- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8616 HRRP No. 100001 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO.100001 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MARIYAMBI W/O. ABUTAHIR JAMAKHANDI, AGE: 65 YEARSS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: JAKANI BHAVI ROAD, GOULI GALLI, DHARWAD. 2. SHRI. ABUDULSAMAD S/O. ABUTAHIR JAMAKHANDI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: PRINTER, R/O: JAKANI BHAVI ROAD, GOULI GALLI, DHARWAD. 3. SHRI. ABUDULSAMAD S/O. ABUTAHIR JAMAKHANDI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AUTO DRIVER, R/O: JAKANI BHAVI ROAD, GOULI GALLI, DHARWAD. 4. SHRI. ABULMUSTAQ S/O. ABUTAHIR JAMAKHANDI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: GOUNDI, R/O: JAKANI BHAVI ROAD, GOULI GALLI, DHARWAD. 5. SHRI. ABDULRAZAK S/O. ABUTAHIR JAMAKHANDI, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: TAILORING, R/O: JAKANI BHAVI ROAD, GOULI GALLI, DHARWAD. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GIRISH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8616 HRRP No. 100001 of 2022 AND: SRI. JAGANNATH S/O. BALAPPA PATTAR, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: JAKANI BHAVI ROAD, GOULI GALLI, DHARWAD. SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LR’S. 1. SMT. GANGAVVA W/O. JAGANNATH PATTAR, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: JAKANI BHAVI ROAD, GOULI GALLI, DHARWAD. 2. SRI. BALAPPA S/O. JAGANNATH PATTAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: JAKANI BHAVI ROAD, GOULI GALLI, DHARWAD. 3. SRI. VISHWANATH S/O. JAGANNATH PATTAR, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: INAM HONGAL, TQ: SAVADATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. KUM. YOGESHWARI D/O. JAGANNATH PATTAR, AGE: 30 YEARSS, OCC: TAILOR, R/O: INAM HONGAL, TQ: SAVADATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 5. SMT. RAJALAXMI D/O. JAGANNATH PATTAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: INAM HONGAL, TQ: SAVADATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.S.R.HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1, R3 TO R5; R2 IS SERVED) THIS H.R.R.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC PRAYING TO CONFIRM THE HRRP AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN RENT REVISION 4/2017 DATED 7.10.2021 PASSED BY THE IVTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE DHARWAD AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT IN HRC NO.2/2013 IN THE INTEREST AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8616 HRRP No. 100001 of 2022 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 07.10.2021 passed in R.R.No.4/2017 on the file of IV Additional District and Session Judge, Dharwad, by which the revision petition filed by the respondents under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 against the order dated 24.03.2017 passed in HRC No.2/13 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad has been allowed setting aside the said order. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners herein had filed a petition under Section 27 of the Rent Act against the respondents seeking an order of eviction contending that they are the owners of property bearing CTS No. 968/1A/2/LB measuring East-West 15 feet, North-South 20 feet situated at Goulli Galli, Dharwad bounded on the East by CTS No.968/1B, West by CTS No.968/1A/1, North by CTS No.976 and South by CTS No.968/1C. That the petitioner No.1 is the natural mother of petitioners No.2 to 5 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8616 HRRP No. 100001 of 2022 and they are all residing together in a small house at CTS No.968/1B which is situated adjoining the petition premises. That the petitioner No.1 is the age old women, petitioner No.2 is working as painter, petitioner No.3 is running auto, petitioner No.4 is working as goundi and all of them being married, petitioner No.5 was working as tailor and is a bachelor. That the petition premises was purchased by petitioner No.1 on 21.08.2003 from its earlier owner. At the time of purchase, the premises was in a dilapidated condition which the petitioner No.1 repaired subsequently. That in order to meet their financial requirement, petitioner No.1 had given petition premises in favour of respondent No.1 on a rental basis in the year 2007 on a monthly rent of ₹1,000/- the tenancy of which commences from first day of every calendar month. That there is a relationship of owner and tenant between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1. That the respondents have paid the rent from the year 2007 to 01.07.2013 and have been residing therein as a tenants. Since there is an increase in the number of members in the family of the petitioner, they are facing - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8616 HRRP No. 100001 of 2022 difficulty for accommodation. As such, they have requested the respondents to vacate and hand over the premises to meet their bonafide need, which was declined constraining the petitioner to issue a notice on 16.07.2013. Non- compliance of which constrained them to file the petition. 3. Respondents No.1 and 2 appeared and filed statement of objection denying the petition averments and also denied the claim of the petitioners being the owners of the petition premises, having purchased the same on 21.08.2003 from his previous vendors. Averments of the petitioner granting lease in favour of the respondents in the year 2007 on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- is also denied. The relationship of landlord and tenant is also vehemently denied. It is contended that the respondents are residing in the petition premises as owner but not as tenants. It is contended that on 26.08.1997 respondent No.1 had purchased the house property measuring 16 feet x 12 feet from the erstwhile owner in CTS No.968/2 and on the very same day petitioners also purchased a portion of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8616 HRRP No. 100001 of 2022 the property towards Eastern side of the property purchased by the respondents which was measuring 14 feet x 14 feet. Thus, the properties purchased by the petitioners and the respondents are situated adjoining each other. After the purchase, respondents got the roofing of the house repaired. That the respondents have been residing in the premises even prior to their purchase as tenants from the year 1996. That the petitioners are trying to claim that the property belonged to respondents by giving wrong boundaries. Hence, for dismissal of the petition. 4. Petitioner No.4 examined himself as PW.1 and marked 14 documents. Respondent No.1 examined as RW.1 and examined two more witnesses as RW.2 and RW.3. The Court Commissioner was also appointed to find out and report the location of the property. The Trial Court framed the following points for its consideration: 1. Whether the petitioners prove that, they are lawful owners of the petition premises? 2. Whether the petitioners prove that, respondents are their tenants since 2007 on the basis of oral agreement? - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8616 HRRP No. 100001 of 2022 3. Whether the petitioners prove that, they are entitled for relief of vacant physical possession of petition premises along with arrears of rent as prayed for? 4. What order? 5. On appreciation of evidence, The Trial Court answered point Nos.1 to 3 in the Affirmative and consequently allowed the petition directing the respondents to hand over the actual vacant physical possession of the premises within 30 days and also directed to pay balance rent at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month from 02.07.2013 till handing over of the premises. Being aggrieved the respondents preferred the revision petition. The Revisional Court framed the following points for its consideration: 1. Whether the order under revision passed by the trial court by allowing the petition is illegal and arbitrary and hence liable to be set aside? 2. Whether the revision petitioners prove that the impugned order passed by the trial court requires interference of this court? 3. What order? - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8616 HRRP No. 100001 of 2022 6. On re-appreciation, the Revisional Court answered point Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative and consequently allowed the petition, setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are before this court. 7. Sri.Girish S Hiremath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that there is no dispute by the respondents of petitioners being the owners of the petition premises. However, they have set up a wrong claim of they being the owners of the premises in their occupation taking undue advantage of the error crept in the sale deed. He submits that the Trial Court had rightly taken into consideration the said aspect of the matter based on the report of the Commissioner, which the Revisional Court ought not to have reversed. He submits the purpose of appointment of Commissioner was to ascertain the location in respect of the occupation of the parties, which has been brought on record as such the Revisional Court ought to have taken the said report in aid of the contention urged by - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8616 HRRP No. 100001 of 2022 the petitioner. He submits that since the relationship of landlord and tenant is not seriously disputed, the Revisional Court ought not to have allowed the revision petition dismissing the petition of the petitioner. Hence, he seeks for allowing of the petition. 8. Per contra, Sri.S.R.Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the jural relationship is vehemently denied by the respondents besides they have also set up their claim of right, title and possession over the premises subject matter of the petition in themselves, having purchased under deed of sale dated 26.08.1997. He submits that the Trial Court without there being any iota of evidence with regard to the existence of jural relationship ought not to have presumed the respondents to be the tenants of the petition premises, which aspect of the matter has been rightly appreciated and just conclusion arrived by the Revisional Court warranting no interference. 9. Heard. Perused the records. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8616 HRRP No. 100001 of 2022 10. Though the Trial Court has framed three points for consideration, while answering point No.2 has not adverted to any evidence. Merely because the petitioner had produced sale deed at Ex.P.1 and property register extract at Ex.P.4 and the Commissioner report with regard to occupation of the parties, the same would not dispense the requirement of proving and establishing existence of jural relationship. 11. At paragraph No.24 of its order, the Trial Court adverting to the Commissioner report has opined that “Court Commissioner has deposed that the case of the petitioner is proper and correct, his report speaks that, petitioners are the owners of the petitioners property, and respondents are in possession of the property as tenants, under such circumstances on the basis of entire evidence available on record, Court come to the conclusion that, petitioners are lawful owners of the petitioners premises, and respondents are residing in the said premises as tenants, but they are - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8616 HRRP No. 100001 of 2022 denying to vacate from the said property with one or the other reasons.” 12. Thus, as rightly taken note of by the Revisional Court except this piece of observation based on the Commissioner report, the Trial Court has not examined the aspect of relating to proof of jural relationship between the parties. It is settled position of law that the petitioners who claimed to be the owners and respondents to be their tenants, are required to discharge the burden by leading independent cogent evidence with regard to the jural relationship of the landlord and tenant. Not a piece of evidence is placed on record by the petitioners in this regard. In the absence of they discharging the burden, onus cannot be shifted to the respondents to claim otherwise. This requirement of law establishing the jural relationship cannot be substituted by the report of Commissioner who is not meant to collect the evidence on behalf of the parties, which has been rightly taken note of by the Revisional Court. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8616 HRRP No. 100001 of 2022 13. In that view of the matter, this Court do not see any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the Revisional Court allowing revision petition and setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court. No grounds are made out for interference. 14. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 15. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks liberty for the petitioners to avail such other remedy as may be allowed and permissible under law. 16. Submission is taken on record. 17. Petitioners are at liberty to seek such remedy as may be available and permissible under law. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SH/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24