- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3817 HRRP No. 100011 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO. 100011 OF 2023 (-) BETWEEN: SMT. ZAREENA BEGAUM D/O. LATE KAREEM SAB AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. 10TH WARD, TAKKA STREET, HOSAPETE, DIST: VIJAYANAGARA- 583201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE AND SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATES) AND: 1 . MEHABOOB BEE W/O. LATE P. BASHA SAB AGED 87 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O: 10TH WARD, TAKKA STREET, HOSAPETE , DIST. VIJAYANAGARA -583201. SINCE DECEASED RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 6 ARE THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 2 . KAMURUN BEE W/O. NAZIR SAAB D/O. LATE P. BASHA SAB, AGED 67 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O: NEAR MASJID, MARIYAMMANAHALLI, HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA-583201. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3817 HRRP No. 100011 of 2023 3 . AKTAR BEE W/O. BABAULA D/O. LATE P. BASHA SAB, AGED 57 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O: 10TH WARD, TAKKA STREET, HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA -583201. 4 . P. RAJA SAB S/O. LATE P BASHA SAB AGED 57 YEARS, OCC. NOT KNOWN, R/O: 10TH WARD, TAKKA STREET, HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA -583201. 5 . P. FATHIMA BEE D/O. LATE P. BASHA SAB, AGED 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O: 10TH WARD, TAKKA STREET, HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA-583201. 6 . P. BASHEERA D/O. LATE P. BASHA SAB, AGED 42 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O: 10TH WARD, TAKKA STREET, HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA -583201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D.L. LADKHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R6; R1- DECEASED) THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPGNED ORDER DATED 10.02.2023 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI (SITTING AT HOSAPETE), IN H.R.C.A. NO.5001/2021 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER PASSED IN H.R.C.NO.1/2018 DATED 25.01.2021 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., BE CONFIRMED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3817 HRRP No. 100011 of 2023 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. This Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure challenging order dated 10.02.2023 in H.R.C.A. No.5001/2021 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Jugde, Ballari (sitting at Hospete) allowing the appeal and setting aside the order dated 25.01.2021 in H.R.C. No.1/2018 on the fie of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Hospete1 allowing the petition. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the original Court. 3. Facts in nutshell for the purpose of adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner has filed petition under Section 27-A of Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1999 seeking vacation of the schedule premises by the 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘original Court’ - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3817 HRRP No. 100011 of 2023 respondents and also sought for payment of arrears of rent. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner has purchased the schedule premises as per registered Sale Deed dated 17.02.1988 from the erstwhile owner of the schedule premises and at the time of purchase of schedule premises, the respondent was in possession of the premises in question as a tenant of the vendor of the petitioner and has promised to vacate the suit property within five years on a monthly rent. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent has committed default in payment of rent and as such the petitioner has filed H.R.C. No.9/1995 before the original Court and same was dismissed for non- prosecution. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred M.A.No.1/2000 which came to be dismissed and thereafter the petitioner has preferred W.P.No.5242/2007 before this Court and this Court dismissed the writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to pursue the remedy provided under law. Subsequently, the petitioner filed - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3817 HRRP No. 100011 of 2023 M.A.No.10/2010 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Hospete and the said petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh suit with new cause of action. Hence, the petitioner filed H.R.C. No.1/2018 stating that the petitioner has caused notice on 05.09.2013, terminating the tenancy and accordingly sought for recovery of possession of the suit premises. 5. Upon service of notice, respondents entered appearance and filed objection stating that there is no jural relationship between the petitioner and respondent and accordingly sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. The original Court framed the points for consideration based on pleadings on record. In order to establish their case, petitioner was examined as PW.1 and got marked 31 documents and same were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.31. Respondent No.4 was examined as RW.1 and produced 31 documents and same were marked as Exs.R.1 to R.31. The original Court by its order dated 25.01.2021, allowed the petition and directed the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3817 HRRP No. 100011 of 2023 respondents to vacate the premises in question within three months. Feeling aggrieved by the same, respondents have preferred H.R.C.A. No.5001/2021 before the Appellate Court and same was resisted by the petitioner. The Appellate Court, by its order dated 10.02.2023 allowed the petition and as such set aside the order dated 25.01.2021 in H.R.C. No.1/2018. Feeling aggrieved by the same, petitioner has presented this Revision Petition. 7. I have heard Sri.Vishwanath Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.D.L.Ladkhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Appellate Court has committed an error in interfering with the well reasoned order passed by the original Court without considering the fact that the petitioner is the owner of the schedule premises as per the registered Sale Deed dated 17.02.1988. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the jural relationship between the landlord and tenant continues - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3817 HRRP No. 100011 of 2023 after the registration of the Sale Deed and same was within the knowledge of respondents herein. It is also argued that as per Ex.P.13, payment of rent through demand draft was made in favour of the petitioner by the respondents and the said aspect of the matter was not considered by the Appellate Court. 9. Per contra, Sri.D.L.Ladkhan learned counsel for the respondents argued in support of the order passed by the Appellate Court and submitted that the earlier owner has not attorned the tenancy and therefore, there is no relationship between the petitioner and the respondents herein as landlord and tenant. It is also argued that the respondents herein were not inducted by the petitioner and therefore sought for dismissal of the petition. 10. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the original record, the core question to be answered in this Revision Petition is, whether the Appellate Court has committed an error in interfering with the order passed by - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3817 HRRP No. 100011 of 2023 the original Court in H.R.C. No.1/2018. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein has purchased the schedule premises as per the registered Sale Deed dated 17.02.1988. The respondents have taken the premises for rent from the vendors of the petitioner herein. 11. It is also forthcoming from the finding recorded by the original Court while answering Point No.1 that the respondents herein have credited Rs.2,000/- to the account of the petitioner as per the Demand Draft and the said aspect was admitted by RW.1 in the cross- examination. It is also admitted by RW.1 that the premises in question was given to RW.1 as per the Lease Deed dated 19.01.1984 by one Ahmmed Bee, Khadar Vali and Salam Basha, who were the vendors of the petitioner herein and thereafter, petitioner had purchased the schedule premises and same was made known to RW.1. 12. Taking into consideration the admission made by RW.1 in the cross-examination as the respondents herein were aware about the sale made by their original - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3817 HRRP No. 100011 of 2023 landlord in favour of the petitioner, referred to above and as such the finding recorded by the original Court in H.R.C. No.1/2018 is just and proper and same requires to be confirmed. 13. It is also to be noted that, the First Appellate Court has committed an error in not considering the fact that the respondents were continued to be the tenants under the petitioner after due execution of the registered Sale Deed and therefore, the reasons assigned by the Appellate Court is contrary to records and without appreciating the cross-examination of RW.1. Therefore, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the original Court has assessed the oral and documentary evidence on record in the right perspective, and accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. The petition is allowed. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3817 HRRP No. 100011 of 2023 ii. Order dated 10.02.2023 in H.R.C.A. No.5001/2021 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari (sitting at Hospete) is hereby set aside. iii. Order dated 25.01.2021 in H.R.C. No.1/2018 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Hospete is hereby confirmed. iv. The respondents herein are directed to vacate the suit schedule premises within two months from the date of this order. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SH CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29