Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2008KAR2753; 2009(1)KarLJ233; 2008(4)KCCR2452; 2008(5)AIRKar400; AIR2008NOC2823
..... it was a monthly tenancy. the plaintiff filed hrc no. 37/1989 under the provisions of the karnataka rent control act, 1961 for eviction of the defendant. in view of section 31 of the old act being restored by virtue of pronouncement of the supreme court, he withdrew the said eviction petition. the plaintiff got ..... is not included in the definition of the word 'building'. therefore, agricultural land and farmhouse do not fall within the definition of the premises, under the act.15. again 'premises' is broadly classified as residential and non-residential. residential purpose, residential user and purpose of residence is defined, which includes letting out ..... the premises for aiming a public institution. the public institution is also defined under the act. therefore, the premises which is not used for residential purpose which is let out for running a public institution, though not used for residential purpose are .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(1)KarLJ406
..... this petition, are the landlords and the respondent is the tenant. this petition is filed under sub-section (1) of section 50 of the karnataka rent control act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), challenging the correctness of the order dated 29th of march, 1996 made in h.r.c. no. 1016 of 1992 by the court of additional ..... affords the facility of eviction of the tenant to the landlord on certain specified grounds. this appears to us to be the general scheme of all the rent control acts, prevalent in other states in the country. this court has considered the import of the word 'requirement' and pointed out that it merely connotes that there ..... will not make the schedule premises as a non-residential premises. further, section 11 of the act provides that except as otherwise provided in the act, no residential building shall be converted into a non-residential building, except with the permission in writing of the controller. it is not the case of the tenant that at any time, the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1993Kant90; ILR1992KAR1296; 1992(2)KarLJ158
..... out that even after the termination of the contractual lease, the tenant continues to be a tenant by virtue of the provisions of the rent restriction act (rent control act) and therefore there was no question of terminating the contract once again by giving a notice to quit to such a lessee who continued in ..... the year 1989 the first respondent-landlord issued a quit notice and thereafter filed an eviction petition invoking s. 21(1)(h) of the karnataka rent control act, 1961 ('the act' for short). the first respondent herein stated that it intended to use the premises for exhibition of cinema shows, etc. and that its requirement was ..... animal, : [1980]1scr334 and held that because of the provisions of the act, the terms of the contract between the parties have no effect and the act overrides in other law or contract in the matter of evicting a tenant. the division bench held at page 193 of : air1986kant191 :'..... the non-obstinate clause in sub-sec. (1) of section 21 of the rent control act .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1999KAR3043; 1999(6)KarLJ558
..... the eviction orders has got the jurisdiction to execute them. the legislature in its wisdom has not made a reference to it in the rent control act, because the proceedings under the rent control act would be governed by the code of civil procedure itself. sections 37 and 38 of the cpc make it abundantly clear that the court ..... of the obstructer tenant was beyond the jurisdiction of this court'. on this basis he submitted after reading to me the provisions of the small causes courts act and rent control act that 'if there are two modes of invoking the jurisdiction of this court and the parties have already chosen and exhausted one mode, it would not ..... by the judge of the small causes, bangalore city on an application of the appellant raising obstruction to the execution of an eviction order passed under the karnataka rent control act.6. one late smt. savitramma, owner of a premises bearing no. 75, situated at bangalore south taluk which consists of a residential and non-residential premises, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1997Kant311; ILR1997KAR111; 1997(2)KarLJ1
..... arises for consideration, viz.,'whether during the subsistence of a contractual tenancy, it is open to the landlord to resort to proceedings under the karnataka rent control act.'thereafter, their lordships have considered the question in the light of the decision of the supreme court in v. dhanapal chettiar v.yesodai ammal, : ..... commercial corporation ltd., : air1993kant90 wherein, this court held that an eviction petition under the karnataka rent control act is not maintainable during the subsistence of the contractual tenancy. on the contrary, learned counsel for the landlords relied on a later decision of the ..... 4-1988, this eviction petition is not maintainable even if the landlords satisfy the conditions necessary tor getting an order of eviction under the karnataka rent control act. learned counsel for the tenants very strongly relied on a full bench decision of this court in sri ramakrishna theatres ltd. v. general investment and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1967Kant107; AIR1967Mys107; (1966)1MysLJ694
..... the right to enjoy the property that he is deprived of. his lordship accordingly held that section 3 (3) of the madras buildings (lease and rent control) act, 1949, providing for taking possession and for allotment of premises on reasonable rent, was not violative of article 19(1)(f) of the constitution and that ..... been upheld as valid, was sought to be supported by the decision of the madras high court in nataraja mudaliar v. madras state, : air1953mad252 . therein the controller acting under the orders of the government had taken possession of the premises and allotted the property to one sri lakshmivenkataraman, sub-inspector of police. in discussing the validity ..... state government passed an order on may 6, 1965, in pursuance of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 8 of the mysore rent control act, 1961 (hereinafter called the 'act') directing that the premises in question be allotted in favour of sri a.r. naizamuddin, deputy commissioner of police (respondent no. 3). on receipt .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1996KAR1853; 1996(2)KarLJ726
..... proceedings are hereinafter referred to with reference to their status in the original proceedings.3. this revision petition, filed under section 60(1) of the karnataka rent control act, 1961, for short 'the act', is directed against the order dated june 30, 1995, passed by the xiii additional judge, court of small causes, mayo hall, bangalore, in hrc no. ..... case as the said decisions have been rendered in the context of the provisions under the different rent enactments and not under the provisions of the karnataka rent control act, particularly in view of the difference in the provisions.10. before i advert to the rival contentions raised by the parties it is necessary to state certain admitted ..... to permanent structure leading to the forfeiture of the tenancy of the tenants under the provisions of the bombay rents, hotel and lodging house rents control act, 1974, has held as follows:'19. in khureshi ibrahim ahmed v. ahmed haji khanmahomad, in connection with section 13(1)(b) of the rent .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1982Kant58; ILR1981KAR1276; 1981(2)KarLJ225
..... institution of the proceedings till the order is satisfied and determine the respondent's right for possession under section 21(1)(h) of the karnataka rent control act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the act). according to him, as long as the order for possession is not executed and his client continues in possession, the 'lispends', and it is ..... in any way affect the right of the respondent for recovering possession.7. the landlord's rights over the premises are not absolute but are controlled and regulated by the provisions of the act. the lease of the premises the rent payable and the recovery of possession of the premises leased are all regulated by the ..... premises leased to the petitioners and, (ii) the sons, their wives and children are not members of the 'family' of the respondent as defined in the act and therefore the respondent cannot apply for recovering possession of the petition premises to provide accommodation to persons who do not come within the meaning of the term 'family .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2009(3)KarLJ386; 2009(1)KCCR551; 2009(2)AIRKarR214; AIR2009NOC1286
..... : ilr2006kar212 the facts in that case were, an eviction petition was filed in the year 1989, under section 21(1)(h) of the karnataka rent control act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 1961 act). during the pendency of the petition, the tenant died as on 10.3.1991. his legal representatives were brought on record. the petition was ultimately ..... in respect of the very premises in case no. hrc 10352/1983 under section 21(1)(a)(h) and (p) of the karnataka rent control act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the '1961 act'). the same was dismissed on merits by order dated 12.4.1989, and was confirmed in a revision petition before this court in hrrp 4879/1989 ..... public market, cart-stand or slaughter house or of rents for shops has-been framed out or leased by a heal authority.part-v of the said act provided for control of eviction of tenants and obligation of landlords. there is no difficulty in holding that the present respondents answered the description of tenants and could have been .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2009KAR1120; 2009(1)KarLJ538; 2008(4)KCCRSN290
..... contended that the tenants of the premises situated within the area of town municipal council are denied the protection from eviction which was given under the repealed karnataka rent control act, 1961. further, the owners are evicting the tenants at their whims and fancies without requiring to show the bona fide requirement of the landlord and hardship that would ..... and not to others depending on particular circumstances. in kishan singh and ors. v. state of rajasthan and ors. : [1955]2scr531 , the validity of marwar land revenue act, 1949, was challenged on the ground that it applied only to marwar portion of the state of rajasthan and not to the whole of the state. the apex court held ..... be caused to the tenant in the event of eviction. it is further submitted that non-application of the provisions of chapter vi of the act is totally irrational and has no basis in law for denying the protection and the tenants as a class in the urban area are similarly placed with that .....
Tag this Judgment!