TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (10) TMI 536
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he suit premises or any portion thereof, but had only entered into an agreement to run business on his behalf and he was not liable to be evicted. The original tenant died on 8.1.1983 and his legal representatives were brought on record. They filed a written statement on 1.8.1984 contending that their father had parted with possession of the suit premises to respondent No.1 and no decree could be passed against them. Respondent No.1 was impleaded as a defendant on an application made by him. He contended that he had become a partner with Bhaskaran with the consent of the appellants and partnership stood dissolved as on 10.12.1982 and thus he was a tenant under the appellant directly. His tenancy had not been terminated and, therefore,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt Act which forbids creation of sub-lease or assignment or transfer either whole or any part of the demised premises, the learned Judge was of the view that the original tenant allowed others to carry on the business in his name as he was unable to carry on the business by himself due to old age initially by inducting the first respondent as a partner of the firm and then in his own capacity as a owner of the business concern which was not an unknown mode of transfer of tenancy and, therefore, the first defendant was not a trespasser. He, however, noticed that the first respondent was not inducted with the consent of the landlord and therefore his possession becomes unlawful and he is liable to be evicted under the provisions of Section 21....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... hereby to the respondents." While considering the question whether the decision of this Court in Shobha Surendar case had impliedly overruled the decision of the Karnatak High Court in Padmanabha Rao's case, the High Court held that the decision laid down in Rattan Arya vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1986) 3 SCC 385, should be followed and the decision in D.C. Bhatia's case had no application. In D.C. Bhatia's case (supra) this Court was concerned with a provision under the Delhi Rent Control Act and Section 3(c) made it clear that the Act was not applicable to any premises whether residential or non-residential whose monthly rent exceeds three thousand rupees which is akin to the provision under Section 31 of the Karnat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o have tried to explain the decision of this Court and ought to have implicitly followed the decision of this Court. The law declared by this Court is clear that the D.C.Bhatia's case was applicable to the provisions of Karnataka Rent Control Act. So it was not open to the learned Judge to take any other view in the matter. Thus we are of the view that the direction issued by the High Court to the parties to work out their remedies under the Rent Control Act is not at all correct. However, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there has been no decision of this Court directly stating that the law declared by the High Court in Padmanabha Rao's case was not correct and, therefore, the view taken in Padmanabha Rao's case may be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... because the law declared by this Court was contrary to what was stated in Padmanabha Rao's case. Therefore that argument also is not sound and needs to be rejected. It is submitted that if we take the view that Section 31 of the Karnataka Rent Act is valid in view of D.C.Bhatia's case, then the enactment will keep out of its purview large number of premises inasmuch as the rent payable in respect of commercial premises in Bangalore will certainly be more than Rs. 500/- per month. We have given our careful consideration to this aspect of the matter. Relying upon the decisions in Malpe Vishwanath Acharya vs. State of Maharashtra 1998 (2) SCC 1, Rattan Arya vs. State of Tamil Nadu 1986(3) SCC 385, Motor General Traders vs. State of A.P.....