Rent control statute overrides contractual tenancy, allowing eviction on statutory grounds despite a subsisting lease.

The Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 overrides contrary contractual terms through its non obstante clause, so a subsisting lease does not by itself prevent eviction when the statute applies. Recovery of possession remains confined to the statutory grounds in the Act, and the landlord could proceed on that basis despite the lease. On the facts, the tenant also failed to deposit the arrears of rent as directed, and the eviction order had already attained finality in connected proceedings, leaving no basis to resist eviction.

---

---

Issues: Whether, during the subsistence of a contractual tenancy, a landlord can seek eviction under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 notwithstanding the lease; and whether the tenant could avoid eviction in the facts of the case.

Analysis: Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 contains a non obstante clause overriding any contrary contract or other law and permits recovery of possession only on the statutory grounds specified in the Act. The governing principle is that, once the rent control statute applies, contractual tenancy does not by itself bar resort to the statutory grounds for eviction. The tenant's reliance on the subsistence of the lease was therefore untenable. On the facts, the tenant had also failed to comply with the direction to deposit the arrears of rent, and the eviction order had already attained finality in the connected proceedings.

Conclusion: The landlord was entitled to proceed under the Rent Control Act despite the contractual lease, and the appeal failed.

---