1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO.12/2024 (EVI) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SEETHALAKSHMI, W/O SRI. M. BALAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. 2. SMT. K. SHASHIKALA, W/O SRI. M. BALAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. PETITIONERS NO.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT GOWRISHANKAR BUILDING, MOHAN KUMAR NAGAR, YESHWANTHAPURA, BENGALURU-560 022. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. R.B.SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. RAGHUNATH PRASAD, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. 1(a) SMT. KSHAMA, W/O LATE SRI. RAGHUNATH PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 1(b) SMT. NIKITHA, D/O LATE SRI. RAGHUNATH PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. 2 1(c) MS. NEHA, D/O LATE SRI. RAGHUNATH PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. 1(d) MS. POOJA, D/O LATE SRI. RAGHUNATH PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS. 1(e) SRI. AKASH, S/O LATE SRI. RAHUNATH PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDING IN A PORTION OF PROPERTY BEARING NO.1086/A/2-1, 2ND CROSS, PIPELINE, YESHWANTHAPURA, BENGALURU-560 022. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ARCHANA MURTHY, ADVOCATE C/R1[a to e]) THIS HRRP IS FILED SECTION 46(1) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2024 PASSED IN HRC NO. 25/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 27(2)(a) AND (r) OF THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT 1999. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 09.07.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: 3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CAV ORDER This revision petition is filed challenging the judgment of dismissal of the petition filed under Section 27(2)(a) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (‘the said Act’ for short), on the file of Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, vide order dated 30.09.2024. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the revision petitioners before the Trial Court while seeking the relief under Section 27(2)(a) and (r) of the said Act, it is pleaded that they are the owners of the property bearing No.1086/A/2-1, 2nd Cross, Pipeline, Yeshwanthapura, Bengaluru, which is morefully described in the schedule. It is contented that the petitioners are the owners of the entire property and the schedule property is only a portion measuring 15 x 20 feet. It is contended that the respondent is a tenant of the petition schedule premises on a monthly rent of Rs.2,300/- and tenancy is that of English calendar month, commencing from first of each calendar month. It is contended that the respondent is a chronic defaulter in payment of rent and has not paid the rents from April 2005 and the respondent is due in a sum of Rs.4,27,800/- and he has no 4 justification to withhold the payment of rent. It is contended that statutory notice was also served under Section 27(2)(a) of the said Act and the respondent did not comply with the demand and has not paid the arrears of rent and failed to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the petition schedule premises to the petitioners. The petitioners contend that the petition schedule premises is required for their self-occupation and hence invoked the provisions under Section 27(2)(a) and (r) of the said Act. It is also contented that the petitioners had earlier filed a suit in O.S.No.1823/2009 on the file of the City Civil Judge, Bengaluru for ejectment. The suit was dismissed and the same was challenged before this Court in R.F.A.No.1249/2015 and the same was withdrawn on the ground that the suit was filed specifically not mentioning the same as portion of the property and it was in respect of the entire property. 3. It is also contented that the petition schedule premises is a residential premises and the rate of rent is Rs.2,300/- per month i.e., less than Rs.3,500/- and hence it attracts the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act. It is also contended that though it is not necessary to serve any notice of termination of tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of 5 Property Act, but however the petitioners with an abundant caution, served the notice on the respondent terminating the tenancy in respect of the schedule premises and called upon him to vacate and deliver the possession. Inspite of it, the respondent did not deliver the same and hence the petitioners were constrained to file the eviction petition. 4. In pursuance of this petition, notice was issued against the respondent and the respondent appeared and filed the objections. It is contented that the respondent is residing from the time of his father in the property bearing No.1086, Rajani Hotel Next Road, (S.C. Road), 2nd Pipeline Road, Yeshwanthapura Circle, Bengaluru. The address of the schedule mentioned by the petitioners are all false and not belongs to this respondent. The respondent also denied the averments made in the petition regarding that he was a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.2,300/- and also contend that he never paid any rent and also he is not a tenant. The respondent and his family members are in peaceful enjoyment of the house property measuring 15 x 20 feet from the date of his father and they never paid any rents as they are the owners of the said house property. It is contended that there is no any contractual relationship of owner 6 and tenant between the petitioners and the respondent at any point of time and hence cannot invoke the rental provisions under the said Act. The respondent also denied the arrears of rent as claimed by the petitioners i.e., Rs.4,27,800/-. It is also contended that earlier also they had filed a suit in O.S.No.1823/2009 and the same was dismissed and R.F.A. was also filed and the same was withdrawn. It is contended that the petitioners had made false claim earlier and when they were unsuccessful, they withdrew the suit and fraud has been committed by the petitioners. Further, the schedule ‘B’ property in O.S.No.1823/2009 is the same schedule property in this petition. The respondent also denied all other averments with regard to invoking of Section 27(2)(a) and (r) of the said Act that the same is required for bonafide occupation. It is contended that the respondent is not a tenant under the petitioners and hence the question of payment of rent as well as vacating the same does not arise. 5. The respondent contended that the petition schedule premises originally belongs to one Raghunath Singh and he offered to sell the property to his father for a sale consideration of Rs.35,000/- and the same was paid. The legal heirs of the 7 said Raghunath Singh are not found after the death of Raghunath Singh and hence they could not file the suit for specific performance and they are residing as owners of the property in respect of property bearing No.1086, which was in existence much earlier and the respondent continued the possession after the death of his father. The petitioners are claiming that the layout was formed and the same was approved by BDA and BDA had executed the document in favour of the vendors of the petitioners and the petitioners have purchased the property and the same is not in the respect of the petition schedule premises and the respondent was never in occupation, much less, as tenant. The respondent is not at all aware of Lakshmikant and Rajamma, who are the vendors of the petitioners and neither had an agreement of lease nor a rental agreement with the vendors of the petitioners and he never paid any rent to them, nor they issued any kind of receipt to him, there is no any document of payment of rent and there was no any tenancy. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition 6. The petitioners examined one witness as P.W.1 by executing the general power of attorney and P.W.1 reiterated the averments of the petition and got marked the documents at 8 Exs.P.1 to 8. P.W.1 was subjected to cross-examination. P.W.1 stated that the petition schedule premises was purchased in 2004 or 2005 in the month of February. His wife has purchased the entire building in which the petition schedule premises is located. It is elicited that after the petition schedule premises was purchased, they have not issued any notice to the respondent to vacate the petition schedule premises. It is also elicited that the suit in O.S.No.1823/2009 was dismissed and against that order, an appeal was filed and the same was withdrawn. P.W.1 also admits that they had issued a legal notice to the respondent prior to filing of the earlier suit i.e., on 28.12.2008 and the respondent gave reply to the said notice. The documents of legal notice and reply was got confronted as Exs.R.1 and 2. It is elicited that in the said legal notice, he had mentioned the address of the respondent as 1086, 2nd Cross, Pipeline, Yeshwanthpura, Bangalore. The measurement of the petition schedule premises is 15 x 20 feet. In respect of the sale deed which was purchased in the name of his wife Shashikala, in the description of the property, towards the north, 1086 is mentioned. It is also elicited that he had produced transfer agreement executed by BDA in the name of Lakshmikanth 9 Rajamma in O.S.No.1823/2009. The certified copy is also confronted and marked as Ex.R.3. During the course of cross- examination, the documents are confronted to the witness and got marked as Exs.R4 to 8 i.e., certified copy of the sale deed produced in O.S.No.1823/2009 and property number mentioned as 1086/A/2-1 and also bifurcation of the property in terms of Ex.R.6 and certified copy of the sale deed dated 29.11.2012. It is also suggested that he is not the owner of the property bearing No.1086 and the same was denied. 7. On the other hand, the respondent examined himself as R.W.1 and he reiterated the averments of the objection statement in the affidavit and got marked the documents at Exs.R8 to 27(a). He was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, he admits that he know reading and writing of Kannada language and also he can read English language, but not so comfortable. He admits that he used to sign in English language. It is elicited that from more than 50 years, he has been staying in the petition schedule premises and also says that during his childhood, his parents came in possession of the petition schedule premises in the year 1970. They came in possession of the property as purchasers and at that time, 10 Raghunath Singh was the owner of the property. He admits that he has not seen the title deeds of Raghunath Singh and admits that he has taken the contention that they are the owners of the petition schedule premises. He admits that he has no document to show that he is the owner of the petition schedule premises. The vakalath filed by him was got marked as Ex.P.9 and his signature is got marked as Ex.P.9(a). It is elicited that he has not executed any rental agreement with reference to the petition schedule premises as he is the tenant in the petition schedule premises. The document was shown to the witness and he denies the signature, but for the identification purpose, the document is marked as Ex.P.10 and signature is marked as Exs.P.10(a) and (b) i.e., the rental agreement as relied upon by the petitioners. 8. R.W.1 says that he is not aware as to whether the petitioners have purchased the petition schedule premises from Rajamma and Lakshmikanth. He admits that either in the khatha certificate or in the khatha extract of the petition schedule premises, his name or his father's name are not mentioned as owners. He admits the measurement of the petition schedule premises as 15 x 20 feet and in respect of the 11 description of the property, he says he cannot give the description as he is unable to say the property situated towards sunrise and sunset. However, he admits that his house is facing towards 2nd pipeline road. It is his claim that the entire property bearing No.1086 is measuring 15 x 20 feet. But denies the suggestion that it measures about 40 feet x 50.3 inches. It is his case that his father has entered into oral agreement with Raghunath Singh and he does not know whether Raghunath Singh has executed any sale deed in favour of his father and mother. He says that he has not executed any sale deed in his favour. He admits that either his father during his life time or mother or himself have not filed any suit for the relief of specific performance of contract against Raghunath Singh. He does not know whether his father has paid Rs.35,000/- to Raghunath Singh. 9. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, comes to the conclusion that the petitioners have not proved the relationship between the petitioners and the respondent. The evidence placed by the petitioners are insufficient to disbelieve the evidence placed by the respondent i.e., school records, death certification, LIC 12 documents regarding occupation of the respondent and his family members in the petition schedule premises since 1970 or 1972. Though the petitioners relies upon the document of Ex.P.10 dated 22.11.2001, they have not proved the very execution of the agreement to believe the case of the petitioners. It is also observed that only during the course of cross-examination of R.W.1, for the one time, the document was confronted to him. It is also observed that the petitioners have not produced admissible, believable evidence to show the subsistence of landlord and tenant relationship between the vendor of the petitioners, namely Rajamma/Lakshmikanth and Rajendra Prasad/Raghunath Prasad. The petitioners have not produced any type of evidence confirming the payment of rent by either Raghunath Prasad or Rajendra Prasad. The petitioners have also not produced the rent agreement marked at Ex.P.10 either in O.S.No.1823/2009, at the first instance when the petition was filed and hence comes to the conclusion that in the absence of any cogent material for establishing the relationship, the question of allowing the petition does not arise and not entitled for the relief of eviction. 13 10. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, the present petition is filed before this Court. 11. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners before this Court is that the Trial Court failed to take note of that there existed a jural relationship between the petitioners and the respondent and the same is evident from Ex.P.10 i.e., the rental agreement between the vendors of the petitioners and the respondent. It is also contended that though the respondent claims that his father was the owner and there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant, but the respondent has not produced any document of title. Secondly, the rental agreement is also not disputed. The observations made by the Trial Court that the petitioners have not produced admissible/believable evidence to show the subsistence of landlord and tenant relationship between the vendors of the petitioners and the respondent, is wholly erroneous. The very observation that Ex.P.10 is not proved according to the provisions of the Rent act is wholly erroneous and hence it requires interference of this Court. The learned counsel contend that voluminous documents are placed before the Trial Court. 14 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that, first of all, the petitioners are not the owners and the respondents are in occupation of the premises bearing No.1086 and the claim made by the petitioners is in respect of 1086/A/2-1. The documents relied upon by the petitioners is only Ex.R.3 transfer agreement and not the sale deed. The learned counsel also contend that there is a clear dispute with regard to the identity of the property and the Trial Court in detail discussed with regard to establishment of the jural relationship between the parties and hence it does not require any interference of this Court. 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents, the points that would arise for the consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the petition in coming to the conclusion that the petitioners have failed to establish the jural relationship between the petitioners and the respondent as owner and tenant? (ii) What order? 15 Point No.(i): 14. Having discussed in detail the contents of the petition and the statement of the objections, it is the claim of the petitioners that they have purchased the suit schedule premises and also produced the documents before the Trial Court i.e., the certified copies of two sale deeds dated 22.01.2005 and also produced the khatha certificates as Exs.P.3 and 4, tax paid receipts as Ex.P.5, certified copy of order in R.F.A.No.1249/2015 as Ex.P.6, legal notice Ex.P.7, postal acknowledgment Ex.P.8 and signature of R.W.1 marked on Ex.P.9 i.e., vakalath filed by the respondent. It is important to note that the original petitioners have not been examined, but power of attorney holder, who is none other than the husband of the original petitioners was examined as P.W.1. It is also important to note that in the cross-examination of P.W.1, it is stated that the schedule premises was purchased in 2004 or 2005 in the month of February and in the sale deed it is mentioned as property bearing No.1086/A/2-1, 2nd Cross Pipeline, Yeshwanthpura, Bengaluru. But it is his case that he has not taken the rental agreement from the vendor. After the petition schedule premises was purchased, he has not given any notice to the 16 respondent. But suit was filed earlier and the same was dismissed and RFA was filed and the same was withdrawn. It is his specific case that the measurement of the petition schedule premises is 15 x 20 feet. With regard to tenancy is concerned, he relies upon the document of Ex.P.10 and the same is confronted to R.W.1 in the cross-examination and at the first instance, not produced any document except Exs.P1 to 8. It is also an admitted fact that there is no rent receipt either paid to the petitioners as well as the earlier owner. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly relies upon the document of Ex.P.10 and in order to prove the relationship also, the document was shown to R.W.1 i.e., Ex.P.10 rental agreement and he denies the signature. But for the purpose of identification, the Trial Court marked the same as Ex.P.10 and also the signature as Ex.P.10(a). It is also important to note that the respondent also claims that he is the owner and also contend that there was an oral sale agreement between his father and the original owner Raghunath Singh, but no such agreement is produced before the Court. He claims that it is only an oral agreement and though claims that the entire sale consideration was paid, he categorically admits that he does 17 not know whether his father had made the payment of Rs.35,000/- as sale consideration. It is also clear admission that either himself or his father had filed any suit for specific performance. But his claim is that he is in possession of the property as owner, but no title document. Apart from that, he categorically admits that he did not see any title document of Raghunath Singh. It is also important to note that though the learned counsel for the respondents disputes the very identity of the property, but R.W.1 categorically admits in the very beginning of the cross-examination that from more than 50 years, he has been staying in the petition schedule premises. When such admission is given that he is residing along with his parents and all of them came in possession of the petition schedule premises in the year 1970, now he cannot dispute the very identity of the property. It is also important to note that R.W.1 categorically admits that he is in possession of the premises measuring 15 x 20 feet. The case of the petitioners is also that it measures about 15 x 20 feet. Though an attempt is made that he was not able to give details of direction, but he categorically says that his house is facing towards the 2nd Pipeline Road. Hence, the identity of the property is not in 18 dispute, since there is a clear admission on the part of R.W.1 that he is in possession of the petition schedule premises. 16. Now the only question which remains before this Court is regarding establishment of the jural relationship between petitioners and the respondent. The petitioners have not produced the rental agreement at the first instance and the same was confronted to the respondent during the course of cross-examination and R.W.1 categorically denied the same. Having perused the signature found in Exs.P.9 and 10, they are not similar. When such being the case, in order to prove the document, the petitioners ought to have examined the vendors, since it is the claim that the respondent entered into a rental agreement with their vendors and the vendors have not been examined and the persons who have signed as witnesses to the document of Ex.P.10 also have not been examined before the Trial Court. When there is a dispute with regard to the jural relationship, ought to have examined the vendors as well as the witnesses in the absence of any documentary proof for having paid the rent either to the vendor or to the petitioners. The material available on record is insufficient to come to a conclusion that the petitioners have established the jural 19 relationship between the parties and hence it requires remand to examine the vendors of the petitioners and also the witnesses to the agreement of Ex.P.10. Unless Ex.P.10 is proved, the question of establishment of jural relationship also does not arise. Hence, I answer the point accordingly. Point No.(ii): 17. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The HRRP is allowed. (ii) The impugned order passed by the Trial Court is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration in view of the observations made by this Court. (iii) The Trial Court is directed to give an opportunity to the petitioners to establish the jural relationship permitting the petitioners to lead further evidence. (iv) The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 18.08.2025, without expecting any notice from the Trial Court. 20 (v) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of four months from 18.08.2025. Sd/- (H.P. SANDESH) JUDGE MD