- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4367 HRRP No. 100007 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO. 100007 OF 2022 (-) BETWEEN: KRISHNA HARI KILLEDAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. 1. DINDAYAL S/O. KRISHNA KILLADAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O. NEAR HEAD POST OFFICE, OPP. BSNL OFFICE, STATION ROAD, HUBLI-580020. 2. BHARATI W/O. PRAKASH AVLEKAR, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, TARABAI PARK, KOLHAPUR-416001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MANE, ADVOCATE) AND: RAGHUNATH @ VISHNU, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS., 1. USHA W/O. RAGHUNATH @ VISHNU PHANASALKAR, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, (SINCE DECEASED BY LRS RESPONDENTS NO.2 & 3) 2. VIJAYKUMAR S/O. RAGHUNATH @ VISHNU PHANASALKAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4367 HRRP No. 100007 of 2022 3. VIDHYADHAR S/O. RAGHUNATH @ VISHNU PHANASALKAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, (ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF STATION ROAD, HUBLI-580020.) 4. (SANDEEP S/O. KRISHNA KILLADAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O. NEAR HEAD POST OFFICE, OPP. BSNL OFFICE, STATION ROAD, HUBLI, NOW AT MUMBAI.) (DELETED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 3-8-2023) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE R2 & R3; R1-DECEASED; R4-DELETED) THIS HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.04.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD SITTING AT HUBBALLI, IN RENT REVISION NO.22/2010 DISMISSING REVISION PETITION CONFIRMING JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.09.2010 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, HUBBALLI IN HRC NO.100/1999 ORDERING FOR EVICTION OF PETITIONER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4367 HRRP No. 100007 of 2022 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. This revision petition is filed by the legal representatives of respondent challenging the Order dated 21.04.2022 in Rent Revision No.22/2010 on the file of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, Sitting at Hubballi, dismissing the petition and confirming the Judgment and decree dated 17.09.2010 and 24.09.2010 in HRC No.100/1999 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi, allowing the petition in part. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to with reference to their ranking before the Court of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi, in HRC No.100/1999. 3. Facts in nutshell for the purpose of adjudication of the petition are that, the petitioner in HRC No.100/1999 is a lessor of the respondent on a monthly rent of ₹45/- and ₹125/- per month. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petition premises is required for the petitioner for their own occupation and the respondent is acting mala fide and is not vacating the schedule premises and hence, the petitioner has filed HRC No.100/1999, seeking eviction of the respondent. It is also - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4367 HRRP No. 100007 of 2022 stated that the petitioner has caused notice dated 06.09.1999 and 23.09.1999, calling upon the respondent to pay arrears of rent which is unpaid and accordingly, filed the petition. 4. After service of notice, the respondent entered appearance and contended that the petition is not maintainable, disputing the jural relationship of landlord and tenant. It is also stated in the petition that petitioner has filed O.S.No.172/1993 seeking recovery of possession and accordingly, stated that the petition is not maintainable. 5. The original Court formulated issues for its consideration. In order to establish their case, petitioner has examined two witnesses as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked 18 documents as Exs.P1 to P18. Respondent has examined himself as R.W.1 and marked 26 documents as Exs.R1 to R26. The Trial Court after considering the material on record, by its Order dated 17.09.2010, dismissed the petition under Section 27(2)(a) and (o) of the Karnataka Rent Act and allowed the petition under Section 27(2)(c), 27(2)(e) and (i), 27(2)(h), 27(2)(r) and 31 of the Karnataka Rent Act, and being aggrieved by the same, respondent has preferred R.R.No.22/2010 under Section 46(2) - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4367 HRRP No. 100007 of 2022 of the Karnataka Rent Act. The Revisional Court, dismissed the petition and confirmed the Judgment and decree in HRC No.100/1999. Hence, this petition is filed by the respondent/petitioner herein. 6. I have heard Sri. Santosh B. Mane, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Dinesh M. Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have no right to continue the proceedings on account of completion of the leasehold rights with the original landlord of the schedule property and he further contended that, the original landlord has entered into a fresh lease agreement with the petitioner herein and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. It is also contended by the petitioner that the relationship between the parties is concluded on account of efflux of time and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3, sought to justify the impugned order. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4367 HRRP No. 100007 of 2022 9. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the petitioner herein is a tenant under the respondent and further respondent has taken the premises from the original landlord as per lease deed dated 06.07.1965. Therefore, the petitioner herein is a lessee and the petitioner has leased the property in question in favour of the respondent – sub-lessee. Taking into consideration the finding recorded by the Courts below, particularly, Ex.P13 and P15, Judgment and decree in O.S.No.172/1993 and Ex.P17 and P18 Judgment and decree in R.A.No.53/1999 and the admissions made by R.W.1, I am of the view that, the competent Court has arrived at a conclusion that the respondent has encroached the passage adjoining to the premises and accordingly, the suit came to be decreed and in furtherance of the same, the respondent was directed to handover the vacant possession of the schedule premises. The reasons assigned by the original Court being that the respondent herein requires premises for reconstruction and bona fide use and occupation. It is also to be noted that, the petitioner herein is directly connected with the respondent herein and the said jural relationship between the parties is still continued and also the said jural relationship has not dissolved - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4367 HRRP No. 100007 of 2022 on account of efflux of time nor on account of the failure on the part of either of the parties to the agreement and in that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for in this petition. It is also to be noted that both the Courts below have considered the matter on merits and arrived at a conclusion that the respondent required premises for his own occupation and therefore, no interference is called for in this petition. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the jural relationship of the respondent herein with the original landlord has come to an end, however, the said aspect of the matter cannot be considered to determine the rights of the parties in the present petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37