- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9340 HRRP No. 1 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE HOUSE RENT REVISION PETITION NO.1 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SRI B.N.RAMACHANDRA S/O.LATE B.N.NARAYANA GUPTA HINDU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.43-2-3 H.B.SAMAJA ROAD, ANNEX SOMASHEKHAR BUILDINGS BASVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560 004 …PETITIONER (BY SRI S.GANGADHARA AITHAL, ADVOCATE) AND: ARYA VYSHYA MANDALI NO.10/1, V.S.TEMPLE COMPLEX AVENUE ROAD BENGALURU-560 002 REP. BY ITS GPA HOLDER SRI R.K.BHASKAR S/O.R.V.KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.20 3RD MAIN ROAD MARUTHI EXTENSION SRIRAMPURA BENGALURU-560 021 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PARASHURAMA R.HATTARAKIHAL, ADVOCATE) THIS HOUSE RENT REVISION PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 46(1) OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999 PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF EVICTION DATED 15.10.2025 Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9340 HRRP No. 1 of 2026 PASSED IN HRC.NO.18/2024 BY VII ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND ACJM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent. 2. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 15.10.2025 passed in HRC.No.18/2024 by VII Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru (for short, 'the Rent Court'). 3. In terms of the said impugned order, there is a direction to the respondent in the aforementioned HRC to handover the vacant possession of the petition schedule premises to the petitioner within a period of three (03) months from the date of the order. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent-tenant is before this Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9340 HRRP No. 1 of 2026 5. The parties are referred to as per their designation before the Rent Court. 6. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 27(2)(r) and 27(2)(f) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short, 'the Act of 1999') seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant from the premises, which admittedly is a commercial shop. 7. When the petition was pending hearing, an application is filed to amend the petition and to delete Section 27(2)(r) of the Act of 1999 on the premise that the said provision is quoted inadvertently. Therefore, the application came to be allowed. Thereafter, the petition is heard on merits to find out as to whether a case is made out under Section 27(2)(f) of the Act of 1999. The Court found that the petitioner/landlord has made out a case for eviction on the premise that the building is in a dilapidated condition and permission is granted to the petitioner to demolish the structure and directed the respondent to evict the premises. 8. Learned counsel for respondent-tenant would submit that Section 27(2)(f) of the Act of 1999 has no application to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9340 HRRP No. 1 of 2026 the case on hand. It is urged that the Government or the Local Body has not directed the demolition of structure and has not inspected the premises and there is no finding that the building is in a dilapidated condition, as such, the permission granted to the petitioner to rebuild the structure after demolishing the old structure cannot be construed as a direction under Section 27(2)(f) of the Act of 1999 to demolish the structure. Thus, he would urge that the revision petition has to be allowed and the petition filed before the Trial Court has to be dismissed by setting aside the impugned order. 9. Learned counsel for petitioner/landlord would urge that the petitioner applied for permission to construct a new building as the existing building was in a dilapidated condition and after a thorough inspection, permission is granted to demolish the building and the said endorsement is marked as Ex.P3. Ex.P3 reveals that there was a spot inspection before passing the order and the Rent Court is justified in passing the order for eviction. 10. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9340 HRRP No. 1 of 2026 11. There is no dispute that the petition is initially filed under Sections 27(2)(r) and 27 (2)(f) of the Act of 1999 and it is later amended by confining the same to Section 27(2)(f) of the Act of 1999 on the premise that Section 27(2)(r) of the Act of 1999 is quoted inadvertently. Thus, there is no difficulty in accepting the plea that the petition is only confined to under Section 27(2)(f) of the Act of 1999. 12. On perusal of aforementioned provision, it is evident that in case, the Government or the Local Body is of the opinion that the structure is to be demolished or the new structure is to be built as per the Scheme launched by the Government or the Local Body, then there can be an eviction under Section 27(2)(f) of the Act of 1999. However, admittedly, no such Scheme is produced and no such direction issued by the Government for demolishing the building is produced. Therefore, what is required to be noted is, permission is granted to the petitioner to demolish the building, apparently, on the basis of an application filed by the petitioner seeking demolition and reconstruction. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9340 HRRP No. 1 of 2026 13. It is not forthcoming from the said endorsement at Ex.P3 as to whether the building was in a dilapidated condition or not and the permission was granted. Since the petition for eviction is sought on the ground that the petition building is in a dilapidated condition and it requires demolition and reconstruction. The Court is of the view that the finding as to the status of the building has to be looked into. Admittedly, no Engineer, who is said to have inspected the premises before granting permission under Ex.P3 is examined before the Court. No other evidence is placed before the Court to show that the building was in a dilapidated condition. 14. Learned counsel for petitioner would place reliance on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Javeed Ahmed Khan Vs. Syed Ali1 to contend that the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider Section 21(1)(k) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 and the said provision is pari materia with Section 27(2)(f) of Act of 1999 and in the said case, the Court has held that the Rent Court has no jurisdiction to go beyond notice under Section 322 1 ILR 1994 Kar 1619 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9340 HRRP No. 1 of 2026 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. It is to be noticed that in the instant case, no such notice is issued under Section 322 of the said Act and apparently, no evidence is placed to hold that there was a prior inspection of the premises before issuing Ex.P3. 15. It is also submitted that the substantial portion of the building comprising of 4 units out of 6 units owned by the petitioner is already demolished and only 2 units are in occupation of the tenants, for whose eviction, the petitions are filed. 16. Learned counsel for petitioner does not dispute the fact that three (03) shops are demolished and submits that the demolition of the fourth structure is on the way. Be that as it may, what is required to be noticed is, two structures are said to be still in existence and the Court is of the view that the state of affairs of those two structures have to be considered by the Rent Court and for this purpose, the Civil Engineer attached to the Corporation has to be appointed and he has to submit a report as to the state of affairs of the premises in question. Thereafter, the parties shall be permitted to lead evidence on - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9340 HRRP No. 1 of 2026 the said report and based on the evidence of the said report, the Rent Court has to pass appropriate orders. Hence the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed -in-part; ii) The impugned order dated 15.10.2025 passed in HRC.No.18/2024 by VII Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru is set aside; iii) The matter is remitted to the Rent Court for appointing the Civil Engineer as a Court Commissioner and to secure his report and to pass appropriate orders based on the report by providing opportunity to the parties to lead any other additional evidence; iv) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter; v) While appointing the Civil Engineer attached to the Corporation, the guidelines laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Shadaksharappa vs. Kumari Vijayalaxmi and Others 2 shall be followed; 2 ILR 2023 Kar 3983 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9340 HRRP No. 1 of 2026 vi) Since the issue raised in this petition is in a narrow campus, the Rent Court shall endeavour to dispose of the case as early as possible and both parties shall cooperate for early disposal. vii) It is expected that the matter would be disposed of within a period of four (04) months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory application, if any, does not survive for consideration. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28