( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against the judgment dt. 30-6-1973 passed by the II Addl Dist Judge, Dharwar, in HRC App. 71 of 1971 setting aside the order passed in HRC. 50 of 1968 by the Addl Munsiff, Hubli and dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Ss. 21 (1) (a) and 21 (i) (i) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). The undisputed facts are that the petitioner is the owner of open site bearing CIS. 1858 in Ward V of Hubli and also bearing Municipal HDMC no. 19. She has leased out the site to respondent-1 Tukaram since dead. His legal representative, namely, the wife has been brought on record. Tukaram had constructed a structure worth about Rs. 400 by 18-5-1964. On 18-5-1964 the petitioner and Tukaram entered into a contract of lease as per Exhibit P1.

( 2 ) THE petitioner filed an application under S. 21 (1) (a) and (f) of the act contending that as per Ext. P1 Tukaram had to erect a construction worth about Rs. 600, but had failed to erect such a construction and that tukaram had not paid rental from 18-5-1964 and hence had become a defaulter within the meaning of Sec. 21 (1) (a) of the Act and lastly that tukaram had sub-let certain rooms in the building constructed by him on the land to Respts-2 and 3 arid as such was liable to be evicted under Section 21 (1) (f) of the Act.

( 3 ) SRI Tukaram contended that he had leased out two rooms to Respts-2 and 3 and that lease did not amount to sub-letting within the meaning of s. 21 (1) (f) of the Act and that he had not at all committed default in payment of rent. The learned Munsiff without going into the question whether the rooms admittedly leased by Tukaram to Respts-2 and 3 also included the demised premises under the lease agreement, Ext. P1, held that Tukaram had sub-let the two rooms to Respts-2 and 3. The case of the petitioner under S. 21 (1) (a) of the Act was not pressed. A decree for eviction was passed on the ground available to the petitioner under Section 21 (1) (f) of the Act.

( 4 ) IN appeal, the learned IT Addl Dist Judge, held that the construction erected by Tukaram was not the property leased out by the petitioner to tukaram and hence letting out of the two rooms by Tukaram to Respts-2 end 3 d'd not amount to sub-letting within the meaning of S. 21 (1) (f) of the Act and allowed the appeal.

( 5 ) THE relevant terms in Ext. P1 may be summarised as follows :" (1) I have agreed to pay you Rs. 120 per year as rental for the said open land. I will pay the rental by 18th of every month. (2) I have alreadv constructed on the said land a construction bv spending Rs. 400 and I will construct another construction by spending rs. 600. I will myself make use of the said construction. (5) I will mvself pay the Municipal tax and keep the property in repair at my cost. (4) The lease period is 15 years from 18-5-1964. On 17-5-1979 i will hand-over vacant possession of the building without taking any money from you and without spoiling the building in any manner. (5) I have no right either to mortgage or to sell the building and i will not alienate the building. (6) In case I die before the expiry of the said 15 years and my wife is alive, she will eniov the property for the balance of 15 years and in case she also dips, you have a right to take possession of the land as well as the building. "

( 6 ) I have already pointed out that the learned Addl Munsiff has not gone into the question whether by this contract the landlady leased out the building worth Rs 400 already constructed by Tukaram on the land and the building worth Rs. 500 to be constructed by him. The learned II Addl dist Judge has held that the leased premises consisted only of the open site and not of the building that was worth Rs. 400 and the building worth rs. 600 to be constructed.

( 7 ) SRI K. S Savanur, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argued that the petitioner landlady leased out the land to respondent-Tukaram on which a buildi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document