What was the main legal issue?

Whether an eviction petition under Section 21(1)(h) Karnataka Rent Control Act is maintainable when a fixed-term contractual lease is still running.

Does the Rent Act wipe out a fixed-term lease?

No. The Court said the Act does not obliterate a fixed-term tenancy. The contract still matters unless the statute clearly says otherwise.

What did the Supreme Court decide?

It set aside the High Court’s judgment and held that the fixed-term lease could not be ignored for eviction under Section 21(1)(h).

Was this a perpetual lease?

A perpetual lease needs clear words. The Court refused to presume perpetuity, but still respected the fixed-term contract in force.

What is the quick exam point?

KRCA s.21(1)(h) ≠ automatic override. A subsisting fixed-term lease limits eviction for bona fide requirement during the term.

Law Easy

03 November, 2025

251

Laxmidas Bapudas v. Rudravva (2001) 2 SCC 409 – Section 21(1)(h) Karnataka Rent Control Act | The Law Easy

Laxmidas Bapudas v. Rudravva (2001) 2 SCC 409

Rent Control Fixed-Term Lease Bona Fide Need S.21(1)(h) KRCA

Supreme Court of India 2001 (2001) 2 SCC 409 7 min read India

By Gulzar Hashmi • Published on 1 November 2025

Quick Summary

This case explains how a fixed-term lease works with Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. The Court said the Act does not erase the contract. If a fixed term is still running, a landlord cannot use “bona fide requirement” to ignore the term. The High Court’s view was set aside.

CASE_TITLE: Laxmidas Bapudas v. Rudravva (2001) 2 SCC 409

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Section 21(1)(h) KRCA, fixed-term lease, bona fide requirement

SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: eviction, rent control, perpetual lease presumption

PUBLISH_DATE: 1 Nov 2025

AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi

LOCATION: India

Slug: laxmidas-bapudas-v-rudravva-2001-2-scc-409

Issues

Is an eviction petition under Section 21(1)(h) maintainable during a fixed-term contractual lease?
Does the Karnataka Rent Control Act override the fixed term of the lease?
Can the lease be treated as perpetual without clear words?

Rules

Rent control law does not wipe out a valid fixed-term tenancy unless the statute says so.
A contract of tenancy keeps its force; its terms matter in deciding eviction grounds.
A perpetual lease needs clear and unambiguous language; no presumption of perpetuity.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline graphic for Laxmidas Bapudas v. Rudravva

1905: Guardian of Gurappa leases land for 99 years to Nagaonkar to set up a factory.

1907: Lessee assigns lease to Ramdas Vithaldas Darbar for ₹8,500.

1986: Lessors issue notice—alleged rent default (1.3.85–31.3.86) and bona fide need.

Post-notice: Lessees deny default; say 99-year fixed term blocks termination.

Petition filed: Under Section 21(1)(h) & 21(1)(p) KRCA—landlords claim bona fide requirement for own business.

Trial Court: Orders eviction; says lease not permanent.

Sessions (Revision): Holds lease is of permanent nature.

High Court: Says no presumption of perpetual lease; finds Sessions view erroneous.

Supreme Court: Allows appeal; sets aside High Court; respects fixed-term contract in applying s.21(1)(h).

Arguments

Landlords

Bona fide need for own business; seek eviction under s.21(1)(h).
Lease is not perpetual; rent default and requirement justify eviction.

Tenants

A 99-year fixed term is still subsisting; contract cannot be ignored.
Rent Act does not cancel fixed-term tenancy; eviction not maintainable during term.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s judgment. It held that Section 21(1)(h) does not abolish the fixed-term lease. The contract remains significant; an eviction claim for bona fide need cannot ride over a still-running fixed term.

Ratio Decidendi

Rent control protection co-exists with contract. Unless the statute clearly overrides it, a fixed-term tenancy continues to bind. No presumption of perpetual lease arises; but the agreed term cannot be ignored to grant eviction under s.21(1)(h).

Why It Matters

Confirms that contract terms matter even under rent control.
Guides drafting: use clear words if you want perpetuity or early termination rights.
Exam line: “KRCA s.21(1)(h) ≠ delete key for fixed-term lease.”

Key Takeaways

Fixed-term lease survives alongside rent control.
Perpetual lease needs clear language; no presumption.
Eviction for bona fide need under s.21(1)(h) cannot override the unexpired term.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Term First, Then Test.”

Check: Is a fixed term still running?
Ask: Does the statute clearly override the term?
Conclude: If not, s.21(1)(h) cannot evict during the term.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Is eviction for bona fide need under s.21(1)(h) maintainable despite a subsisting fixed-term lease?

Rule

Rent Act does not erase contract. Fixed term holds unless statute clearly overrides; no presumption of perpetual lease.

Application

Here, a 99-year term existed. Nothing in KRCA canceled it. So s.21(1)(h) could not defeat the running term.

Conclusion

Appeal allowed; High Court set aside; eviction claim not maintainable during fixed term.

Glossary

Fixed-Term Lease: A tenancy for a set period agreed in the contract.
Bona Fide Requirement: Landlord’s genuine need to occupy the premises.
Perpetual Lease: A lease intended to continue indefinitely; needs explicit language.

FAQs

No. The statute does not erase the contract unless it clearly says so. A running fixed term must be respected.

No. Courts need clear, unambiguous words to infer a perpetual lease. Otherwise, normal contract terms apply.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s view and did not allow eviction during the unexpired fixed term.

“Contract first.” Unless the statute clearly overrides it, a fixed-term lease limits eviction under s.21(1)(h).

Comment

Nothing for now