Ramegowda Vs. Gowramma

Ramegowda vs Gowramma

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Nov 05, 1985

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/380477

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/380477
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: K.A. Swami, J.
Decided On: Nov 05, 1985
Case Number: C.R.P. No. 3105 of 1985
Subject: Tenancy

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

KARNATAKA RENT CONTROL ACT, 1961 (Karnataka Act No. 22 of 1961) - Section 21(1)(f) -- In the absence of exclusive possession of premises or portion parted with, residence of relative or friend not sub-letting.;There is no specific finding that the petitioner has parted with possession of any portion of the premises ...

Key legal issue: Tenancy
Acts & sections: Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 - Sections 21(1)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ramegowda

Advocate Diwakar, Adv.

Respondent

Gowramma

Advocate C. Srinivasa Vakil, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 - Sections 21(1)
Reported In: ILR1986KAR992

Excerpt

.....or a friend resides with the tenant for a certain period continuously or otherwise does not amount to sub-letting as long as there is no exclusive possession of the premises or a portion of the premises, by such person. - karnataka panchayat raj act (14 of 1993) section 209 & proviso (since deleted) :[p.d. dinanaran, cj and v.g. sabhahit,j] powers of the gram panchayat to dispose immovable property - proposal of gram panchayat to dispose of certain sites resolution - highest bid by petitioners -taluk panchayat confirming the bid - zilla panchayat suspending the proposal of gram panchayat -confirmed by government writ petition petition dismissed by single judge - however, taking into consideration the subsequent amendment to section 209 of the act, single judge has reserved liberty to the grama panchayat to redo the entire process of securing necessary permission for the formation of the layout, and disposal of the sites strictly in accordance with law and the rules and if the petitioners stand to benefit, the grama panchayat shall accordingly adjust the amount deposited by the petitioners in the auction in the year 1998 and if they do not stand to the benefit, the grama panchayat is directed to refund the monies in deposit to such of those petitioners, with interest at 12p.a., on the said sum, without any delay writ appeal held, section 209 of the karnataka panchayat raj act, 1993 deals with the procedure to be followed in the matter of acquiring, holding and disposing of the property both movable and immovable property of grama panchayat. the proviso to section 209 was deleted by amendment act 37 of 2003 but on the date of the impugned initiation of action to dispose of the immovable property owned by the grama panchayat the proviso was very much in operation. as per the proviso to section 209 what is required is the prior sanction of the taluk panchayat before initiating any action for the disposal of the property both movable and immovable and not a post..........premises is set aside. however, the eviction order passed on the ground that the petitioner has been allotted alternative suitable accommodation is affirmed. as the petitioner has been allotted suitable accommodation, it is not appropriate to grant longer time to vacate the premises in question. accordingly, the petitioner is granted time till the end of june, 1986 on conditions that the petitioner continues to pay the amount equivalent to the rent so far he has been paying to the respondent during the period of his occupation on or before the 15th of each month, and pays all the arrears of rent, if any, on or before the 15th december, 1985, further, he has to file an undertaking before the trial court within a month from to-day that he will not cause damage to the schedule premises and will not induct third person/s into the premises and hand over vacant possession of the premises to the respondent' landlord on or before the end of june, 1986. if the petitioner fails to comply with any one of the aforesaid conditions, irrespective of the fact that the time granted by this court has not expired, it is open to the respondent to proceed to execute the order of eviction.

Full Judgment

ORDER

K.A. Swami, J.

1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is justified in submitting that the finding recorded by the Trial Court that there is a sub-letting of the premises is not valid in law. I have gone through the finding on Point No. 3 recorded by the Learned Trial Judge. Learned Trial Judge has nowhere stated that the petitioner has let out or allowed a specific portion of the premises exclusively to be occupied by another person. In other words, there is no specific finding that the petitioner has parted with possession of any portion of the premises to another person. Merely because a relative or a friend resides with the tenant for a certain period continuously or otherwise does not amount to subletting as long as there is no-exclusive possession of the premises or a portion of the premises, by such person. Hence, the finding that there is sub-letting of the premises cannot be sustained. However, this conclusion of mine is not of any help to the petitioner in obtaining the relief in this revision because the order of eviction is also based on another ground that the petitioner has been allotted a suitable premises and as such is liable to be evicted under Section 21(1)(p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

2. It is not disputed before me and that is also the finding recorded by the Trial Court that the petitioner has been allotted a quarter belonging to a Co-operative Bank as the petitioner is an employee of the Co-operative Bank. The accommodation available in that quarter is similar to the premises in question. That being so, it is not possible to hold that the accommodation allotted to him by the Bank is not at all suitable to the petitioner. Hence, I do not see any ground to interfere with the finding recorded by the Trial Court that the petitioner has been allotted an alternative suitable accommodation.

3. For the reasons stated above, the civil revision petition is allowed in part. The eviction of the petitioner on me ground that there is sub-letting of the premises is set aside. However, the eviction order passed on the ground that the petitioner has been allotted alternative suitable accommodation is affirmed. As the petitioner has been allotted suitable accommodation, it is not appropriate to grant longer time to vacate the premises in question. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted time till the end of June, 1986 on conditions that the petitioner continues to pay the amount equivalent to the rent so far he has been paying to the respondent during the period of his occupation on or before the 15th of each month, and pays all the arrears of rent, if any, on or before the 15th December, 1985, Further, he has to file an undertaking before the Trial Court within a month from to-day that he will not cause damage to the schedule premises and will not induct third person/s into the premises and hand over vacant possession of the premises to the respondent' landlord on or before the end of June, 1986. If the petitioner fails to comply with any one of the aforesaid conditions, irrespective of the fact that the time granted by this Court has not expired, it is open to the respondent to proceed to execute the order of eviction.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 1985 Same Parties Ramegowda vs Gowramma Same Subject Tenancy Same Judge K.A. Swami, J. Acts & Sections Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 - Sections 21(1)

Tenancy