Bona fide need and unlawful subletting confirmed where prior written consent did not survive expiry of the contractual tenancy.

A revisional court may correct a trial finding that is vitiated by legal infirmity, and the landlord's bona fide need was upheld where oral evidence and surrounding circumstances showed lack of suitable premises and genuine business use. Subletting was also held unlawful because written consent given during the contractual tenancy did not continue after its expiry; a statutory tenancy did not authorise a fresh subtenancy without renewed written consent. Eviction was therefore sustained on both grounds, and comparative hardship did not survive for consideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the landlord established reasonable and bona fide requirement of the premises under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961; (ii) Whether the subletting of one shop was unlawful for want of subsisting written consent of the landlord so as to attract Section 21(1)(f) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether the landlord established reasonable and bona fide requirement of the premises under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961.

Analysis: The revisional court under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 could correct findings that were vitiated by infirmity. The landlord's need was supported by oral evidence and surrounding circumstances showing that the firm had no suitable premises of its own, had purchased the suit property for business use, and was unlikely to have invested heavily merely to earn rent. The trial court had been affected by irrelevant considerations and had not assessed the need in the correct perspective.

Conclusion: The landlord's reasonable and bona fide requirement was proved and the finding in its favour was sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the subletting of one shop was unlawful for want of subsisting written consent of the landlord so as to attract Section 21(1)(f) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961.

Analysis: Under the rent law then in force, subletting after commencement without the landlord's written consent was a ground for eviction. The consent contained in the 1943 letter was confined to the contractual tenancy period and did not continue after expiry of that tenancy. A statutory tenancy did not carry forward a right to create a fresh subtenancy without renewed written consent. The later subletting in 1948 was therefore without the required consent.

Conclusion: The subletting was unlawful and the ground of eviction was established.

Final Conclusion: The decree for eviction was upheld on both grounds, and no question of comparative hardship survived for consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: In a revision where the trial court's finding is vitiated by legal infirmity, the High Court may reassess correctness of the finding; and a landlord's written consent to subletting given for the contractual tenancy does not survive its expiry so as to validate a fresh subletting made later without renewed written consent.

---