vil appeal No 239240 of 1975
110 From the Judgment and Decree dated 1331974 of the Karnataka High Court in RF Appeal No 103 111 120 of 1970 and 11  12 of 1971 and 142 of 1972 with Cross objec tions in RFA No 111 of 1970
KN Bhatt G Vishvanatha lyer TS Krishnamurthy MK Pandit PH Parekh KR Nagaraja M Veerappa PR Ramasesh Vineet Kumar SS Javalai RB Datar and RS Hegde for the appearing parties
This appeal has been filed in this Court after getting a certificate from the High Court of Karnataka under Article 1331a and b of the Constitution
The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellants owned an Industrial concern by the name of Bangalore Fancy Fire Works and with a view to improve the industry and develop it further they sought aid from the GoVernment of Mysore one of the respondents under the Mysore State Aid to Industries Act 1951 hereinafter re ferred to as the Act and application for this aid was made to the concerned authorities of the State on 2311953 wherein an aid in the nature of financial assistance to the tune of Rs one lac was sought
By the orders of the compe tent authority dated 391953 the financial assistance of Rs60000 by way of loan was sanctioned
This financial assistance by way of loan was secured from the Bank of Mysore Ltd and the State Government agreed to stand as surety and also to guarantee the repayment of loan with interest to the Bank of Mysore Ltd
It was also agreed that the appellants who receive the aid will execute a deed of mortgage in favour of the Government of Mysore of their properties in consideration of their promise to guarantee the repayment of sums to be advanced to them by the Bank of Mysore
Pursuant to these arrangements the appellant execut ed a deed of simple mortgage in favour of the Government of Mysore dated 14111953
The Government of Mysore in their turn executed a deed of guarantee dated 2021954 in favour of the Bank of Mysore Ltd The appellants in addition also executed a pronote in favour of the Bank of Mysore dated 812 1953 for a sum of Rs60000 agreeing to repay the said sum together with interest  2 12 per cent per annum over and above the rate of Reserve Bank of India with a minimum 6 per cent per annum
111 This amount of Rs60000 was given to the appellants as loan by Bank of Mysore according to the directions issued by the Government of Mysore
It is not disputed that at that time the banks ordinari ly would not have advanced the loan for industry for its further development and would not have advanced on conces sional rate of interest as was done in the present case as admittedly this was an aid arranged by the Government of Mysore under the Act and it was in accordance with the scheme of the Act that the Government of Mysore arranged this loan at a concessional rate from the Bank as an aid under the Act
This loan was to be repaid in two instalments and it is not in dispute that the appellants did not pay the loan on the due dates of the instalments
According to the appellants as alleged by them before the Trial Court they were not in a position to pay the loan within the stipulated period as the concern became financially unsound and that the respondent the State Government of Karnataka started compelling the appellants to pay off the loan to the bank and as it was not paid the Government of Karnataka the respondent got the plaint schedule properties sold under the proceedings for recovery of land revenue and got the money recovered
It was contended by the appellants that the respondent defendant State could not got the properties sold by public auction in accordance with the procedure of recov ery for arrears of land revenue
As they had only a mortgage deed of the property in their favour and that the money could only be recovered from the appellants if the respond ent State had paid the loan of the Bank first and even thereafter the only course open to the respondent State was to file a suit for reimbursement on the basis of the mort gage and it was therefore contended that the sale of the properties was without the authority of law
The learned trial court and also the High Court came to the conclusion that the Government of Karnataka was entitled to recover the amount which they secured as an aid to the respondents under the scheme of the Act and for that purpose lawfully resorted to the sale of the properties by following the procedure of the recovery of arrears of land revenue as was provided for in Section 19 of the State Act and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff respondent
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant frankly conceded that the facts in the case are not in dispute
The High Court of Karnataka has taken a view that as this loan was given to the appellant by the State Bank of Mysore but it was secured as an aid under the Act referred to above therefore proceedings under Sec
19 could be taken but it was contended by learned counsel that the State was only a 112 guarantor and the creditor was the State Bank of Mysore and so long as the loan was not recovered from the guarantor it could not be said that there was anything payable to the State Govt
and in view of the language of Sec
19 it was contended that so long as there was nothing payable to the State Govt
the action under Sec
19 could not have been taken
Learned counsel frankly conceded that although the language in Sec 19 do not refer to the moneys payable to the State but it only refers to moneys payable under the Act but it was contended that in the scheme of the Act and the transactions between the parties State Govt could take action to recover the money only if the State Government has paid the loan in favour of the State Bank of Mysore on the terms of the guarantee which was executed by the State Gov ernment
Learned counsel therefore contended that the view taken by the High Court that if any sum was payable under the Act State Government could take steps under Section 19 is not justified
The learned counsel for the respondent State and the other respondents who are purchasers of the property in auction contended that the scheme of the Act indicates that in order to industrialise the State this Act was enacted wherein the State took upon itself the responsibility of providing aids in various kinds to the industries and such aids were provided for under the Statutes
One of the modes of providing this aid was to secure a loan from the bank in favour of the industry which ordinarily was not available and it has been brought to our notice that even in the application which the respondent made for this aid to the State Government clearly admitted that no loan from bank could be available unless the State secured aid under this Act
It was therefore contended that the aid may have been secured from the bank but it was an aid which was secured under the provisions of this Act and in this view Section 19 clearly comes into operation and hence the moneys were payable under this Act and if it was so the State Government was entitled to realise the amount as arrears of land reve nue as contemplated in Section 19
The scheme of the Act was to provide aid to industries
Preamble of the Act itself states Preamble Whereas it is expedient to regulate the giving of aid by the Government to industries in the State of Mysore
Under Section 7 of this Act it was provided that the Government could give aid to the industries in the following ways and sub clause b provided for cash credit facility overdraft or fix advance with the bank
113 Section 7
Subject to the provisions of this Act and of the rules framed thereunder the Government shall have power to give aid to an industrial business or enterprise in one or more of the following ways a by granting loan b by guaranteeing a cash credit overdraft or fixed advance with a bank It is not in dispute that this loan which was secured to the appellants from the bank was an aid falling under Sub clause b of Section 7
The provisions of the Act indicate the manner in which the loans could be secured the manner in which it was to be paid and in view of all this it was not disputed that although this loan became payable in favour of the State Bank of Mysore but it may fall within the ambit of the definition of moneys payable under this Act
The only controversy raised before us that Section 19 could be so interpreted that the Govt
could use the author ity under Section 19 for recovery only if moneys were pay able to the Government
As discussed earlier the scheme of the Act indicate that whether the aid has been provided for by the State or has been secured by the State from other financial agencies
It was contemplated that the State would secure the repayment of the loan or recovery of whatever aid was given and with a view to secure those repayments Section 19 was specifically enacted
Legislature in its wisdom therefore did not use the words payable to the State but used all moneys payable under the Act  in the Section it appears with a clear intention that whenever any money becomes payable which was secured to the industry under the scheme of this Act
It will be open to the State Govt
to follow the procedure for recovery as has been provided for in clause 1 Section 19
Section 19 sub clause 1
All moneys payable under this Act including any interest chargeable thereon and costs if any incurred if not paid when due may be recov ered from the person aided and his surety if any under the law for the time being in force as if they were arrears of land revenue
It was contended that ordinarily if the State was the guarantor and the creditor was the Bank of Mysore guarantor State could only recover from the appellants if the amount had been paid to the credi 114 tors so far as the normal legal procedures is concerned
It may depend upon the terms and the conditions of the guaran tee
But in the present case we are dealing with aids pro vided for under the scheme of this Act and it is only in respect of the moneys payable under the scheme of this Act that Section 191 comes into operation and it appears that it was in accordance with the scheme of the Act that Legis lature in its wisdom chose not to use the further phrase payable to the Government under Section 191
Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the case of section Peer Mohammed vs B Mohan Lal Sowcar  This decision in our opinion is not at all relevant as in the present case we are dealing with the enactment where a special procedure has been provided for recovery of moneys payable under this Act
In this view of the matter therefore in our opinion the High Court was fight in not accepting the contention of the appellant and main taining the dismissal of the suit
Appeal is therefore dismissed
In the circumstances of the case no order as to costs
NVK Appeal dismissed


Summary:
In 1947 three rooms and a courtyard in an evacuee s property were given on tenancy to the appellant by the Custodian of Evacuee Property
In 1956 the entire property was jointly purchased by the father of the respondent and a lady
The lady died in 1975 and her legal heirs became the co landlords of the disputed premises
In June 1975 the father of the respondents filed an eviction petition against the appellant on the ground that the premises was required bona fide by the landlord under section 141e of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958
The legal heirs of the joint purchaser viz the lady were however not impleaded as parties
The appellant contested this petition alleging that the respondent had no locus standi to file the petition that the respondent was not the sole owner of the premises in occupation of the appellant that there was no relation ship of landlord and tenant existing between the parties that as other owners were not joined as parties the eviction petition was not maintainable and further that the permis sion granted by the Slum Authority was invalid
The Addi tional Rent Controller held that one of the co landlords could receive payment on behalf of the other and that re ceipt of rent by one landlord would not by itself make him exclusive owner when the premises were in fact owned by more than one owner and consequently the respondent alone could not terminate the tenancy of the appellant
He further held that one coowner could not terminate the tenancy when the property was owned by joint owners and that the respondent landlord was not able to prove that there was no reasonable suitable accommodation with him and that his claim for bona fide reasonably requirement was not proved
He accordingly dismissed the suit for eviction
68 Aggrieved by the order of the Additional Rent Control ler the respondent filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal
The Tribunal held that the respondent was entitled to claim the premises on the ground of bona fide requirement for the use of his family and that the property had all along been used for residential purposes and that it would not be proper to accept the view that the purpose of letting out was residential cure commercial On the question whether one coowner could maintain the suit for eviction the Tribu nal held that in the circumstances of the case the respond ent landlord as a co owner alone could have maintained the eviction petition
The appellant filed a second appeal and the High Court rejected the same on the ground that the action for eviction was justified in view of section 141e of the Act and that the need of the landlord was bona fide and further the High Court affirmed the view that a co owner in the facts and circumstances of the case was entitled to maintain an action for eviction
In the appeal by special leave to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant tenant that in the absence of the other co owner the suit for eviction was incompetent and that the bona fide need was not properly proved and the High Court was in error in upholding the order of eviction on this ground
Dismissing the appeal HELD 1
When the other co owner did not object to the eviction one co owner could maintain an action for eviction even in the absence of the other co owner
75D In the instant case the direction given by the Court in the suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell filed by Smt
Sham Kaur against the respondent landlord was not with respect to the portion of the property which was in the occupation of the tenant appellant and which was the subject matter of the eviction petition
The three rooms and the courtyard in question the subject matter of dispute fails in the share of Sunder Singh respondent who had filed the eviction petition
Furthermore there is no evidence that Smt
Sham Kaur or her representatives wanted the appellants to continue
75E G Kanta Goel vs BP Pathak and others   Sri Ram Pasricha vs Jagan Nath  referred to
The law is that the estoppel of a tenant under sec tion 116 of the Evidence Act was a recognition and statutory assimilation of the equitable principles underlying the estoppel in relation to tenants
76D In the instant case the rent had all along been col lected by the respondent from the appellant
76D Tej Bhan Madan vs II Additional District Judge and others   referred to
The High Court noted that the plea of the appellant that immediately prior to the filing of the petition the landlord had rented out a few rooms on the ground floor was not specifically raised in the pleadings nor in the first appeal and rightly held that it was not proper to raise this question in the second appeal
76E F 4
The High Court appointed an Advocate as Local Commis sioner to visit the premises and give his report
The report corroborated the stand of the landlord respondent
In that view of the matter it was not possible for the High Court to have further interfered with the findings of the Appellate Court
77B Vinod Kumar Arora vs Surjit Kurnar  referred to
The respondent was therefore entitled to maintain the eviction petition alone and he had proved the grounds for eviction and that his need was bona fide and that he had no other suitable accommodation in his possession
77E V Dhanpal Chettiar vs Yesodai Ammal   referred to