Click Here to Read the rest of this document