Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1993KAR414; 1993(1)KarLJ102
..... violative of article 14 of the constitution.ii. in the result, we make the following order: (i) rule made absolute.(ii) section 31 of the karnataka rent control act is declared void as offending article 14 of the constitution.(iii) a writ of mandamus shall issue to the state not to enforce the provisions of section 31 ..... held by the supreme court that the decree cannot be executed. the opening sentence of section 13(1) of the west bengal tenancy act is almost similar to section 21 of the karnataka rent control act. if the determination of the tenancy under the ordinary law resulted in the creation of status of a 'tenant at sufferance' and that ..... rs. 2,150/-. the premises was non-residential. in the circumstances, the plaintiff relied on section 31 of the karnataka rent control act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') to point out that part-v of the act was inapplicable and consequently, civil suit was maintainable against the tenant.2. the suit was initially filed on 1st september .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1993KAR1514; 1992(3)KarLJ729
..... by the learned counsel for the appellant for consideration.11. it has been contended lay the learned counsel for the appellant that the inducting of the tenant is dehors to karnataka rent control act. this argument is also untenable in view of the clear ruling of the supreme court in murlidhar agarwal and anr. v. state of uttar pradesh and ors. quoted above which ..... respondent leased out the premises to him. under section 4 of the karnataka rent control act, 1961 (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the act'), every landlord is required, within 15 days after the building becomes vacant, to give intimation by registered post to the controller. sub-section (2) of section 4 of the act lays down that no person shall let, occupy or otherwise use .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2000Kant334; ILR2000KAR2646; 2000(5)KarLJ274
..... of section 14(6) and section 14 of the karnataka rent control act, 1961 thereinafter called the 'act'), are consolidated for the purpose of disposal by a common order.2. in w.p. no. 9499 of 1988 the constitutional validity of section 14(6) of the act is challenged on the ground that the provision is arbitrary ..... to ensure that the 'fair rent' provisions have a in-built mechanism for periodical correction ofthe fair rent payable to the landlord to avoid recurrence of highly inequitable situation noticed in the case. in the circumstances, the writ petitions deserve to be allowed. section 14 of the karnataka rent control act is declared to be unconstitutional and ..... of serious concern because if this extrajudicial backlash gathers momentum the main sufferers will be the tenants, for whose benefit the rent control acts are framed.28. insofar as social legislation, like the rent control act is concerned, the law must strike a balance between rival interests and it should try to be just to all. the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1990KAR1252; 1990(1)KarLJ331
..... bearing no. a-1, on the ground that he required the premises for his personal use and occupation under section 21(1)(h) of the karnataka rent control act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'). it is not necessary to go into greater details of the proceedings relating to eviction of the petitioner from the premises bearing no. a-1.3 ..... : [1988]2scr81 .in p. kesavan's case, the supreme court considered a similar provision contained in section 17 of the kerala buildings (lease and rent control) act, 1965. section 17 of the aforesaid act was as follows:'17. conversion of buildings and failure by landlord to make necessary repairs: 1) no residential building shall be converted into a non-residential ..... a right of re-entry under section 25 of the act can be disposed of stating that the said contention apart from the fact that it is not relevant in this proceeding, it has also to be rejected in the light of the finding recorded by the rent controller that premises bearing no. a-1 is under repair. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1985KAR2367
..... cannot be permitted to contend that the landlord to whom he has paid rents is not the landlord and more so on the reason that the real landlord is the ..... noticed that there is no dispute that rents were being paid to the landlord. the moment respondent receives rents from the tenant-petitioner, the relationship of landlord and tenant is created in terms of definition of the terms 'landlord' and 'tenant' under section 3 of the karnataka rent control act. in such a situation, the tenant ..... ram chamberi : [1984]2scr290 . that is also a case decided under the rent control act but in totally different circumstances. there the premises were allotted by rent controller on the joint representation made by the tenants as well as the landlord before the rent controller. later the tenants who were the appellants before the supreme court admitted that the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1986KAR2480; 1987(1)KarLJ176
..... it is violative of article 14 of the constitution.11. in the result, we make the following order :(i) rule made absolute.(ii) section 31 of the karnataka rent control act is declared void as offending article 14 of the constitution.(iii) a writ of mandamus shall issue to the state not to enforce the provisions of section 31 ..... tenants of non-residential premises in the city of bangalore and elsewhere in the state have questioned the constitutional validity of section 31 of the karnataka rent control act ('the act' for short).2. in order to appreciate the question arising for consideration, it is necessary to set out briefly the scheme of the ..... act. the preamble to the act reads :'an act to provide for the control of rents and evictions, for the leasing of buildings, to control rates of hotels and lodging houses and for certain other matters in the state of karnataka.whereas it is expedient to provide for the control of rents and evictions, for the leasing of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR1931; 1997(3)KarLJ37
..... ; 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. in this case section 31 of the karnataka rent control act, 1961 (karnataka act no. 22 of 1961), (hereinafter referred to as the act) was struck down by this court on 1.7.1986. o.s.no. 1174/ ..... in (1968) 2 s.c.r. 559 we will have to consider the present compromise decree which was decree prior to the striking down of section 31 of the karnataka rent control act.14. the suit filed by the landlord in o.s. no. 1174 of 1983 was decreed on 21.4.1984. section 31 of the ..... executable. the decree in o.s.no. 1174/1983 was passed in a suit when section 31 of the karnataka rent control act was in existence. section 31 was struck down by this court in a decision reported in padmanabha rao v. state of karnataka, : ilr1986kar2480 learned counsel for the petitioner mr. narayan submitted that the decree was passed only because section 31 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1991KAR1256
..... the principles laid down by this court in the aforesaid judgment are therefore of no help to the landlords.19. i therefore hold that under the provisions of the karnataka rent control act, eviction of the tenant and sub-tenant can be claimed if the landlord establishes that the tenant has unlawfully sublet the premises to the sub-tenant. a case ..... since, he had no independent status as a tenant, he was bound by the eviction decree passed against the tenant and in terms of section 30 of the karnataka rent control act, he was liable to be evicted. the case is clearly distinguishable because that was not a case in which a sub-tenant was found to have been lawfully ..... to the said notice nor did they vacate the premises despite another notice dated 19-1 -1986.4. the landlords filed a petition under the provisions of the karnataka rent control act contending that the tenant and the sub-tenants were liable to be evicted on various grounds. the case of the landlords was that since the tenant was a .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2001(6)KarLJ394
..... constructions made by them', when they handed over the vacant possession to the lessors-landlords herein.4. during the subsistence of the lease, the karnataka rent control act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'act' for brevity) came into force, which governed the relationship of the landlord and tenant in the matter of evictions and other matters provided therein ..... revision petitioners-tenants firstly contended that what was leased in the year 1923 was an agricultural land. it is therefore not 'premises' within the meaning of karnataka rent control act: he elaborated by contending, the leasedproperty was an agricultural land, when the lease deed was made, and though on the date of filing of the ..... excludes the application of any provision of any other law including the provisions of section 108(j) of the transfer of property act, from the application provisions of the karnataka rent control act i.e., to say that, even though there is a statutory right to the tenant to sub-lease, if there was no .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2001Kant49
..... to month or year to year.' 11. the short point for consideration in these writ petitions is whether, the provisions u/s. 14 of the karnataka rent control act, 1961 was required to be taken into consideration by the first respondent for determining the arv of the property to fix the property tax by revising ..... that, the revision of property tax of the petitioner under the provisions of the act is in contravention of provisions of section 14 of the karnataka rent control act, 1961 (in short 'rent control act') as the first respondent was required to determine the fair rent and that should have been taken into consideration as the rateable value for the ..... that. assessment or revision of property tax should have been made by the respondents taking into consideration of the fair rent required to be determined as provided under section 14 of the karnataka rent control act in respect of the properties in question, is the relevant consideration for them, should have been taken into consideration by .....
Tag this Judgment!