- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40261 HRRP No. 13 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO.13 OF 2024 (EVI) BETWEEN: SRI SWAMY G R AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O LATE H GOVINDA, R/AT NO.L-132, (807) HUDCO 2ND STAGE KUVEMPUNAGAR MYSRUU - 570022 PRESENT ADDRESS R/AT NO.530, ANUGRAHA CONSTRUCTIONS 7TH CROSS, II MAIN, H-BLOCK RAMAKRISHNANAGARA MYSURU - 570022 …PETITIONER (BY SRI BHADRINATH R, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI M CHENNAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O LATE MARIYAPPA R/AT NO.440, M-BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, KUVEMPUNAGAR MYSURU - 570022 …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40261 HRRP No. 13 of 2024 THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.46(1) OF THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.07.2024 PASSED IN REV.(RENT) NO.8/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and perused the memo and original documents filed by the petitioner before this Court on 22.08.2025 and so also I.A.No.2/2025 wherein invoking the provision under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, three copies of earlier document Nos.3 to 5 are produced before this Court. 2. On perusal of the material on record, it discloses that the Trial Court allowed the petition in part and the Revisional Court allowed the petition only on the ground that sanctioned plan and estimation are not produced before the Court when the relief is sought. Having perused the documents which have been placed before this Court, it discloses that the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40261 HRRP No. 13 of 2024 documents of the memorandum of understanding are placed before the Court as original documents but not produced any sanctioned plan which was obtained prior to filing of the petition. Except proposed first floor plan signed by the Architect and estimation copy, ought to have obtained the sanctioned plan prior to filing of the petition but the same is not placed before this Court. 3. Considering the order passed by the Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court wherein the Trial Court has assigned the reason for dismissing the petition as that sanctioned plan is not produced which ought to have been obtained prior to filing of the petition and the prayer is sought in the absence of documentary proof. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to entertain this revision petition since no such sanctioned plan is obtained prior to filing of the HRC No.1/2022. The Revisional Court held that the Trial Court was not correct in allowing the petition under Section 27(2)(g) and (i) after rejecting the claim under Section 27(2)(e) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Act. Therefore, the order of the Trial Court in allowing the petition partly under Section 27(2)(g) and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40261 HRRP No. 13 of 2024 (i) of the Karnataka Rent Act and directing eviction of the respondent from the shop premises is set aside by the Revisional Court. Hence, I do not find any reasons to set aside the order of the Revisional Court since this Court considered the grounds invoked for eviction by the Revisional Court. 4. The petitioner is given liberty to approach the Court afresh with appropriate documents i.e., prior sanctioned plan, estimation and other documents. With this liberty, the petition is disposed of. 5. Registry is directed to return the original documents in favour of the petitioner after obtaining the copies of the same. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN