Holding

A sub‑tenant inducted after the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 is not a "deemed tenant" under Section 22 and is liable to eviction under Section 30 when the principal tenant is evicted.

Summary

The landlord (appellants) leased land to a tenant (respondent No.1) who was permitted to construct a building and sub‑let portions. After the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 came into force, the tenant inducted sub‑tenants. The landlord sought eviction under Section 21(1) of the Act. The trial court ordered eviction of both tenant and sub‑tenants, holding that sub‑tenants inducted after the Act were not "tenants" under Section 3(r) and thus fell within Section 30. The High Court reversed, extending the protection of a "deemed tenant" under Section 22 to lawful sub‑tenants inducted after the Act. The Supreme Court held that Section 22 was intended only for sub‑tenants inducted before the Act, while Section 23 expressly prohibited sub‑letting after the Act without consent, and that such post‑Act sub‑tenants are liable to eviction under Section 30. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and restored the trial court order.

Issues considered

Whether a sub‑tenant inducted after the commencement of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 is entitled to the protection of a "deemed tenant" under Section 22.
Whether such a post‑Act sub‑tenant can be evicted under Section 30 of the Act when the principal tenant is evicted under Section 21(1).
Whether the provisions of Sections 22 and 23 of the Act can be read together to extend protection to post‑Act sub‑tenants.

Legislation cited

Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961s. 21(1)(d), s. 21(1)(f), s. 21(1)(h), s. 21(1)(j), s. 21(1)(p), s. 22, s. 23, s. 30, s. 3(r)

Subjects

landlord-tenantsub‑leasedeemed tenantevictionstatutory interpretationsocial legislationliberal constructionKarnataka Rent Control Act

Judgment

O. GJRIYAPPA AND ORS. A
v.
ANANTHARAI L. PAREKH AND ORS.

APRIL 7, 1994 __

[S. MOHAN AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.] B

Kamataka Rent Control Act, 1961: Sections 3(r), 21(1) (d) (f) (h) (j)
t (p), 22, 23 and JO.

Landlord-Tenant-Lease-Tenns of-Lessee entitled to sub-let-But
su/J-te11ants inducted after the coming into force of the Act-Protection af-
c
forded to a 'Deemed Tenant' under the Act-Whether can be afforded to such
a sub-tenant.

Interpretation of Statutes-Social Legislation-:lnterpretation of-
Liberal construction-When pennissible. D

The appellants' father leased a plot of land to Respondent No. 1.
Under the terms of the lease deed the respondent-lessee was entitled to
-;
) construct a building and to let and sub-let any portion of the premises.
lie constructed a building on the plot leased and subsequent to the coming
Into Carce of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 Inducted Respondents
E
2 to 8 as sub-tenants. The appellants filed an application for recovery of
possession under Section 21(1) (d) (I) (h) (j) and (p). The Trial Court
passed the eviction order against all the respondents holding that since
tbe 'Tenant' defined under Section 3(r), did not inclnde sub-tenants in·
ducted after the Act came into force the tenant and sub-tenants were liable F
to be evicted under section 30 of the Act.
1 The respondents preferred Revision Petitions before the High Court
Wl!icb were allowed holding that (i) a case of lawful sub-letting will not
11ttr11ct Section 21(1) (I) as a ground for ordering the eviction of the tenant
11nd snb·tenant; (ii) the protection afforded to a deemed tenant nnder G
Section 22 was equally available to a lawful sub-tenant inducted after
coming into force of the Act; and (iii) since the tenants had acquired the
status of a deemed teuant upon determination of the Interest of the tem\nt
_.. In the premises, they acquired an independent title to such premises, and
therefore, section 30 inapplicable to their cases. H
403
~I

404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] 3 S.C.R.

A In appeals to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellants
that a sub-tenant, even if lawfully inducted, after coming into force of the
Act, is liable to be evicted in view of section 30 of the Act, and the High
Court was, therefore, notjustlied in observing that the protection afforded
to a deemed tenant was equally available to such a lawful sub-tenant.

B On behalf of the respondents it was contended that the Act is a piece
of social legislation meant mainly to protect tenant from frivolous eviction
and, therefore, it should be interpreted liberally to subserve the interest of
the tenants to the extent passible.

C Allowing the appeals and setting aside the order of the High Court,
this Court

HELD : 1. The High Court was not justified in dovetailing Section
23 (1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 in Section 22 to equate the
status of a sub-tenant inducted before the coming into force of the Act with
D that of the one inducted after coming into operation of the Act on the basis
of assumed intention of the legislature in enacting the Act of liberal
construction of the provision thereof. [410-B·CJ '
(

2. The Karnataka Rent control Act, 1961 has not defined 'tenant' to
E Include a 'sub-tenant'. But then, the legislature thought it fit to protect the
sub-tenants who were lawfully inducted before coming into operation of the
Act by giving them the status of a 'tenant' by the deeming provisions of
Section 22. Section 23 (1), however, expressly prohibits a tenant from
inducting a sub-tenant after tloe coming into force of the Act except in
accordance with a contract permitting such sub-letting. In case of any
F sub-letting in breach of the above provision the tenant is liable not only for
eviction under Section 21(1) (I) but also for conviction under Section 23(2) l
of the Act. On a conspectus of the above two sections it is, therefore, patently
clear that they have been enacted for distinct and different purposes. While
by Section 22 the legisfature bas conferred certain rights to lawful sub-
G tenants, by Section 23 it bas curtailed the right of sub-leasing.
(409-G-H; 410-A-B]
3.1. The High Court is right in observing that a case of lawful
sub-letting in accordance with section 23 will not attract Section 21 (1) (I)
of. the Act as a ground for eviction of the tenant and for that matter the
H sub-tenant, but High Court failed to notice that the same principle will not
(~

GIRIYAPPA v. A.L. PAREKH 405
/' apply to other grounds envisaged nnder section 21(1). Section 30 clearly A
'-L
' envisages that if an order is made by the Court for recovery of possession
in accordance with Section 21 it will be binding on all persons who may be
. in occupation of the premises and vacant possession thereof is to be given
to the landlord by evicting them unless any of them can claim an inde-
pendent title to such premises. Thus, if a tenant is liable to eviction on any B
of the grounds mentioned in section 21(1) of the Act, a sub-tenant lawfully
inducted by him before coming into force of the Act may not be ipso facto
t liabl~ to be evicted thereby in view of his acquiring an independent right
as a 'deemed tenant' under Section 22 of the Act; bot lawful sob-tenant
inducted after coming into force of the Act would be so liable as his
occupation is co-terminus with that of the tenant, in absence of any such, C
'deemed right' and privily between him and the landlord. As the sub-
tenants clearly fall under the latter category they are liable to be evicted
pursuant to the order of eviction made against the tenant. [410H, 411-A-D)

3.2. Ifreally the legislature intended to club the sub-tenants inducted
before and after the coming into force of the Act as 'deemed tenants' they D
could have done so by simply omitting the words 'before coming Into
operation of this Act' in section 22. [410-G)
-<
I
4. It is true that the Act is a piece of social legislation enacted
primarily to protect the interest of the tenants and, therefore, needs liberal E
construction. But then liberal construction has to Oow from the language
used for, an unnatural and unreasonable interpretation of words con•
tained in an enactment is impermissible. The language nsed in the relevant
sections of the Act does not permit the liberal interp_retation given by the
High Court. (410-D]
F
Kewal Singh v. Lajwanti, (1980) I S.C.R. 864 and Gian Devi Anand
v. Jeevan Kumar, (1985) Suppl. 1 S.C.R. 1, held inapplicable.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4845-47
of 1991.
G
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.2.91 of the Karnataka High
Court in C.R.P. Nos. 6042, 6267 and 6009 of 1989.

S.B. Wad, G. Mohan, Promila Choudhary, T.V.S.N. Chari and NikhlI
Nayar for the appellants. H
\ !

406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) 3 S.C.R.

A . · S.S. Javari, Ms. Kiran Sur~ P. Mahale and K.R. Nagaraja for the
Respondents. . · · · ·

· .The Judgment of the Court was deliv~r~d by

1\1.K. MUKHERJEE, J. The landlords-applicants in an application
. B for eviction are the appellants in these three appeals. Facts leading to the
filing of the appeals are as under.

Gangadharappa, the. father of the appellants, was the owner of a .
vacant site bearing No. 2fJ7, situated at Srinivas Mandir Road, Balepet
C Cross, Bangalore. He executed a deed in favour of the respondent No. 1
herein leasing the said site for a period of 20 years commenciog from
January 6, 1%6. The lease deed provided, inter alia, that the Jessee would
be entitled to construct a building at his own expense and use it for himself
and for others at his iostan.;.,. It further provided as follows :

D "The Jessee may Jet or sub-let any portion of the whole of the
premises to anybody whomsoever he likes. But the Jessee shall
deliver possession of the same to the lessor or to his successors-
. io-ioterest at the expiry ~f the lease,' . . .

E Pursuant to. the s;ud lease the respondent No.1 took possession of
· the site, constructed a building thereon and inducted the respondent Nos.
2 to. 8 hereio as his te~ants (hereioafter referred to as the 'sub-tenants')
Before the period of lease expired Gangadbarappa died leaving behind the
appellrnts as his heirs. · ·

· .F ·· After the expiry of the period of lease, the appellants served notices
·upon the respondent No. 1 and the sub-tenants, calling upon them to hand
over vacant possession of the demised premises; and on their failure to do
·so filed rui. application
. io the Court of- the Small Causes, Bangalore for
~

recovery of possession on grounds mentioned in clauses (d)(J)(h)G} and
(p). of Section 21(1) of the Kamal aka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('Act' for
G .short} on consideration of the materials placed before it, the Court
recorded a fmdiog that the ground referred to in clause (p) of said section
was only made out as the landlords had been able to prove that the
•..__respondent No. 1 had acquiied another suitable building and shifted there
....
, to carry on hiS own business. As, according to the Court, 'tenant', as
H. defined in Section 3(r) of the-Act, did not include a person inducted by
GIRIYAPPA v.ALPAREKH[MUKHERJEE,J.) 407

him after the coming into force of the Act it held that on proof of the above . A
ground not only the respondent No. 1 but the other respondents also were
liable to be evicted in view of Section 30 of the Act. Resultantly, the Court
passed an order directing eviction of all the respondents from the premises.
Aggrieved thereby the respondent Nos.2, 5 and 4 herein filed three
separate revision petitions in the High Court. On an analysis of the various
provisions of the Act as applicable to the facts of the case, the High Court
B
allowed the revision petitions and dismissed the application for eviction
with the following fmdings :-

'I therefore hold that under the provision of the Karnataka Rent
Control Act, eviction of the tenant and sub-tenant can be claimed C
if the landlord establishes that the tenant has unlawfully sublet the
premises to the sub-ten.J.t. A case of lawful subletting will not
attract Sec. 21(1)(1) of the Act as a ground for ordering the eviction
of the tenant and the sub-tenant. Having regard to the provisions
of s.21{1){f) read with S.21{3) and S.22 and 23 of the Act it must
/be held that a sub-tenant, who is inducted by a tenant with the D
prior written consent of the landlord is a lawful sub-tenant. Such
a sub-tenant becomes a deemed tenant when the interest of the
tenant is determined for any reaso~. The protection afforded to a
deemed tenant under S.22 of the Act is equally available to a lawful
sub-tenant inducted after coming into force of the Act, upon E
determination of the interest of the tenant in the premises. Such
a lawful sub-tenant can therefore seek .the protection of the Act
including those under Section 21 of the Act. In the instant case,
therefore, the learned Judge erred in law in holding that since the
ground for the eviction of the tenant was made out under
' S.2l{l)(p) of the Act, the sub-tenant could also be evicted having F
regard to the provisions of S.30 of the Act. If the tenants acquired
the status of a .deemed tenant upon termination of the interest of
the tenant in the premises, they acquired an independent title to
such premises, and therefo~e S30 was inapplicable to their cases.'
~ G
To comprehend the rival contention of the parties as put forward
before us it will be pertinent to refer to some of the provisions of the Act.
Section 3(r) defines 'tenant'; and, so far as it is relevant for our 'purposes,
means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a
premises and includes some of the members of his family (as mentioned
therein) but does not include a person placed in occupation of a premises ii
408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 3 S.C.R.

A by its tenant. Section 21(1), in its various clauses, enumerates the grounds
on which only a tenant can be evicted; and clause (I) refers to unlawful
subletting by the tenant. Section 22 runs thus :-

"Where the interest of a tenant of any premises is determined for
any reason, any sub-tenant to whom the premises or any part
B thereof has been lawfully sub-let before coming into operation of
this Ac~ shall, subject to the prmisions of this Act, be deemed to
become the tenant of the landlord on the same terms and condi-
tions as he would have held from the tenant if the tenancy had
continued. n
c (emphasis supplied)

and Section 23 reads as under :-

(1) "Notwithstanding ani~hing contained in any law, but subject
to any contract to th<: contrary, it shall not be lawful after the
D
coming into operation of this Act, for any tenant to sub-let
whole or any part of the premises let to him or to assign or
transfer in any oth~r manner his interest therein;

(2) Any person who contravenes the provisions of sub- section(!),
E shall, on conviction, be punished with fine which may extent
to one hundred rupees."

(Emphasis supplied)

The other section which is material for our purposes is Section 30
F which is extracted below:

''Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, where the
interest of the tenant if any premises is determined for any reason
whatsoever and any order is made by the court under this Act for
G
the recovery of possession of such premises the order shall, subject
to the provisions of Section 21, be binding on all persons who may
..
be in occupation of the premises and vacant possession thereto
shall be given to the landlord by evicting such persons therefrom;

Provided that nothing in this Section shall apply to any person who
H has an independent title to such premises."
GIRIYAPPA v. ALPAREKH [MUKHERJEE, J .] 409

It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that having regard A
to admitted fact that the tenancy in favour of the respondent No. 1 was
created after the Act came into force, Section 22 cannot have any manner
of application so as to entitle the sub-tenants to claim an independent right
as 'deemed tenants' and, for that matter, protection from eviction when the
tenant is liable lo eviction on any of the ground• mentioned in Section B
21(1). In other words, according to the appellants, a sub-tenant, even if
lawfully inducted, after coming into force of the Act, is liable to be evicted
in view of Section 30 of the Act. The High Court was, therefore, not
justified in observing that the protection afforded to a deemed tenant was
equally available to such a lawful sub-tenant.
c
In repelling the above contentions, it has been submitted on behalf
of the respondents that the Act has been brought on the statute book as a
piece of social legislation meant mainly to protect tenant from frivolous
eviction and, therefore, the provi&ions of the Act should be interpreted
liberally to subserve the interest of the tenants to the extent possible; and D
in support of the contention reliance is placed on the judgments of this
Court in Kewal Singh v. Lajwanti, [1980] 1 SCR 864 and Gian Devi Anand
v. Jeevan Kumar, [1985] Suppl 1 SCR 1. It has been next argued that when
considered in the light of the propositions enunciated in the above cases
the High Court was fully justified in extending the protection of a 'deemed
tenant' under Section 22 to a sub-tenant lawfully inducted after the coming E
into force of the Act in view of Section 23. Having given our anxious
consideration to the relevant provisions of the Act, we are inclined to
accept the contentions of the appellants in preference to these of the
respondents.
F
Unlike the Delhi Rent Control Act and Rent Acts of some other
~\ States, the Act with which we are concerned has not defined 'tenant' to
include a 'sub-tenant'. But then, the legislature thought it fit to protect the
sub-tenants who were lawfully inducted before coming into operation of
the Act by giving them the status of a 'tenant' by the deeming provisions
of Section 22. Section 23(1}, however, expressly prohibits a tenant from G
inducting a sub-tenant after the coming into force of the Act except in
accordance with a contract permitting such sub-letting. In case of any
sub-letting in breach of the above provision the tenant is liable not only for
eviction under Section 21(1) (f) but also for conviction nnder Section 23(2)
of the Act. On a conspectus of the above two sections it is, therefore, H
410
\
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) 3 S.C.R.
I

A patently clear that they have been enacted for distinct and different pur-
poses. While by Section 22 the legislature has conferred certain rights to
la\\ful sub-tenants, by Section 23 it has curtailed the right of sub-leasing.
By reading of Sections 22 and 23 it appears to us that the policy of the Act
is to discourage sub-letting as seell from Section 23. However, where
B sub-tenants have been inducted lawfully prior to the coming into the force
of the Act, they are afforded certain protection under the Act. As these
conclusions are inevitable from the plain language of the statute, the High
Court was not justified in dovetailing Section 23(1) in Section 22 to equate
•the sta\us of_ a sub-tenant inducted before the coming into force of the Act
with that of the one inducted after coming operation of the Act on the
C · basis of assumed intention of the legislature in enacting the Act and liberal
construction of the provisions thereof.

It is, of course, true that the Act is a piece of social legislation
enacted primarily to protect the interest of the tenants as observed in the
D case of Kewal Singh (supra) and, therefore, needs hoeral construction. But
then hoeral' construction has to flow from the language used for, an
Uillla'tural and unreasonable interpretation of words contained in an enact-
ment is impermissible. As the language used in the relevant sections of
the Act with which we are concerned herein does not permit the liberal
interpretation given by the High Court, the case of Kewal Singh (supra)
E does not further the cause of the appellants. In the case of Gian Devi
(supra) this Court had to answer the. question whether tenancy of commer-
cial premises, like that of residential premises, was also heritable under the
Delhi Rent Control Act. In absence of any provision in that Act governing
the same, the Court answered the question on the basis of the intention of
F the legislature. This judgment has a1so no manner of application in the facts
of the instant case as we have found th~ relevant provisions of Act
transparent and unequivocal. Besides, if we go by the intention of the
legi<lature alone, it would not support the case of the respondents herein
for if really the legislature intended to club the sub-tenants inducted before
and after the coming into force of the Act as 'deemed tenants' they could
G have done so by simply omitting the words 'before coming into operation
of this Act' in Section 22.

Of course, the High Court is right in observing that a case of lawful
sub-letting in accordance with Section 23 will not attract Section 21(1) (f)
H of the Act as a ground for eviction of the tenant and for that matter the
GIRIYAPPA v. AL PAREKH [MUKHERJEE, J.] 411

sub-tenan4 but the High Court·fi!iled to .notice that the same principle will A
not apply to other grounds envisaged under Section 21(1). While on this
point it will be pertinen.t to refer to-the provisions. of Section 30 of the Ac4
quoted earlier. The .said ~e~ti~n ci~arly.e~;_,;sage~ th~t order is made if,;,;
by the Court for reco~~~y of ·pos~~ssio~ in ·-~~co;dance with Section 21 of
the Act it will be binding on all persons ·who may be in occupation of the
premises and vacant possession thereof is to be given to the landlord by
B
evicting them unless any of.them can claim an· independent. title to such
premises. Thus, if a tenant is liable to eviction on any of the grounds
mentioned in. Section)l(l). of, the Ac4 .a sub-\enant law(ully .indlll'ted by
him before· coming into force of Act may. not, be ..ipso facto liable to be
evicted thereby in view of.hi.$ acquiring.aµ independent rightas a .'det:med c
tenant'. under Section .22 ofthe .Act; but l~wful sub-tenant. inducted after
coming. into force of ,the Act w0u\d qe so liable ~s his. occupation is .co-
terminus with that of the. tenant,. in.absence of any such,,'deeined dg\it' and
privily between him and the landlord. As respondent Nos. 2 to 8 .clearly
fall under the latter category they arc liable to be evicted pursuant to the D
order"of eviction· made agairist"the reSpbhdent-No:l. JJ· .J'·n uJ. rr
0
.I \II, ,f '" t:, , ,) ..!~t;i 'I' 0 1., J. (

; , .For. the foregoing., discussion w_e .allow these appeals, set aside the
order of the High.Court and restore that of the Trial Court However, there
will be no o~der as to costs. . 1 "·· 1, ·\ -- - - ·, ·./;

l

T.N.A.
,, ' / 11,. E
...... ! 1

·~:. J
"" •II
_,,~,.

', :1.
~·
I J t1·~t 1 1: :' •tHI• l j,_; I Jl.a1. ~Hl;· J ,,,, I • b1:.1, ~ht 11.d ., .b• ' '
• ,;:/':' ,,
) •'''
·'fl: i n,u ~1r ..lli•iJ1 e'.: ti..i.•:1;,f'1·\ ~t)I (: -L "*"[ jt. ' ,(•,,l' i!_1 ), ..
t, • '~ "..ll'"' "' .t1 ..i't bru, ··~ 1l•t; ~ ~ •Ilt,• ! J) it1 a,J·y j'• ., b ~ ~: J
.J. 'I'• '·•~ tJ~iC ''· ~ ,~·;;;.,.£1"·, j ·.f: •"I '',} 11.h"' i;{lf l''>tl J> "I>"'· h"JJ,.-;;.r (t'" J·

• r t. Jll.t 11 t .,, : .1 ::_i,

•t;.1,oi J>i•IJ.O~HJc>kl lJ o H: :I 1, 1 · H...:111.;lh.1q,, ''
·• 1 °" . I·"'~ ~1lbo"

'1U'•
' " ~···pl?·,-. ·1 I I·~ ;f)1 .. ~ l> . 'l' ,, •i•r',:U

,. ... ., I•·:
I .1H; "I) 4•-·· ' 1, ' .·1·f11 ·iwh
" ~- t I i <'
' ". I