SHIVASHANKAR BHAT, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the writ petitioners, against the dismissal of their writ petition. The 1st appellant is referred as the appellant company hereinafter, for the sake of convenience.

( 2 ) THE question raised pertains to the applicability of the provisions governing fixation of fair rent under the karnataka Rent control Act, 1961 (for short, referred as the 'r. C. Act'), to the premises leased by the appellant-company to the 1st respondent.

( 3 ) APPELLANT-COMPANY is a company registered under Indian Companies Act and its entire share capital is owned by the government of India. It has in possession vast extent of mining area, obtained by it on mining lease from the State Government. In some of the areas if has put up structures, which have been granted by it on lease to persons like the 1st respondent. Here, the subject-matter of lease is stated, originally to be a Trailor-shop, converted into a flour- mill, though, the first respondent asserts the same to be a 'building-cum-residence'. The rent was fixed long ago. The appellant-company issued notice revising the rent payable by the first respondent, in the year 1981. Thereafter, the first respondent filed an application under Section 14 of the R. C. Act, before the 2nd respondent for fixation of fair rent. .

( 4 ) THE appellant-company questioned the applicability of the R. C. Act to the premises in question mainly on two grounds - (i) that the premises is covered by the provisions of public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised occupants) Act, 1971 (for short referred as the P. P. Act), which is a Central enactment, which overrides the provisions of R. C. Act; and (ii) the R. C. Act is not applicable to the premises in question and the relationship between the parties hereto, in view of Section 2 (7) of the R. C. Act.

( 5 ) THE 2nd respondent did not accept the plea of the appellant-company and fixed the fair rent. This was challenged by the appellant-company in the writ petition.

( 6 ) THE main contention urged by the appellant company, was that, the premises belonging to it come within the definition of 'public premises, as defined under Section 2 (e) of the P. P. Act and hence governed by the provisions of the said Act; in view of this, it was contended that the provisions of the r. C. Act are inapplicable to its premises. The provisions of the P. P. Act, which is a central enactment overrides, the provisions of the R. C. Act.

( 7 ) THE learned single Judge rejected this contention, and held, that, the P. P. Act covered only the subject of eviction of persons who are in occupation of public premises and not the fixation of fair rent for the said premises. The field of fixing fair rent not being occupied by the Central Law, (P. P. Act), there is no repugnancy between the provisions of the P. P. Act and the provisions governing the fixation of fair rent under the R. C. Act.

( 8 ) THE learned counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Jain ink Manufacturing Company v. Life Insurance corporation of India and Another (AIR 1981 sc 670) in support of his contention. The learned single Judge before whom this decision was cited, found the same inapplicable to the facts of the case. The premises belonged to L. I. C. which determined the lease of the appellant-tenant and initiated action under the provisions of P. P. Act to evict the appellant, who objected to the applicability of the P. P. Act. Thereafter, the tenant challenged the order made under the P. P. Act by filing a writ petition in which, his contentions were negatived. It was argued there, that, the premises was covered by the Delhi Rent Control Act and that the tenant was protected by the said Act. Rejecting this contention, it was held, at paras-8 and 9:"so far as the Premises Act is concerned it operates in a very limited field in that it applies only to a limited nature of premises belonging only to particular sets of individuals, a particular set of juristic persons like com

Click Here to Read the rest of this document