B. G. KUMARVELU AND ANR. versus K.R. KANAKARATHNAM CHETTY AND ORS.

B. G. KUMARVELU AND ANR. versus K.R. KANAKARATHNAM CHETTY AND ORS.

The dominant purpose of the lease was the building, to be used as a cinema theatre, with furniture and fittings as incidental; such a lease falls within the definition of 'building' and 'premises' under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. As major equipment necessary for running a cinema (projectors, amplifiers, screen, speakers) were not included in the lease, it was not a lease of a running cinema business. The appellants are entitled to protection under the Act and cannot be evicted except per its provisions.

Parties
Appellant: B.G. Kumarvelu; Respondent: K.R. Kanakarathnam Chetty; Respondent: K. Yasodamma; Respondent: Ramakrishnan; Respondent: Smt. Uma Devi; Respondent: Smt. Rajeshwari Gupta
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 January 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Karnataka Rent Control Act, Lease of Cinema Theatre, Eviction, Dominant Intention in Composite Leases
Landlord and Tenant Tenancy Law Rent Control Karnataka Rent Control Act Lease of Cinema Theatre Eviction Dominant Intention in Composite Leases

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B.G. Kumarvelu

Appellant

K.R. Kanakarathnam Chetty

Respondent

K. Yasodamma

Respondent

Ramakrishnan

Respondent

Smt. Uma Devi

Respondent

Smt. Rajeshwari Gupta

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a lease of a cinema building with fittings and furniture but without projectors, amplifiers, screen and speakers is covered under the definition of 'building' and 'premises' under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, entitling the tenant to protection against eviction?
  2. 2 Whether the lease should be regarded as one for a running cinema business or of the building qua building?

Ratio Decidendi

The dominant purpose of the lease was the building, to be used as a cinema theatre, with furniture and fittings as incidental; such a lease falls within the definition of 'building' and 'premises' under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. As major equipment necessary for running a cinema (projectors, amplifiers, screen, speakers) were not included in the lease, it was not a lease of a running cinema business. The appellants are entitled to protection under the Act and cannot be evicted except per its provisions.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment and decree of High Court dated 22.4.94 in Regular First Appeal No. 80 of 1989 set aside.
  • Judgment and decree of IV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore city dated 7.1.89 in O.S. No. 409 of 1980 set aside.