- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4899 HRRP No. 21 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO. 21 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GEETHA S. ALVA W/O. LATE SRINIVAS ALVA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 2. SMT. SHAMITHA SUDESH D/O. LATE SRINIVAS ALVA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 3. SRIJITH ALVA S/O. LATE SRINIVAS ALVA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 4. SMT. RADHA @ RADHIKA D/O. LATE. VITTAMMA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NEAR AMAR ALVA ROAD, OPP. RAMAKRISHNA MISSION COMPOUND, MANGALADEVI ROAD, MANGALURU - 575001 (DK) …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M. SUDHAKAR PAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RASIKA RAI W/O. LATE A.HARSHA RAI AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4899 HRRP No. 21 of 2025 2. SMT. RAMYA D/O. LATE A.HARSA RAI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 3. SRI. PARIKSHITH S/O. LATE A.HARSA RAI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 4. SRI. A.SANTOSH RAI S/O. B.L.N.RAI AND RAMAMBA L.N.RAI AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT MANGALADEVI ROAD, MANGALURU - 575001 (DK) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.09.2025 PASSED IN R.E.V.(RENT) NO.2/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 46 OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999 AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER AND DECREE DATED 30.10.2021 PASSED IN HRC NO.10/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALURU, D.K., ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 27(2)(p) (r) OF THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4899 HRRP No. 21 of 2025 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the tenants assailing the order dated 30.10.2021 passed by the III Additional Civil Judge, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada (for short 'Trial Court') in HRC No.10/2013, as well as the order dated 22.09.2025 in R.E.V.(Rent) No.2/2022 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru (for short 'Revisional Court'). 2. A petition is filed against the tenants for eviction invoking Section 27(2)(p) and (r) read with Section Sections 31 and 42(6) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short 'Act of 1999'). The order also directed the valuation of the property and improvements made thereon by the four gentlemen within two months from the date of the order. It further directed that after the evaluation is made, the landlords have to pay the amount to the tenants after deducting the arrears of rent, if any. On receipt of the said amount, the tenants were directed to vacate the petition premises within one month. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4899 HRRP No. 21 of 2025 3. The landlords filed revision petition assailing the order directing valuation of the property. It is submitted that the said revision petition was dismissed. The tenants filed revision petition in R.E.V.(Rent)No.02/2022 before the Revisional Court, assailing the order directing their eviction. Said petition was also dismissed. Hence, the tenants are before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants raised the jurisdictional issue to urge a contention that the petition filed by the landlords before the Trial Court is not maintainable. It is submitted that the petition premises was a vacant land when it was leased in the year 1952 and the tenure was one year. In terms of the lease agreement, the petitioners/tenants were permitted to put up a structure and they were entitled for reimbursement of maximum of Rs.5,000/- at the time of eviction. It is submitted that the tenants put up a structure with the consent of the landlords and there are structures which are used for residential as well as commercial purpose and that being the position, the Karnataka Rent Act of 1999 (for short 'Act, 1999') is not applicable. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4899 HRRP No. 21 of 2025 5. In addition, it is also urged that the land when it was leased was a vacant land. The subject matter of the petition is out of the purview of the Act, 1999. These two jurisdictional issues have not been considered properly by the Trial Court and the Revisional Court and thus, he would urge that this petition has to be allowed and the petition filed by the landlords seeking eviction of the tenants has to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 6. In addition, he would also contend that assuming that the Court had the jurisdiction to try the petition, the landlords did not make out a ground for eviction under Section 27(2)(r) of the Act, 1999. It is urged that the landlords have secured the possession of the premises surrounding the choultry, which is owned by the landlords and the petition before the Trial Court is filed on the premise that they need the petition premises for parking space as the parking space in and around the choultry is not sufficient to accommodate the ever growing number of visitors using the vehicle. 7. In support of his contention, he would refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gopal Dass Verma vs. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4899 HRRP No. 21 of 2025 S. K. Bhardwaj1 and the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Chennachari and others vs. Saroja and others2. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents/landlords would urge that the property was leased in the year 1952 on an annual rent of Rs.26/-. The tenure was only for one year and the tenants were permitted to put up a structure in the premises and the agreement also provided that in case the tenants have to vacate the premises, they are entitled to a compensation upto Rs.5,000/- irrespective of the investment they have made. 9. It is urged that the petition premises is very much required for the landlords for their bonafide use and they are running a choultry and that choultry is located 700 metres away from the petition premises and because of increase in the number of vehicles visiting the choultry for various functions, the parking space is inadequate and for this reason, the landlords have sought the possession. 1 1963 AIR (SC) 337 2 ILR 2005 KAR 4817 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4899 HRRP No. 21 of 2025 10. In addition, it is also urged that the tenants are defaulters and they have not paid Rs.26/- annual rent for last several years. It is also urged that the tenancy having come to an end, the tenants cannot urge a contention that they can continue in possession of the property. It is urged that the contention relating to the alleged commercial use and want of jurisdiction of the Court is not raised before the Trial Court. 11. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 12. It is noticed that the jurisdiction of the Court based on the plinth area as defined under the Act of 1999 is not raised before the Trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants to urge his contention that the Court has no jurisdiction has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gopal Dass Verma, referred supra. 13. It is noticed that the said judgment is rendered in the context of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (Act, 1952). While interpreting Section 13(1)(e) of the Act, 1952, the Court has come to the conclusion that in case the premises is used for both residential and commercial purpose, then the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4899 HRRP No. 21 of 2025 Court under the Act, 1952 does not have the jurisdiction to try the petition. 14. There is nothing on record to show that Section 13(1)(e) of the Act, 1952 is in pari materia with Sections 2 and 27 of the Act, 1999. Hence, the said contention cannot be accepted. 15. In addition to that, it is also required to be noticed that the contention relating to the jurisdiction of the Court is not raised before the Trial Court. In every case relating to jurisdiction of the Court, the question is not a pure question of law. In some cases, it would be a mixed question of law and fact. The jurisdiction of the Court sometimes depends upon the factual position, which is the case under Act, 1999. 16. Under the Act, 1999, the jurisdiction of the Court is ousted in case the property is a commercial premises and if the extent exceeds 14 square meters and in case it is a residential premises if the rent exceeds Rs.2,500/- per month. Such contentions based on the facts are not raised in the objection statement before the Trial Court. Thus, the contention that the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4899 HRRP No. 21 of 2025 Act, 1999 has no application and the Court had no jurisdiction to try the petition cannot be accepted in the facts of the case. 17. In so far as the contention that the premises leased was only a vacant land and now the building is put up, as such, the petition is not maintainable, raised by the learned counsel for petitioners/tenants with reference to the judgment of Chennachari and others, referred supra, is concerned, it is to be noticed that in the said case, the tenant who was allowed to occupy a vacant land was not permitted to put up a structure and he has put up a structure without the consent of the landlord. 18. Whereas in the instant case, the tenants were permitted to put up a structure and the said clause is found in the lease agreement itself. Thus, the contention that what was leased is only a vacant land and the petition cannot be filed by the landlords under the Act, 1999 in respect of the vacant land, cannot be accepted. Since, the tenants were permitted to put up structure over the vacant land, the Act, 1999 does apply and the landlords were justified in invoking the Act, 1999. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4899 HRRP No. 21 of 2025 19. Now the question is whether the landlords have made out a case for seeking eviction against the tenants by invoking Section 27(2)(r) of the Act, 1999 on the premise that the petition premises is required for his bonafide use. 20. It is not in dispute that the landlords own a choultry around the petition premises. It is borne out from the records that the choultry is located around 700 metres away from the petition premises. Though the landlords have sought eviction against certain persons around the choultry and have secured certain other premises, what is required to be noticed is the landlords are running a choultry and the Court can certainly take judicial notice of the fact that the parking space is a real issue in and around choultry and the choultry needs large parking space to accommodate. 21. This being the position, this Court is of the view that the landlords have made out a case that the premises is required for their bonafide use. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find reason to interfere with the concurrent finding recorded by the Trial Court and the Revisional Court. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4899 HRRP No. 21 of 2025 22. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks two years time to vacate the premises. 23. Considering the fact that the property was leased only for one year in the year 1952, the Court is of the view that eight months time from today is to be granted to the petitioners to vacate the premises, subject to petitioners filing undertaking to this effect in the form of affidavits before the Trial Court. 24. It is relevant to notice that the Trial Court has also directed evaluation of the property by four gentlemen and further directed deduction of arrears of rent payable by the tenants to the landlords. Since the lease agreement provides for payment of maximum Rs.5,000/-, this Court is of the view that the above exercise is unnecessary. The landlords shall pay Rs.5,000/- without insisting for arrears of rent. 25. The affidavits shall be filed before the Trial Court within 30 days from today after serving the copy of the affidavits to the counsel for the landlords before the Trial Court. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4899 HRRP No. 21 of 2025 26. In case the affidavits are not filed within thirty days from today, the landlords are permitted to execute the decree for eviction. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15