Karnataka High Court
Smt. Seethalakshmi vs Sri Raghunath Prasad on 25 July, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
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.
(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
