Article 136 proceedings survive repeal; conversion of a tenant's business into partnership did not prove sub-letting.

A State repeal statute did not abate an already instituted Article 136 proceeding, because a special leave petition is part of the Supreme Court's constitutional jurisdiction and cannot be curtailed by clear implication from a State enactment; the proceeding therefore survived for decision on merits. On sub-letting, the Court held that the landlord must show parting with legal possession or control of the premises, and a mere conversion of a tenant's sole proprietorship into a partnership, especially with family members and without proof of exclusive possession by outsiders, is not enough. Sub-letting was not proved, and the eviction ground under the rent law failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the repeal of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 by the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 caused the pending proceeding under Article 136 of the Constitution to abate; and (ii) whether conversion of the tenant's sole proprietary business into a partnership, on the facts of the case, amounted to sub-letting under Section 21(1)(f) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether the repeal of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 by the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 caused the pending proceeding under Article 136 of the Constitution to abate.

Analysis: The repeal and savings scheme in Sections 69 and 70 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 was construed as regulating pending matters according to their procedural stage and the applicability of the new Act to the premises. The Court held that the State Legislature could not, and did not, curtail the jurisdiction conferred by Article 136 of the Constitution. A special leave proceeding is an extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction and is not taken away by a State enactment unless that result follows clearly. Abatement provisions are to be strictly construed, and the expression used in the repealing statute was not read as extending to extinguish an already instituted proceeding under Article 136.

Conclusion: The proceeding under Article 136 did not abate and survived for decision on merits.

Issue (ii): Whether conversion of the tenant's sole proprietary business into a partnership, on the facts of the case, amounted to sub-letting under Section 21(1)(f) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961.

Analysis: Sub-letting requires parting with legal possession or the right to enjoy the premises. The burden lies on the landlord to establish the ground for eviction, at least by prima facie proof of exclusive possession by a stranger or a transfer of control. Mere change in the constitution of the business or admission of family members as partners does not by itself establish sub-letting. On the evidence, the tenant remained connected with the business, the partners were family members, and there was no material showing that possession or control had been parted with in favour of outsiders or that the partnership was a camouflage.

Conclusion: Sub-letting was not proved and the ground for eviction under Section 21(1)(f) was not made out.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the eviction order could not be sustained, and the eviction proceedings failed on merits despite the repeal issue being answered against abatement.

Ratio Decidendi: A State repealing statute cannot abate or curtail a proceeding under Article 136 of the Constitution unless such effect is clearly and validly provided, and a mere conversion of a tenant's business into a partnership does not amount to sub-letting unless legal possession or control of the premises is shown to have been parted with.

---