- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33757 HRRP No. 15 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO. 15 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI BHOJRAJ S/O BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO 3, 5TH CROSS CANARA BANK COLONY NANAJARASAPPA GARDEN NAGARABHAVI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU 560072 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESH KUMAR R V AND LAW MENS CO.,ADVOCATE) AND: SRI MUNIRAJU DEAD BY LRS SRI SHANKAR M S/O LT MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO 12, 3RD CROSS NANJARASAPPA GARDEN NAGARBHAVI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU 560072 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. BHUVAN K.P., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33757 HRRP No. 15 of 2024 THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 46(1) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.08.2024 PASSED IN HRC NO. 43/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU., ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 27(2)(1) AND (r), 31(1)(c) OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT 1999. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Sri. Ramesh Kumar R.V., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Bhuvan K.P. learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Respondent in HRC No.43/2018 is the revision petitioner. He has challenged the Order of eviction passed in HRC No.43/2018 dated 19.08.2024, whereby he was supposed to vacate and handover the petition property within four months from 19.08.2024. Respondent was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,500/- to the petitioner towards arrears of rent. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33757 HRRP No. 15 of 2024 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: An Eviction Petition under Section 27(2)(1) and (r), 31(1)(c) of the Karnataka Rent Act, came to be filed by the owner of the premises Sri. Muniraju who is respondent in the present revision petition by contending that he is the landlord of the premises and he wanted the petition property for his personal use and occupation and he is a senior citizen. 4. In response to the notice of the petition, respondent appeared and filed detailed written statement. During the pendancy of the petition, the original petitioner died and his legal representatives are brought on record. 5. Learned Trial Judge recorded the evidence of the parties and thereafter heard the arguments of the parties and allowed the petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33757 HRRP No. 15 of 2024 6. On behalf of Sri. Muniraju, three more witnesses were also examined. As against the same, respondent got examined himself as RW1. 7. While so allowing the petition, learned Trial Judge had taken into consideration in paragraphs 26 and 36 to 38 held as under; "26. in the cross-examination RW1 stated that he has produced Ex.R.2 original sale agreement stating that his Nanjarasappa executed the same in favour of father of RW for a total consideration of Rs.60,000/-. RW1 denied the suggestion that under sale agreement his father paid only about Rs.5000/- to Nanjarasappa. RW1 stated that non-filing of A any case against Nanjarasappa and his legal heirs calling upon them to register sale deed in his favour. RW1 stated that non-issuing of any legal notice to Nanjarasappa and his legal heirs calling upon them to execute the sale deed. RW1 stated that as on the date of evidence he is asserting that Gayathri is the owner of schedule premises for the reason that his father executed sale deed in favour of Gayathri on the basis of General Power of Attorney which his father had. RW1 stated that Somashekar husband of Gayathri is a resident of local area. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33757 HRRP No. 15 of 2024 36. Above referred materials reveals that respondent Bhojaraj is claiming and asserting ownership right and possessary right over the petition schedule premises on the basis of the agreement of sale dated 14.02.1991 alleged to have been executed by Nanjarasappa in favout of Lakshamamma W/o. Basappa and also asserting ownership of Gayathri, W/o. Somashekara on the basis of irrevocable General Power of Attorney alleged to have been executed by Nanjarasappa in favour of Basappa and sale deed alleged to have been executed by Basappa as General Power of Attorney holder of Nanjarasappa dated 20.08.2005 in favour of Gayathri. 37. At this stage, it is important to note that according to the petitioner through legal notice dated BALA, 4.06.2018 marked at Ex.P.8. sent through RPAD Detitioner Muniraju terminated tenancy of Bhojaraj with 1 respect to the schedule premises. It is undisputed that the respondent has neither issued reply nor complied that notice. In this case, the respondent Bhojaraj has not produced any type of evidence to disbelieve or rebut the contents of legal notice dated 14.06.2018, RPAD receipt dated 14.06.2018, acknowledgment card marked at Ex. P.8 and P.9 respectively. 38. In the petition filed under section 27 of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 the consideration of the legality, validity of the agreement of sale dated 14.02.1991 and consequential transactions alleged by the respondent does not arise or survive. Above referred - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33757 HRRP No. 15 of 2024 materials shows that the respondent is not having ownership right or any right other than the tenancy status as asserted by the petitioner over the schedule premises. Hence, judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner are applicable to the facts of circumstances of the case of the petitioner. 39. Hence, I came to the conclusion that the respondent who is occupying the schedule premises as tenant in view of termination of tenancy through notice dated 14.06.2018 is liable to quit, vacate and hand over the possession of the schedule premises to the petitioner and also liable to pay arrears of rent worth of Rs.3,500/- as claimed in the petition and to that effect he is entitle for the relief." 8. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent/tenant has filed the present petition on the following grounds :  The order impugned order of eviction dated 19/08/2024 is contrary to the facts, probabilities and circumstances of the case and hence the same deserves to be set aside in its entirety.  The Hon'ble trial court lost site of the fact that the very Jural relationship of land lord and tenant is in dispute, EX P 10, the leased deed alleged to be entered in to between Muniraju the original plaintiff and the mother of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33757 HRRP No. 15 of 2024 petitioner is not proved, a fundamental error on the part of the trial court to exercise the jurisdiction to pass order of eviction, on this principle ground alone the same is liable to be set aside.  The trial court has lost sight of Section 43 of Karnataka Rent act, 1999, wherein the court ought to have directed the parties ie the respondent to approach the jurisdictional civil court to establish the title, in the absence of this approach the order of eviction is not sustainable and hence liable to be set aside.  The trial court permitting the respondent herein marking of EX P 10 the disputed lease agreement inspite of serious objections, is inadmissible under the provisions of Indian Evidence Act, wherein foundation is not layed to lead secondary evidence and hence unsustainable and also the same is not duly stamped as required under Section 34 of The Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and hence on this count also the impugned order is liable to be set aside.  The Trial court has lost site of the fact that EX R 2, the agreement to sell entered in to between Nanjarasappa, the grandfather of the respondent and Smt Lakshmamm, the mother of the petitioner herein along with irrevocable GPA coupled with interest that is executed by Nanjarasappa, is binding on his legal heirs and they are in occupation and possession of the subject premises as true and lawful owners. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33757 HRRP No. 15 of 2024  The Trial court has lost site of the fact that EX R 4, ration card marked on behalf of the petitioner demonstrates the fact of their possession as owners and not as tenants, absolutely no discussion on these points that goes to the very root of the matter has resulted in passing the impugned order of eviction on the premise of the petitioner is a tenant is totally misconceived and untenable approach, warranting interference by this Hon'ble court.  The Trial court has lost site of the fact that EX R 5 (pages 1 to 5) the BESCOM bills for the year 2002 to 2004 and thereafter depicts the name of Smt Lakshmamma in respect of the premises in question and the factum of the family residing therein as owners of the same till today, failing to appreciate this very vital aspect of the matter has resulted in miscarriage of Justice.  The Trial court has lost site of the fact that EX R 6 is the intimation by the BESCOM to Smt Lakshmama the mother of the petitioner to pay additional deposit also demonstrates the fact of she being the owner of the subject schedule residential premises, non consideration of this fact has resulted in grave injustice to the petitioner.  Non consideration of the evidence of the petitioner in a better perspective has resulted in miscarriage of Justice, warranting interference by this Hon'ble court to set right the injustice caused to the petitioner and his family. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33757 HRRP No. 15 of 2024  To believe the case of the respondent that the petitioner is a tenant under him, proof of payment of rents is produced for better appreciation of the factum of landlord and tenant relationship, in the absence of such concrete proof the impugned order of eviction is bad in law and liable to be set aside.  The agreement to sell entered in to between Nanjarasappa, the grandfather of the respondent and Smt Lakshmamm, the mother of the petitioner herein along with irrevocable GPA coupled with interest, is binding on his legal heirs and the petitioner and his family are in lawful occupation and possession of the subject premises as true and lawful owners even to this date, non consideration of this fact is fatal and the impugned order of eviction is susceptible, vulnerable and liable to be set aside. 9. Sril. Ramesh Kumar R.V., learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended in view of Ex.R2, the learned Trial Judge ought not to have ventured to proceed with the case further and relegated the parties to the Civil Court in view of the fact that petitioner was put into possession of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33757 HRRP No. 15 of 2024 the property by virtue of part performance of the contract of agreement to sell vide Ex.R2 and thus sought for admitting the petition for further consideration. 10. He also contended that the contemporaneous documents like electricity bill etc., would make it clear that the petitioner is in possession of the property and therefore, a petition for eviction was not maintainable and sought for admitting the petition for further consideration. 11. Per contra, Sri. Bhuvan K.P., learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submits that Ex.R2 though dated 14.02.1991 did not come into the light till the parties joined the issue and placed their evidence before the Court. 12. He also contends that significantly date of Ex.R2 or the details of Ex.R2 are not even forthcoming in the objection statement filed by the respondent. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33757 HRRP No. 15 of 2024 13. Therefore Ex.R2 is a concocted document and having failed to prove Ex.R2 and in the light of Ex.P10 which is the Rental Agreement between the parties, learned Trial Judge was justified in allowing the Eviction Petition and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 14. Having heard the arguments of both the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 15. On such perusal of material on record, it is crystal clear that there is a rental agreement between the parties vide Ex.P10. 16. As against Ex.P10, Ex.R2 is placed on record by the respondent by contending that he is in possession of the suit property by virtue of part performance of the contract agreement to sell executed on 14.02.1991 by the father of the original petitioner Sri. Muniraju in favour of the mother of the tenant. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33757 HRRP No. 15 of 2024 17. Pertinently, the said document did not come in to light nor photocopy of the said document is filed along with the objection statement. 18. In the objection statement to the main petition also, there is no mention that the respondent is in possession of the petition property by virtue of part performance of the contract. All that has been stated is that they are in possession of the property. There is no dispute as to the respondent/tenant being in possession of the property. Therefore, the question of proving that the petitioner is in part performance of the contract of agreement to sell has to be established by the respondent by proving Ex.R2. To prove Ex.R2, none of the witnesses are examined. 19. Further, name of the original petitioner Muniraju also appears in the column 'buyer' in Ex.R2 which would prima facie establishes the fact that Ex.R2 is an afterthought and not a genuine document which is not proved before the Court. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33757 HRRP No. 15 of 2024 20. Therefore learned Trial Judge was justified in ignoring the probative value of Ex.R2 in comparison with Ex.P10. 21. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, this Court does not find any good ground whatsoever to admit the revision petition further on the ground of non existence of landlord and tenant relationship. 22. Since the revision petitioner who is the tenant failed to pay the rent and subsequently by order of the Court, the rent has been paid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the grounds urged in the revision petition are hardly sufficient to admit the matter for further consideration. 23. Accordingly, there is no merit in the revision grounds and hence following order is passed : ORDER (i) The revision petition is dismissed. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33757 HRRP No. 15 of 2024 (ii) However, time is granted till 31st October 2025 to vacate and handover the premises. (iii) Revision petitioner shall file an undertaking by way of Affidavit to the effect that he would voluntarily vacate and handover the premises without driving the landlord to file Execution Petition within two weeks from today. He shall continue to pay the rent as and when it accrues. (iv) Rent amount in deposit is ordered to be withdrawn by the respondent/landlord under due identification. SD/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 71 ct: BHK