K. SRINIVASA RAO versus K.M. NARASIMHAIAH GOPAL KRISHNA

K. SRINIVASA RAO versus K.M. NARASIMHAIAH GOPAL KRISHNA

The appellant is entitled to be put in possession of a shop in the reconstructed building that is reasonably comparable to the one he occupied before eviction, specifically the shop facing the Main Road occupied by Respondent No. 2, as Sections 27 and 28 envisage such comparability; the landlord cannot substitute a non-comparable tenement. Rights of subsequent tenants (Respondent No. 2) are subject to those of the original tenant under the Act.

Parties
Appellant: K. Srinivasa Rao; Respondent No. 1 (landlord): K.M. Narasimhaiah; Respondent No. 2 (tenant in Reconstructed Building): K. Gopal Krishna
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 February 1989
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Karnataka High Court
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Eviction, Tenant's Right to Occupy Reconstructed Premises, Comparability of Shops, Consent Decree, Fair Rent
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Eviction Tenant's Right to Occupy Reconstructed Premises Comparability of Shops Consent Decree Fair Rent

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K. Srinivasa Rao

Appellant

K.M. Narasimhaiah

Respondent No. 1 (landlord)

K. Gopal Krishna

Respondent No. 2 (tenant in Reconstructed Building)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Karnataka High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether tenant is entitled to a reasonably comparable shop in the reconstructed building after eviction under Section 21(1)(j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act
  2. 2 Whether the landlord can choose any tenement or must offer a comparable one
  3. 3 Whether a decree passed with tenant's consent under Section 21(1)(j) is valid

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant is entitled to be put in possession of a shop in the reconstructed building that is reasonably comparable to the one he occupied before eviction, specifically the shop facing the Main Road occupied by Respondent No. 2, as Sections 27 and 28 envisage such comparability; the landlord cannot substitute a non-comparable tenement. Rights of subsequent tenants (Respondent No. 2) are subject to those of the original tenant under the Act.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Respondent No. 1 directed to hand over possession of the shop occupied by Respondent No. 2 to the appellant
  • Respondent No. 2 directed to hand over the shop for the aforesaid purpose