( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against the judgment dt. 30-6-1973 passed by the II Addl Dist Judge, Dharwar, in HRC App. 71 of 1971 setting aside the order passed in HRC. 50 of 1968 by the Addl Munsiff, Hubli and dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Ss. 21 (1) (a) and 21 (i) (i) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). The undisputed facts are that the petitioner is the owner of open site bearing CIS. 1858 in Ward V of Hubli and also bearing Municipal HDMC no. 19. She has leased out the site to respondent-1 Tukaram since dead. His legal representative, namely, the wife has been brought on record. Tukaram had constructed a structure worth about Rs. 400 by 18-5-1964. On 18-5-1964 the petitioner and Tukaram entered into a contract of lease as per Exhibit P1. ( 2 ) THE petitioner filed an application under S. 21 (1) (a) and (f) of the act contending that as per Ext. P1 Tukaram had to erect a construction worth about Rs. 600, but had failed to erect such a construction and that tukaram had not paid rental from 18-5-1964 and hence had become a defaulter within the meaning of Sec. 21 (1) (a) of the Act and lastly that tukaram had sub-let certain rooms in the building constructed by him on the land to Respts-2 and 3 arid as such was liable to be evicted under Section 21 (1) (f) of the Act. ( 3 ) SRI Tukaram contended that he had leased out two rooms to Respts-2 and 3 and that lease did not amount to sub-letting within the meaning of s. 21 (1) (f) of the Act and that he had not at all committed default in payment of rent. The learned Munsiff without going into the question whether the rooms admittedly leased by Tukaram to Respts-2 and 3 also included the demised premises under the lease agreement, Ext. P1, held that Tukaram had sub-let the two rooms to Respts-2 and 3. The case of the petitioner under S. 21 (1) (a) of the Act was not pressed. A decree for eviction was passed on the ground available to the petitioner under Section 21 (1) (f) of the Act. P1, held that Tukaram had sub-let the two rooms to Respts-2 and 3. The case of the petitioner under S. 21 (1) (a) of the Act was not pressed. A decree for eviction was passed on the ground available to the petitioner under Section 21 (1) (f) of the Act. ( 4 ) IN appeal, the learned IT Addl Dist Judge, held that the construction erected by Tukaram was not the property leased out by the petitioner to tukaram and hence letting out of the two rooms by Tukaram to Respts-2 end 3 d'd not amount to sub-letting within the meaning of S. 21 (1) (f) of the Act and allowed the appeal. ( 5 ) THE relevant terms in Ext. P1 may be summarised as follows :" (1) I have agreed to pay you Rs. 120 per year as rental for the said open land. I will pay the rental by 18th of every month. (2) I have alreadv constructed on the said land a construction bv spending Rs. 400 and I will construct another construction by spending rs. 600. I will myself make use of the said construction. (5) I will mvself pay the Municipal tax and keep the property in repair at my cost. (4) The lease period is 15 years from 18-5-1964. On 17-5-1979 i will hand-over vacant possession of the building without taking any money from you and without spoiling the building in any manner. (5) I have no right either to mortgage or to sell the building and i will not alienate the building. (6) In case I die before the expiry of the said 15 years and my wife is alive, she will eniov the property for the balance of 15 years and in case she also dips, you have a right to take possession of the land as well as the building. " ( 6 ) I have already pointed out that the learned Addl Munsiff has not gone into the question whether by this contract the landlady leased out the building worth Rs 400 already constructed by Tukaram on the land and the building worth Rs. 500 to be constructed by him. The learned II Addl dist Judge has held that the leased premises consisted only of the open site and not of the building that was worth Rs. 400 and the building worth rs. 600 to be constructed. 500 to be constructed by him. The learned II Addl dist Judge has held that the leased premises consisted only of the open site and not of the building that was worth Rs. 400 and the building worth rs. 600 to be constructed. ( 7 ) SRI K. S Savanur, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argued that the petitioner landlady leased out the land to respondent-Tukaram on which a building was erected worth Rs. 400 by him and a building worth Rs 600 was to be erected by him. In support of this contention he pointed out that the term that Tukaram had not reserved any right either to mortgage or to sell or to alienate in any manner the buildings worth Rs. 400 plus Rs 600 and had agreed to hand over vacant possession of the buildings also without claiming any kind of compensation from the landlady after the expiry of the fifteen years, are inconsistent with the proprietary right of Tukaram in the buildings and consistent with proprietary right of the petitioner-landlady in the buildings. He further argued that no sooner than respondent-Tukaram constructed the building worth Rs. 600 i. e. after Ext. P1, the ownership in that building vested with the petitioner-landlady and the only right that Tukaram got under ext P1 was to be in possession for 15 vears and the petitioner's right of possession was deferred by 15 years only. ( 8 ) SRI Balakrishna Shastry, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-1 (a) argued that the facts and circumstances of this case call for the application of the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. K. A. Dhairyawnn v. J. R. Thakur, AIR 1958 SC. 789 and when that is applied it would be clear that the demissed premises under Exhibit P1 was only the open rite and as such lease of the two rooms to Respts-2 and 3 by respondent-Tukaram. did not amount to sub-letting of the premises within the meaning of Section 21 (1) (f) of the Act. ( 9 ) IN Vinayak Gopal Limayc v. Kashiinath Athavale, AIR. 1957 Bom. did not amount to sub-letting of the premises within the meaning of Section 21 (1) (f) of the Act. ( 9 ) IN Vinayak Gopal Limayc v. Kashiinath Athavale, AIR. 1957 Bom. 94, it is laid down as follows :"it was suggested during the course of the hearing of these revisional applications that, if a building lease attracts the provisions of rent Act, the occupants of the building would have to be regarded as sub-tenants within the meaning of Section 15 and their sub-tenancies would fall within the mischief of section 15 of the Act. We are not impressed by this argument. S. 15 no doubt enjoins upon the tenant not to sub-let or transfer his rights. But the prohibition is in respect of the whole or any part of the premises let to the tenant; and when a builder lets out a building to his tenants, technically he is not leasing out the open plot which has been let to him by his lesser, but he is letting out the structure built by him. If it is permissible to draw a distinction between the open plot which is the subject matter of the first lease and the building which is the subject-matter of the second lease, then S. 15 may not affect the rights of the actual occupants let in by the builder of the building. No doubt, this distinction may appear to be technical and notional; but, as I have already indicated, some of the unusual features whiich building leases of this kind disclose are the inevitable result of the doctrine of dual ownership recognised under the Indian Law. " ( 10 ) THIS decision is approved in the decision in Dossibai N. B. Jeejebhoy v. Khemchnd Gorumal, AIR. 1966 SC. 1939. The Supreme Court has observed as follows in paragraph-11 of its judgment :" It is unnecessary for us to decide whether if there is no contract to the contrary, S. 15 will really stand in the way of a lessee of the land letting out buildings constructed by him on such land. 1966 SC. 1939. The Supreme Court has observed as follows in paragraph-11 of its judgment :" It is unnecessary for us to decide whether if there is no contract to the contrary, S. 15 will really stand in the way of a lessee of the land letting out buildings constructed by him on such land. We may say however that there is in our opinion much force in the argument which found favour with the Bombay High Court in Vinayak Gopal v. "laxman Kashinath ( AIR 1957 Bom 94 ), where the very question which is now before us arose for decision, that the bar of S. 15 will operate only in the way of letting out the land of which lease has been taken, but will not stand in the way of letting the building constructed on the land. " ( 11 ) EXHIBIT P1 itself draws distinction between the open land which is the subject-matter of Ext. P1 and the building which is worth Rs. 400 already existing and the building worth Rs. 600 to be constructed by the respondent-Tukaram. Hence the principle laid down in Vinayak Gopal's case (2) will apply. ( 12 ) THE facts in Dr. K. A. Dhairyawan's case (1) were as follows :" The trustees of the Mankeshwar Temple trust executed a registered lease on May 23, 1927 in favour of Moreshwar Kashinath and radhabai, wife of Ramakrishna Bhai Thakore in regard to a parc3l of land. The period of lease was for 21 years. The rent reserved was rs. 50 per month. Under the terms of the lease, the lessee had to construct within six months from the date of the lease a double storeyed building consisting of shops on the ground-floor and residential rooms on the upper-floor. The construction had fo be to the satisfaction of the lessors' engineers. The buildings had to be insured in the joint names of the lessors and lessee with the insurance firm approved by the leasers. On 'he termination of 21 years or earlier, the lessee was to surrerder and yield up the demised premises including building without any compensation for the same. On May 14, 1948, shortly before the lease was to expire, the lessors gave notice to the lessee to driver possession of the demised premises and the building on the expiry of the lease i. e. on May 22, 1948. On May 14, 1948, shortly before the lease was to expire, the lessors gave notice to the lessee to driver possession of the demised premises and the building on the expiry of the lease i. e. on May 22, 1948. " ( 13 ) THE Supreme Court held that on the expiry of the period the lessors were bound to vacate the premises unless they were protected by the Bombay pents, Hotel and Lodging House Pates Control Act (Bombay Act 57 of 1947) and although the period of lease had expired the lessee having continued to remain in possession without the assent of the lessors, he would be a tenant of the land within the meaning of that expression as defined in Act 57 of 1947 and so far as the demised land was concerned the lease cound not be evicted so long as he complied with the provisions of art 57 of 1947 and further although under S. 108 of the T. P. Act the leasee had the right to remove the building by the ronlract he had agreed to hand over the sanme the lessors without the right to receive recompansation at the end of the lease and that was a matter of contract between the parties. Because of such a contract the ownership in the building was not trasferred to the lessors so loner as the lesse subsisted. It was agrued before the Supreme Court that the case of the lessors was governed by the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhatin Co-orerative Housing Society ltd. v. D. C. Patil, AIR 1953 SC 16 , Sri K S. Savanur also urged that the case on hand attracts the decision in Bhatin Co-op Housing Society's case (4 ). ( 14 ) MANY of the terms of the lease in the case cited were similar to the terms found in the lease in the present case. However. Clause (18) of the lease in the case referred to stages that immediately after the completion within the time limited by condition 7, the lessor of the land would grant the lease of the land with the building thereon for a term of 999 years from the date of the auction at the yearly rent calculated in accordance witrh the accepted bid for the plot. Thpre could be no question on the matter of interpretation in the case cited that a lease would be granted out only of the land but also of the building thereon for the term of 993 years from the date of auction. There is ro such clause in the lease Ext. P1 in the present case. Hence I hold that the principle Iajd down by the supreme Court in Dr. Dhairayawan's case (1) applies to the case on had. It may be noted that in Dr. Dhairyawan's case (1) many njore terms wh'ch can be argurd to be inconsistent with the concept of ownershin were in the contract of lease. These terms were that a buuilding of a specific nature was to be constructed by the lessee within a stipulated period and such construction was to be to the satisfaction of the engineers of the lessors that the constructed buildings was to be insured jointly in the names of the lessors ard the lessee with the insurance comoany approved by the lessors. The only term relied upon by Sri Savanur is that the lessee had no right either to mortgage or to sell or to alienate in any manner the buildings corstructed by him. The Supreme Court held to the contrary even when there were much more rigorous terms in the contract of lease involved in Dr. Dhairyawan's case (1) Hence, I am unable to agree with the contention of Sri Savanur that on the construction of document Ext,p1 it has to te held that what was leased to Tukaram by the petitioner-landlady was not only the land but the building worth Rs. 400 already constructed by Tukaram and the building worth Rs. 600 to be constructed by Tukaram. When that is no leasing of portion of the building namely two rooms construe ed by Tukaram to Respts-2 and 3 cannot be termed as a sub-lease within the meaning of S. 21 (1) (f) of the Act. Hence the contention of the petitioner has to fail. In the result, this petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs under the circumstances of the case. --- *** --- .