- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35428 HRRP No. 11 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO. 11 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SMT SHIVA JYOTHI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, D/O LATE THAMMAIAH 2. SRI THIRUMALLESHA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O THAMMAIAH BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO D5/605/1410, OPP TO PWD ENGINEERS CLUB, ASHOK NAGAR, JAINS COLONY, MANDYA CITY MANDYA DISTRICT – 571401 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BHADRI R @ BHADRINATH R, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT JAYALAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, W/O LATE G PUTTASWAMY, RESIDING AT 2ND CROSS, VIDYA NAGAR, MANDYA CITY, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571401 Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35428 HRRP No. 11 of 2025 REPERSENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SRI T SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE V THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 1567, 2ND CROSS, VIDYANAGAR, NEAR HUCCHAMMA TEMPLE, MANDYA CITY, MANDYA DISTRICT 571401 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. ANUSHA NANDISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GAURAV G K., ADVOCATE) THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 46(1) OF THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT 1999, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.03.2025 PASSED IN RR.NO.1/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA, DISMISSING THE PETITION AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 03.08.2020 PASSED IN HRC.NO.4/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANDYA, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.27(2)(a)(e)(r) AND SEC.31 OF THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT 1999. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35428 HRRP No. 11 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The present revision petition is filed by the tenant challenging the orders passed by the Rent Court as well as the Revisional Court, directing the revision petitioner to vacate and hand over the petition premises, which is described hereunder within three months from the date of order passed by the Trial Court, which was confirmed by the order of the Revisional Court: "Schedule A Mangalore tiled residential house extent: 35' x 35' situated in Mandya City Ashoka Nagar, Jains colony opp. PWD Engineers Club, bearing Khatha No.D5/605/1410 Site Extent East-West : 90 feet, North-South : 40 feet, bounded by : East - by road, West : Lakshmamma W/o Late Krishnappa's house, North : Property of G. Puttaswamy, South by - Road." 2. Facts in brief, which are utmost necessary for the disposal of the present petition, are as under: An eviction petition came to be filed by the respondent under Section 27(2)(a) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, contending that, the petitioner - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35428 HRRP No. 11 of 2025 is the absolute owner of the petition schedule property, having purchased the same on 01.07.1978 from erstwhile owner Smt. Siddamma W/o S.K.Muddaveerashetty through a registered sale deed. At the time of purchase, the father of the respondents namely, Thammaiah was alive and he was residing in the schedule property as tenant. After the purchase, there was an automatic attornment of the tenency. 3. A suit came to be filed in OS No.626/1989 on the file of Principal Munsiff at Maddur for partition against the coparceners and the purchaser of the suit property. Petitioner was defendant No.7 in the said suit and petition schedule property was the 1st item of the suit properties in the said suit. 4. Said suit, on contest, came to be decreed, except for the petition property and items No.2, 22 and 23 of the suit properties, against which an appeal in RA No.69/1999 was filed. The appeal got dismissed. There was a second appeal filed, which also came to be - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35428 HRRP No. 11 of 2025 dismissed and therefore, petitioner became the absolute owner in respect of petition property. 5. Initially, the rate of rent was Rs.50/- per month in the year 1978, which was periodically enhanced and in the year 2004, the rent was paid at the rate of Rs.200/- month. On and from 01.07.2007, the rent was enhanced to Rs.300/- per month and later on and from 01.07.2010, the rent was enhanced to Rs.400/- per month and lastly, it was enhanced to Rs.500/- per month on and from 01.07.2016. 6. The respondent did not pay the water bill and there was a demand notice issued to the petitioner to pay the arrears. The petition property was sought to be used for bonafide use and occupation and also on the ground arrears of rent, eviction petition was filed. 7. After service of notice of the eviction, the tenant appeared before the Court and filed detailed written objections, denying the entire petition averments - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35428 HRRP No. 11 of 2025 contending that the petition is not maintainable and the petitioner has approached the Court with false and incorrect facts. 8. The petition, on contest, came to be allowed by the learned Trial Judge. Operative portion of the order of the learned Trial Judge reads as under: "ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioner Under Section 27 (2) (a) (e) (r) and Section 31 of the Karnataka Rent Act 1999 is hereby allowed with costs. The respondents are hereby directed to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of petition schedule property within 3 months from the date of this order to the petitioner. Failing which, the Petitioner is at liberty to get the vacant possession of petition schedule property through process of law. The respondents are liable to pay Rs.600/- p.m. to the petitioner from the date of petition till vacating of schedule premises." 9. Being aggrieved by the same, the tenant filed a rent revision petition before the First Appellate Court i.e., - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35428 HRRP No. 11 of 2025 IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya in RR No.1/2020. 10. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in the light of the revisional grounds and dismissed the revision petition inter alia holding in paragraphs No.14 to 17 as under: "14. The petition is filed on 02.04.2016 and since then the respondent has not deposited the rent amount even before the court. The respondent has stated that, since 01.01.2014 the respondent has not paid the rent amount. The respondent has failed to comply with the terms of the lease agreement and has became defaulter in payment of agreed rent amount. 15. The petitioner has also produced the copy of legal notice issued to the respondents calling upon him to vacate the schedule premises which is at Ex.P13 dated 31.08.2016. The postal acknowledgement clearly shows that notice was served to the respondents but the respondents have not replied to the said notice. The Ex. P13 to P22 remained unchallenged by the respondents. The learned counsel for the respondents have even not cross examined PW-1. The entire oral evidence of PW-1 remained unchallenged by the respondents. The - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35428 HRRP No. 11 of 2025 respondent has not replied to the legal notice issued by the petitioner. Therefore on the basis of oral and documentary evidence the petitioner has proved that, the respondent is a defaulter in payment of rent amount to the petitioner. 16. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petition schedule premises is required for the petitioner for her bonafide use and occupation and also contended that, the said property is aged 60 years and requires proper repair. The petitioner has stated that, she requires the schedule premises for starting her liquor business in the schedule premises. She is residing in rented house in Vidya Nagar. Mandya and therefore she needs the schedule property for her use and occupation. Though the petitioner has terminated the lease agreement by issuing legal notice to the respondent, the respondent has failed to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the petition schedule premises. As this respondent has failed to comply with the requirement of the notice, without any alternative, the plaintiff approached this Court. 17. The provision of Section 27 of Karnataka Rent Act, reads:-Protection of tenants against eviction. The present petition is filed Under Section 27 (2) (a) (r) which reads:- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other lau or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by the Court. District Judge - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35428 HRRP No. 11 of 2025 or High Court in favour of the landlord against a tenant. save as provided in sub-section (2). (2) The Court may, on an application made to it in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely: (a) that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of the rent and other charges legally recoverable from him within two months from the date on which a notice of demand for payment of has been served on him by the landlord in the manner provided in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Central Act 4 of 1882): Provided that a tenant shall not be entitled to the benefit of service of notice by the landlord under this clause where, having obtained such benefit once in respect of any premises, he again makes a default in the payment of rent and other charges payable in respect of those premises: Provided further that where in a proceeding for eviction of a tenant on the ground specified in this clause, the tenant is to be evicted, the Court shall make an order directing the tenant to vacate the premises unless he pays to the landlord or deposits into Court within one month of the date of order, an amount calculated at the rate at which it was last paid, for the period for which the arrears of rent and other charges were legally recoverable from him, including the period subsequent thereto up to the end of the month previous to that in which payment or deposit is made: (r) that the premises let are required, whether in the same form or after re-construction or re- building, by the landlord for occupation for himself or for any member of his family if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35428 HRRP No. 11 of 2025 person has no other reasonably suitable accommodation: Provided that where the landlord has acquired the premises by transfer, no application for the recovery of possession of such premises shall lie under this clause unless a period of one year has elapsed from the date of the acquisition:" 11. Being further aggrieved by the same, the tenant is before this Court in this revision petition on the following grounds: Viewed from any angle, the impugned orders found at Annexure-A & B passed by the courts below are erroneous, perverse and not sustainable and therefore, the same are liable to be set aside at the hands of this Hon'ble court. The impugned orders passed by the courts below is opposed to law, probabilities and principles of natural justice. The courts below failed to consider that the apart from examine the pleadings and documents. The trial court without proper scrutiny was pleased to pass the impugned orders as found at Annexure-A & B. Hence, the impugned orders are not sustainable and same is liable to be set aside at the hands of this Hon'ble court. The trial court has not given sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to cross examine the Pw.1 and was pleased to pass the impugned judgment dated - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35428 HRRP No. 11 of 2025 03.08.2020 passed in H.R.C No.4 of 2016 and same against to the principles of natural justice. The trial court has not given sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to lead evidence, even though they have filed a written statement and was pleased to pass the impugned judgment dated 03.08.2020 passed in H.R.C No.4 of 2016 and same against to the principles of natural justice. The courts below failed to consider that the plaintiff has the burden of proving their own case and cannot rely on the weaknesses of the defendant's case to succeed. In this case the plaintiff failed to prove his case even the plaintiff failed to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant. Hence, the impugned judgements passed by the courts below are liable to be set aside at the hands of this Hon'ble court. The courts below failed to consider that the respondent has not proved that the relation of petitioners and respondent are tenant and landlord. Only the respondent stating a story that there is oral lease. Even in the absence of the contest of filing the written statement it is the burden to prove who approaches the court. In Hon'ble Apex court in case of Asma Lateef-Vs- Shabbir Ahmad, (2024) 4 SCC 696 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35428 HRRP No. 11 of 2025 The Hon'ble Apex court held that, failure on the part of the defendant to file the written statement within the time permitted by the court would not be enough to pronounce the judgment against the defendant when it is obligatory upon the plaintiff to prove his case. The respondent herein has suppressed fact that respondent herein has filed H.R.C.No.15 of 1997 against the petitioners in respect of suit schedule property and same came to be dismissed for non- prosecution on 01.01.2005. The respondent herein has filed second petition with different facts and cause of action against petitioners herein respect of the suit schedule property in H.R.C.No.04 of 2016. Hence the second petition is not maintainable in the eye of law. The petitioners crave leave of this Hon'ble court to reserve right to raise any additional grounds/documents at the time of arguments in the present petition. The petitioners have not filed any other petition or other proceedings before any court for the same cause of action in the present petition." 12. Sri. Bhadrinath.R, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds of the petition, vehemently contended that, both the Courts failed to - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35428 HRRP No. 11 of 2025 consider the probative value of the documents placed on record by the parties. 13. He also contended that, there was an earlier eviction petition which came to be dismissed for default and the same is suppressed by the landlord while filing the present eviction petition. 14. He further contended that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and in such circumstances, the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Asma Lateef and Another Vs. Shabbir Ahmad and Others reported in (2024) 4 SCC 696 and wrongly passed an order of eviction resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for the admitting the revision petition for further consideration. 15. Per contra, Smt. Anusha Nandish, learned counsel representing the respondent-landlord supports the impugned judgment. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35428 HRRP No. 11 of 2025 16. She would further contend that, admittedly, the tenant was a tenant in respect of premises from the time of the vendor of the present respondent. In the year 1978, through registered sale deed, when the present respondent has purchased the property, by operation of law, there was an automatic attornment of tenancy and therefore, the contention argued on behalf of the tenant that there existed no landlord and tenant relationship cannot be countenanced in law. 17. She would also contend that, in the event if the tenant is disputing the relationship, as per the settled principles of law, the tenant has to vacate the premises and then establish the right over the petition property and she sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 18. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35428 HRRP No. 11 of 2025 19. In the first place, there is a registered sale deed, whereby present respondent became the owner of the petition property from the erstwhile owner. 20. The suit property was subject matter of a partition suit filed by the coparceners in OS No.626/1989. In the said partition suit, there was a decree in favour of the coparceners, whereby the petition property was left out. The judgment passed in the Trial Court attained its finality in RSA No.445/2004 before this Court. 21. Thus, contentions urged on behalf of the tenant that respondent is not the landlord of the premises cannot be countenanced in law. 22. Further, tenant failed to make payment of the rent properly, so also the water charges. The eviction petition filed by the landlord was adjudicated on merits. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35428 HRRP No. 11 of 2025 23. Sri. Bhadrinath however contended that, there was no evidence of respondent placed on record and therefore fair opportunity is not granted. 24. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court has bestowed her attention on the said aspect of the matter and noted that, sufficient opportunity was granted to the tenant, but the same was not utilized, as referred to in the aforesaid paragraphs of the judgment of the First Appellate Court. 25. Thus, absolutely, there is no merit in any one of the grounds urged on behalf of the tenants to admit the revision petition for further consideration. 26. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion, the following order is passed: ORDER i. The revision petition is meritless and hereby, dismissed; ii. However, time is extended to vacate and hand over the premises till 30.09.2025, subject to - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35428 HRRP No. 11 of 2025 payment of all the arrears of rent and to file an undertaking by way of affidavit to vacate and hand over the petition property without driving the landlord to the execution proceedings; iii. Amount in deposit is ordered to be withdrawn by the landlord after due identification. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50