Karnataka High Court
Smt. Haseena vs Inayath 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.2/2021 (EVI)
C/W
HOUSE RENT REV.PETITION NO.3/2021
IN HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO.2/2021:
BETWEEN:
SMT. HASEENA,
W/O LATE ATAULLA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT M.K.K.ROAD,
SHIVOMOGGA-577 202. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BALRAJ K.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
INAYATH,
S/O AMANULLA KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
BEEDA SHOP,
R/O M.K.K. CROSS,
SHIVAMOGGA-577 202. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B.S.PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.06.2020 PASSED IN REVISION
(RENT) NO.3/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA, ALLOWING THE PETITION AND
SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.07.2019 PASSED IN
H.R.C.NO.06/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE
2
AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA ALLOWING THE PETITION FOR
EVICTION.
IN HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO.3/2021:
BETWEEN:
SMT HASEENA,
W/O LATE ATAULLA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT M.K.K. ROAD,
SHIVAMOGGA-577202. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BALRAJ K.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SYED PEER,
S/O GHOUSE,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
SHAMIYANA EMPLOYEE,
R/O M.K.K. CROSS,
SHIVAMOGGA-577202. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B.S.PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.06.2020 PASSED IN REVISION
(RENT) NO.4/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE AT SHIVAMOGGA, ALLOWING THE PETITION
FILED UNDER SECTION 46(2) OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999
AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.07.2019 PASSED IN
HRC NO.7/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC AT SHIVAMOGGA, ALLOWING THE PETITION, SUIT FOR
EVICTION.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 11.07.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
3
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CAV ORDER
These two petitions are filed against the orders passed in
Revision (Rent) Nos.3/2019 and 4/2019, vide order dated
01.06.2020, on the file of the III Additional District Judge,
Shivamogga, allowing the revision petitions and setting aside the
orders passed by the Trial Court in HRC Nos.6/2014 and 7/2014
dated 06.07.2019, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and
JMFC, Shivamogga.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the petitioner
herein in both the HRC cases is that, the respondents are the
tenants in the respective petition schedule premises and sought
the eviction order praying the Court to direct the respondents to
deliver the vacant possession of the same and also to pay all
arrears of rent and that they have committed default in payment
of rent. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the
absolute owner of the petition schedule property and the petition
schedule property is required for their bonafide use and
occupation. The petitioner acquired the petition schedule
property through registered Will dated 16.04.1986 executed by
4
the grandmother of the petitioner by name Smt. Sydani Bi W/o
Hayath Sab, who was the absolute owner of the petition
schedule property. It is contended that after the death of the
grandmother and mother of the petitioner, the petitioner became
the absolute owner of the petition schedule property. It is
contended that the respondent is a tenant under the petitioner
on oral agreement and the tenancy between them commences
from 1st of every month on a monthly rent of Rs.300/- during
the period of the deceased mother of the petitioner and
subsequently, it was enhanced to Rs.600/- per month as per the
oral agreement. The rent has to be paid on or before 5th day of
every month.
3. It is further contended that the schedule premises
has been let out to the respondent for running a petty beeda
shop in HRC No.6/2014 and for running a shop/residence in HRC
No.7/2014. The respondents committed default of payment of
rent from last four months and the respondents are due of rent
from October 2011 to the tune of Rs.28,800/- in both the cases
and on demand also, they did not pay the amount. In both the
petitions, it is contended that the petition schedule premises is
required for bonafide use and occupation and to construct a new
5
renovated building, as the existing building is very old one and
the petitioner has terminated the tenancy by issuing the notice
to the respondents on 29.10.2011 and called upon to pay
arrears of rent of Rs.21,600/- and to surrender the vacant
possession within 15 days from the date of notice. Though the
said notice was personally served to the respondent, the
respondent in both the cases not surrendered the vacant
possession and not paid the arrears of rent and hence sought for
the eviction order.
4. In HRC No.6/2014, the respondent appeared and
filed the written statement and denied the claim of the petitioner
by stating that there is no jural relationship of landlord and
tenant between him and the petitioner. It is contended that the
father of the respondent was a tenant under one Smt. Hanifa Bi,
W/o Buden Sab. After the death of Hanifa Bi, the petition
schedule property was under the ownership of one Rameeza Bi
W/o Basha Sab and after the death of his father and also Smt.
Rameeza Bi, he has been in occupation of the petition schedule
premises as a tenant under one Smt. Shanaz Begum W/o
Mohammad Rafiq under the lease deed. Further, the respondent
denied the petition averments that he is a tenant and took the
6
schedule premises for running a beeda shop and contended that
he is the tenant for ground and constructed a petty box shop on
his own and the allegation of chronic defaulter was denied and
also the petitioner is a landlady was also denied and for bonafide
requirement the petition schedule premises is required was also
denied.
5. In HRC No.7/14 also, the respondent appeared and
filed the written statement and denied the jural relationship and
contented that he has occupied the petition schedule property in
his own right as an heir of Ghouse Sab. It is contended that the
said Ghouse Sab is the son of Hanifa Bi, who is the original
owner of the petition schedule property and abutting premises.
After her demise, her son Ghouse Sab was in occupation till he
died. Thereafter, the respondent being the son of Ghouse Sab,
has occupied the petition schedule residential house. The
respondent denied the plaint averments that he is a tenant and
contended that he has not paid the rent at any point of time and
also the petitioner is not the landlady of the respondent.
6. In HRC No.6/2014, the petitioner examined herself
at P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 31. In
7
HRC No.7/14, the petitioner got examined herself as P.W.1 and
got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 33. The respondents in
HRC Nos.6/2014 and 7/2014 examined themselves as R.W.1 and
got marked the documents at Exs.R1 to 5. The Trial Court
having considered the material available on record, answered
point Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative in coming to the conclusion in
both the cases that the respondents are the tenants in respect of
the petition schedule property and the same is required for
bonafide use and occupation of the petitioner and the petitioner
is entitled for the relief as sought.
7. Being aggrieved by the allowing of the petitions in
both the cases, Revision (Rent) Nos.3/2019 and 4/2019 are
filed, respectively. The Revisional Court, having re-assessed the
material available on the record in both the cases, formulated
the points whether the landlord and tenant relationship exists
between the petitioner Smt. Haseena and the respondent,
whether the petitioner Smt. Haseena is entitled for the relief
claimed in I.A.No.2 filed under Section 45 of the Karnataka Rent
Act, whether the respondent is entitled for the relief claimed in
I.A.No.3 filed under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act,
whether the impugned order under revision is contrary to law,
8
facts and evidence on record and whether it requires
interference. The Revisional Court, answered point Nos.1 and 2
in the negative, but allowed I.A.No.3 filed under Section 43 of
the Karnataka Act and set aside the order of the Trial Court.
While setting aside the order, in paragraph No.33, in detail
discussed regarding the jural relationship between the parties
and also discussed the documents which have been produced by
the respondents and observed that there is a dispute between
the present petitioner and the legal heirs of Buden Sab with
regard to the property in question. The petitioner has not
produced any document in writing to establish the landlord and
tenant relationship and she has not produced any rent receipt.
An observation is also made that there is a serious dispute with
regard to landlord and tenant relationship between the petitioner
and respondent. On the other hand, the respondent has
produced one rent agreement executed by him in favour of
Smt.Shanaz Begam W/o Mohammed Rafiz in HRC No.3/2019 and
hence comes to the conclusion that it is not safe to confirm the
eviction order passed against the respondent holding that there
exist landlord and tenant relationship between the petitioner and
respondent.
9
8. In Revision (Rent) No.4/2019, an observation is
made that plaintiff No.5 Ramiza is the wife of late Mohammed
Ghouse who is also son of Khatunbi in O.S.No.505/1997.
Considering the facts pleaded in O.S.No.505/1997 and
O.S.No.272/2005, comes to the conclusion that the properties
were divided between the branch of Hayath Sab and Buden Sab.
Buden Sab got eastern portion measuring 16' x 50' and Hayath
Sab got western portion measuring 15' x 50'. But in the case on
hand, the claim is made that Sydani Bi had executed a Will in
favour of the petitioner Smt. Hasina and her mother Smt.
Mehaboo Bi. The Revisional Court having considered that there
is a dispute between the present petitioner and the legal heirs of
Buden Sab with regard to the property in question and also the
petitioner has not produced any document in writing to establish
the landlord and the tenant relationship and also not produced
any rent receipt, comes to the conclusion that not established
the jural relationship between the parties.
9. Being aggrieved by the order of the Revisional Court,
these two H.R.R.Ps. are filed before this Court.
10
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would
vehemently contend that the relationship is disputed, but the
Trial Court having considered the material on record, particularly
the pleadings and the evidence, allowed the petitions and the
same is reversed by the Revisional Court. The learned counsel
would contend that the Revisional Court committed an error in
entertaining the revision invoking Section 43 of the Karnataka
Rent Act and ought not to have invoked Section 43 in the rent
revision. The learned counsel would contend that the
applications are filed under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act
in the Revisional Court. The learned counsel relied upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ASHA RANI GUPTA
v. VINEET KUMAR reported in AIR Online 2022 SC 983,
wherein it is held that only basic requirement in suit of nature
envisaged by Order 15 Rule 5 is character of tenant as being
lessee in suit premises. Thus, it cannot be said that in every case
of denial of relationship of landlord and tenant in suit for eviction
and recovery of rent/damages could enjoy holidays as regards
payment of rent. The learned counsel also brought to the notice
of this Court the discussion made in paragraph No.12 of the
judgment.
11
11. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of
this Court in the case of A.M. MALLOEGOWDA v. KARIYAPPA
GOWDA reported in 2004 (1) KCCR 143, wherein discussion
was made with regard to Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act,
1999. Section 43 of the Act, which provides for stopping of
further proceedings in case of disputed relationship of landlord
and tenant, applies only to the proceedings before original Court
and not to the proceedings pending in revision. The learned
counsel also brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.4,
wherein discussion was made with regard to Section 43 of the
Act. This Court held that, the Court as referred to in Section 43
has to be understood as the original Court and not the Revisional
Court. Any acceptance of the submission of the petitioner would
defeat an order of the Court after contest by the parties. That is
not the intention of Section 43. Section 43 is an enabling
provision in the matter of decision with regard to relationship
between landlord and tenant. When parties go before the
original Court and the original Court decides the relation issue
after contest, it is not open to the tenant or the landlord as the
case may be to stop the proceedings after an order passed after
contest. In fact, this view of mine is supported by the wordings
12
of Section 43 itself. Section 43 provides for stoppage of all
further proceedings before it and direct the parties to approach
Competent Court etc. The Court in terms of the Act would mean
the original Court. It would depend upon the area in terms of
Section 3-C. The wordings of 'Court' and the stoppage of further
proceedings before it would be in fact show the intention of the
legislature in confining the stoppage of proceedings before the
original Court. Only that stoppage cannot be extended to a
Revisional Court. The learned Judge is therefore right in his
findings with regard to the stoppage of proceedings.
12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent
would vehemently contend that the two suits are filed in
O.S.No.505/1997 and O.S.No.272/2005. It emerges that one
Gidde Mohamed Sab had two sons namely, Hayath Sab and
Buden Sab. Smt. Sydanibi referred in the present petition is the
wife of Hayath Sab. Buden Sab had two wives namely, Zulekabi
and Khatumbi. The plaintiff No.1 Abdul Wahid and plaintiff No.2
Pyarijan in O.S.No.505/1995 are the children of Zulekabi. The
plaintiff No.3 Ramizabi and plaintiff No.4 Fathimabi in
O.S.No.505/1995 are the children of Khatunbi. The plaintiff No.5
Ramiza is the wife of late Mohammed Ghouse who is also son of
13
Khatunbi. The plaintiff No.2 Pyarijan had two children namely,
Shanshad and Shahnaz Begam. As per the facts pleaded in the
suit O.S.No.505/1997 and O.S.No.274/2005, the property
situated at M.K.K. Road were divided between the branch of
Hayath Sab and Buden Sab. Buden Sab got eastern portion
measuring 16' x 50' and Hayath Sab got western portion
measuring 15' x 50'. But claim of the petitioners in both the
cases is that, Sydanibi had executed a Will in the respect of
property measuring 15' x 135' in favour of the petitioner Smt.
Hasina and her mother Smt. Mehaboo Bi. Both the suits were
decreed against the defendants and liberty was given to evict
the tenants under due process of law.
13. The learned counsel would contend that both the
respondents are not the tenants of the petitioner and nothing is
placed on record before the Court to establish the jural
relationship and the same was noticed by the Revisional Court.
The learned counsel would contend that the Revisional Court in
paragraph No.33 of the judgment discussed the same in detail.
The learned counsel would submit that the citations relied upon
by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the
facts of the case on hand.
14
14. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner would
contend that the very rent revision filed before the Revisional
Court is not maintainable and no jurisdiction to entertain the
application filed under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, but
erroneously passed the order.
15. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned counsel for the respondent and also considering
the material available on record, the points that would arise for
the consideration of this Court are:
(i) Whether the Revisional Court committed an
error in coming to the conclusion that jural
relationship is not established in both the cases.
(ii) Whether the application filed under Section 43
of the Karnataka Rent Act, before the Revisional
Court is not maintainable in view of the
judgment of this Court in the case of
A.M.Malloegowda (supra)?
(iii) What order?
Point No.(i):
16. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties and also considering the material available on record,
15
with regard to the jural relationship is concerned, specific
pleading is made before the Trial Court that a Will was executed
by Smt.Sydanibi in favour of the mother of the petitioner. The
petitioner also contend that after the mother passed away, now
she has become the absolute owner of the premises. The
petitioner in HRC No.6/2014 relied upon Exs.P.1 to 31. Having
considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on
record, there is a clear admission on the part of P.W.1 that the
respondent has not executed any rent agreement, but claims
that there was an oral agreement. P.W.1 categorically admits
that for having paid the rent also, not produced any receipt
before the Court and also even with regard to the quantum of
rent also, no document is produced. But says that even inspite
of the respondent was called upon to come and execute the
rental agreement, refused to execute the rental agreement.
Except oral tenancy, no document. In the cross-examination, a
suggestion was made that she was aware of Hanifa Bi, who is
the wife of Buden Sab, was the owner of the petition schedule
property and after her death, her son Ghouse Sab inherited the
petition schedule property and after the death of said Ghouse
Sab, the respondent being the legal heir of the said Ghouse Sab
16
is residing in the petition schedule property and the said
suggestion was denied. A suggestion was made that the petition
schedule premises belongs to Hanifa Bi and under Hanifa Bi, the
respondent's father was a tenant and the same was denied. It is
elicited that in 2011, she has given the notice to make the
payment of rent and the rents are not paid. A suggestion was
made that no such notice was given and the same was denied
and reiterates that there is no rental agreement.
17. Having perused the material available on record and
also the evidence of R.W.1, even in the cross-examination of
R.W.1 also, nothing is elicited. But categorically says that his
father had taken the premises from Hanifa Bi and claims that
there was a written agreement and he can produce the same
before the Court, but not produced the same. However, admits
that notice was given, but do not remember giving any reply. In
the cross-examination, though suggestions are made that they
are the tenants under P.W.1, nothing is elicited.
18. Having considered both oral and documentary
evidence placed on record, in order to prove the factum of jural
relationship, nothing is placed on record. There is a serious
17
dispute with regard to the property belongs to whom and they
claim that they are the tenants under Buden Sab W/o Smt.
Hanifa Bi. In the absence of any documentary evidence
regarding relationship of the tenants and the landlord, the
Revisional Court rightly comes to the conclusion that the same
has not been established and there is a serious dispute with
regard to the ownership is concerned. But claim is made that
there was a Will.
19. Now with regard to Revision (Rent) No.4/2019 and
also HRC No.7/2014, P.W.1 reiterates the averments in the
evidence that he was a tenant. In order to prove the tenancy
also, specific question was put that he was a tenant under the
petitioner and the same was denied. In this case also P.W.1
denies Hanifa Bi is the wife of Buden Sab and also denies the
suggestion that after the death of Hanifa Bi, the property was
allotted to her son Ghouse Sab and also clearly admits that there
is no any rental agreement and when demanded to execute the
rental agreement, they came forward to assault the petitioner
and also no rent receipt.
18
20. R.W.1 also reiterated the objection statement and
relies upon Exs.R.1 to 5 i.e., suit documents and admits in the
cross-examination that he has not filed any objections. But he
claims that Buden Sab is his grandfather and the petition
schedule property belongs to his grandfather Buden Sab and the
same was given by the Government. He says he cannot tell in
which year the property was given to Buden Sab. In the cross-
examination, though suggestion was made that the petition
schedule premises belongs to Sydani Bi, the same was denied.
In the cross-examination, he admits the issuance of notice and
the same was taken by one Sameena, but admits that no reply
was given and also rents are not given in terms of the notice.
21. The Revisional Court taken note of the dispute
between the parties regarding jural relationship and no
documentary evidence is placed before the Trial Court or the
Revisional Court to establish the jural relationship between the
parties. The Revisional Court also taken note of the serious
dispute with regard to the ownership is concerned. It is also
important to note that when there is no rental agreement and
also no rental receipt, in the absence of establishing the jural
19
relationship, the question of granting any eviction order does not
arise and the same was taken note of by the Revisional Court.
Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Revisional Court
in coming to the conclusion that relationship is not established
and hence, I answer point No.(i) in the negative.
Point No.(ii):
22. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the
notice of this Court that, an application is filed before the
Revisional Court under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act.
This Court in the judgment in the case of A.M. Malloegowda
(supra), has held that application could be invoked before the
original Court and the same is discussed in paragraph No.4 and
this Court would like to extract the same:
"4. A careful reading of Section 43 would show
that Section 43 is only applicable to the original
proceedings and not to the revisional proceedings.
The Court as referred to in Section 43 has to be
understood as the original Court and not the
Revisional Court. Any acceptance of the submission
of the petitioner would defeat an order of the Court
after contest by the parties. That is not the intention
of Section 43. Section 43 is an enabling provision in
20
the matter of decision with regard to relationship
between landlord and tenant. When parties go before
the original Court and the original Court decides the
relation issue after contest, it is not open to the
tenant or the landlord as the case may be to stop the
proceedings after an order passed after contest. In
fact, this view of mine is supported by the wordings
of Section 43 itself. Section 43 provides for stoppage
of all further proceedings before it and direct the
parties to approach Competent Court etc. The Court
in terms of the Act would mean the original Court. It
would depend upon the area in terms of Section 3-C.
The wordings of 'Court' and the stoppage of further
proceedings before it would be in fact show the
intention of the legislature in confining the stoppage
of proceedings before the original Court. Only that
stoppage cannot be extended to a Revisional Court.
The learned Judge is therefore right in his findings
with regard to the stoppage of proceedings."
23. Having read the above paragraph, it is very clear
that Section 43 is only applicable to the original proceedings and
not to the revisional proceedings. An observation is made that
any acceptance of the submission of the petitioner will defeat an
order of the Court after contest by the parties and the intention
of Section 43 is very clear that the same is an enabling provision
21
in the matter of decision with regard to relationship between the
landlord and tenant. When parties go before the original Court
and the original Court decides the relation issue after contest, it
is not open to the tenant or the landlord, as the case may be, to
stop the proceedings after an order passed after contest. Having
taken note of the principles laid down in the said judgment, a
specific observation is made that the wordings of Section 43 is
pertaining to the original Court. The Court in terms of the Act
would mean the original Court and not the Revisional Court and
hence, I am of the opinion that the Revisional Court ought not to
have entertained the application filed under Section 43 of the
Karnataka Act, when the said application was not filed before the
Trial Court either by the owner or by the tenant and committed
an error in entertaining the same by allowing the I.A. filed under
Section 43. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.
However, taking into note in the original proceedings, in the
absence of the application under Section 43 of the Karnataka
Act, nothing is placed on record to establish the jural relationship
between the parties and in the absence of any rental agreement,
though the petitioner claims that there was an oral agreement,
nothing is elicited from the mouth of R.W.1 in both the matters
22
that they were the tenants either under Smt. Sydani Bi or under
the mother of the petitioner Smt. Mehaboo Bi and also under this
petitioner. Under such circumstances, the question of
entertaining the Karnataka Rent Act does not arise and hence, I
do not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the
Revisional Court in coming to the conclusion that jural
relationship is not established, except answering point No.2 in
the affirmative.
Point No.(iii):
24. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
Both the HRRPs are dismissed by confirming the
order of the Revisional Court that the petitioner has
not established the jural relationship. However, the
application entertained under Section 43 of the
Karnataka Rent Act before the Revisional Court is set
aside.
Sd/-
(H.P. SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
