- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41258 HRRP No. 52 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO. 52 OF 2016 (EVI) BETWEEN: 1. ABDUL RAZACK SON OF SHAIK NATHAD, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, SHOP NO:7, GROUND FLOOR, 64/3, OLD KASAI ROAD, BANGALORE: 560 002. 2. ALTAF AHMED SON OF ABDUL RAZACK, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, SHOP NO:7, GROUND FLOOR, 64/3, OLD KASAI ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 002. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: FOUZIA AHMED W/O RASHID JEELANI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, NO:376, K.P.T.C.L. LAYOUT, KASAVANAHALLI, SAJJAPURA ROAD, CROSS, BANGALORE - 560035. REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. MOHAMMED ILYAS SON OF P.S. ABDUL SALAM, MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO:17, 2ND MAIN, THIPPANNA LAYOUT, KARIYANAPALYA, BANGALORE - 560084. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MEHTER M. AZZAM, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41258 HRRP No. 52 of 2016 THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.46(1) OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.03.2016 PASSED IN H.R.C NO.10009/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXIV, A.C.M.M, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU, (SCCH 20), ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.27(2)(R) OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT. THIS HRRP, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners herein being the respondents in HRC.No.10009/2014 on the file of the learned V Additional Small Causes Judge and XXIV A.C.M.M., Bengaluru are impugning the order dated 26.03.2016 allowing the petition and directing them to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the petition schedule premises within 60 days from the date of the order. 2. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that, the petitioners before the Trial Court filed the petition under Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act (for short, 'the K.R. Act') against the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41258 HRRP No. 52 of 2016 respondents, seeking eviction and to get vacant possession of the schedule premises. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is the owner of the property bearing No.64/3, Ward No.47 of Bengaluru, more fully described in the schedule, and respondent No.1 is the tenant under the petitioners on monthly Rent of Rs.2,340/-. It is contended that, respondent No.1 is the father and respondent No.2 is the son, who were doing business in the schedule premises. Respondent No.1 was paying the rent by issuing cheque for some time. Since the schedule premises measures less than 14 square meters and the rent is less than Rs.3,500/-, the provisions of K.R. Act was applicable. It is contended that, the respondents are chronic defaulters in the matter of payment of rent. Even the cheque issued towards payment of rent was dishonoured and the respondents are in arrears of rent since July, 2013. In that regard, a legal notice was issued calling upon respondent No.1 to pay the rent and to hand over the vacant possession.. 4. It is contended by the petitioner that, the petition premises is required for her own use and occupation for the purpose of running the business. She was in abroad for a long period. She has returned back to the country and is intended - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41258 HRRP No. 52 of 2016 to do the business. Therefore, a legal notice was issued calling upon the respondents to vacate and hand over the vacant possession. But they have not paid the rent nor vacated the vacant possession. Hence, the petition came to be filed. 5. The respondents have appeared before the Trial Court. Respondent No.1 has not contested the petition, and it was only respondent No.2 who contested the petition contending that, his father-respondent No.1 was the tenant in respect of 4 premises. Out of the same, 2 shop premises were surrendered to the owner. Earlier, respondent No.1 was paying the rent at Rs.2,000/- in respect of shop No.64/7, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.2,340/-. 6. Respondent No.2 contended that the mother of the petitioner had received an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- and had executed a usufructuary mortgage deed dated 08.01.2004. Therefore, the schedule property is a mortgaged property. Hence, the petition under the Rent Act is not maintainable. The usufructuary mortgage is for a period of 25 years commencing from 08.01.2004 and therefore, he prays for dismissal of the suit. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41258 HRRP No. 52 of 2016 7. The Trial Court, taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence placed by the parties, proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the petition under Section 27(2)(r) of the K.R. Act and directed the respondents to vacate, and hand over the possession of the schedule premises, within 60 days from the date of the order. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondents are before this Court. 8. Heard Sri. Sharath S. Gowda, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri. Mehter M. Azzam, learned counsel for respondent. Perused the materials on record. 9. In view of the rival contentions, the only point would arise for consideration is: "Whether the petitioners have made out any ground to allow the petition?" My answer to the above point is in the 'negative' for the following: REASONS 10. The schedule premises is admittedly a commercial shop fetching rent of Rs.2,340/- per month. According to the petitioners before the Trial Court, the respondents are in arrears of rent. However, the learned counsel for tenant - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41258 HRRP No. 52 of 2016 submits that, a sum of Rs.91,200/- was paid in two installments of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.61,200/- on 10.04.2017 and 28.04.2017 respectively. Thus, he has paid the rent till 31.05.2017. However, it is his contention that, there was a usufructuary mortgage in respect of the schedule premises, and therefore he is not a tenant under the petitioner. 11. Even according to the respondents, the usufructuary mortgage deed is dated 08.01.2004, but it was an unregistered document. Interestingly, no such document is produced before the Trial Court even though specific defence was taken in that regard. Under such Circumstances, the contention of respondent No.2 in that regard cannot be accepted. 12. Respondent No.2 before the Trial Court contended that, he is not the tenant under the petitioners. However, he admits that his father was the tenant in respect of the schedule premises under the petitioners and he was paying the rent. It is his specific contention that, respondent No.1 being the father permitted respondent No.2 to carry on the business in the premises. In that view of the matter, respondent No.2 now cannot contend that there was no jural relationship between him and the petitioners. There is no other reasonable - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41258 HRRP No. 52 of 2016 explanation as to how he came in possession of the schedule premises, if he was not a tenant. Therefore, I do not find any justification for respondent No.2 to squat over the property without paying the rent regularly and taking untenable defence. 13. On perusal of the materials on record and the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, I am satisfied that the Trial Court has taken into consideration both oral and documentary evidence and has arrived at a right conclusion, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Hence, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed with costs. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM CT : VS