The main legal point established in the judgment is that a person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favor is considered a 'tenant' under the Karnataka Rent Control Act and is liable to pay rent, even if protected from eviction under Part V of the Act.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition has come up before us, on a reference by Sabhahit, J. vide order dated 10. 4. 1984; as in his Lordship's view, the decision of the Division Bench in raghunandan Prasad Garg v. D. Sree ramsetty and others (1974 (2) Kar. L. J. 224), to the extent it excludes the 'tenant' as defined in the Karnataka Rent Control act, by interpreting Section 31 therein, requires reconsideration in the light of the law laid down in Mani Subrat Jain v. Raja ram Vohra (AIR 1980 SC 299 ).

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are precisely narrated in the order of reference; to the extent they are relevant to our purpose, we summarise them as follows:- revision petitioner is the owner of non-residential premises, bearing No. 23, J. C. Road, Bangalore. Petitioner's father, during the petitioner's minority, leased it to respondent, by executing a registered lease deed dated 10. 9. 1973, for a period of five years from 1. 1. 1973; so it expired on 1. 1. 1978. On 6. 3. 1978, the owner issued a notice, calling upon the tenant, to vacate the premises and deliver the same to the landlord. The landlord has not accepted the rents, subsequent to 1. 1. 1978. The agreed rent is Rs, 650/- per month. Since the tenant did not vacate the premises, the landlord filed a suit in O. S. 762 of 1978 (subsequently renumbered as O. S. 3758 of 1980); we are told that the proceedings in the said suit, are stayed by the Supreme court, awaiting decision in this civil revision petition. The suit was filed on 16. 8. 1978; before that i. e. on 13. 4. 1978, the tenant filed an application for fixation of 'fair rent', in HRC. NFR No. 18 of 1978. The Rent Controller has fixed the fair rent at Rs. 350/- per month.

( 3 ) THIS revision is by the landlord against the order of fixation of fair rent at Rs. 350/- per month as against the agreed rent of Rs. 650/- per month.

( 4 ) MR. Sunderswami, appearing for the landlord urged the following points:- (1) Respondent is not a 'tenant' as defined in the Act; as his lease period had expired and he is not liable to pay the rents; and (2) the fixation of fair rent has been arbitrary and is not based on relevant considerations.

( 5 ) ELABORATING the first contention, it was maintained that, as per the definition of tenant in Section 3 (r) of the Karantaka rent Control Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), a person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour, must satisfy the first criteria in the definition clause, namely, "any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for the premises". In the instant case, the tenancy has expired on 1. 1. 1978; thereafter (while the tenant has factually not paid the rent) his liability is only to compensate the landlord by paying damages or mesne profits for his unlawful possession; the amount so paid would not be rent. Developing this line of proposition, Mr. Sunder Swami relied on Section 31 of the act, which reads thus:"31. Exemption in respect of certain building. Nothing contained in this part shall apply to a non-ressidential building the monthly rent of which exceeds five hundred rupees or the annual rental value of which exceeds six thousand rupees: provided that the exemption under this section shall not apply:- (i) to any building taken on lease by a public authority or by an educational institution; or (ii) to any building occupied by more than one tenant each paying monthly rent exceeding five hundred rupees or an annual rent not exceeding six thousand rupees".

( 6 ) IT is propounded, by Mr. Sunderswami, that as the tenant of a non-residential premises, whose rent exceeds rs. 500/- per month, cannot be evicted under Part V of the Act, he is not a tenant, who is liable to pay rent; on the other hand, he would be like an unauthorised occupant, whose liability is to pay damages, for his unlawful possession. Strong reliance for this proposition is placed on raghunandan Prasad Garg's case; the relevant portion, which is pressed into service r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document