Karnataka High Court
Sri. Fyzulla vs Sri. K N Shivakumar on 16 June, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:20559
HRRP No. 6 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO.6 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. FYZULLA
SON OF LATE PYAREJAN
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
2. SMT. SHARFUNNISA
D/O LATE PYAREJAN
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
3. SMT. NAJBUNNNISA
D/O LATE PYAREJAN
AGED ABOUT48 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT SITE NO.32, (SY.NO.46)
NEXT TO GOVERNMENT SCHOOL
Digitally signed NEAR SHANI MAHATMA TEMPLE
by DEVIKA M
KOWDENAHALLI, DOORAVANINAGAR POST
Location: HIGH BENGALURU -560 016.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR K.C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. K.N.SHIVAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
S/O LATE M.NARAYANAPPA
2. K.N. JAGADISH
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
S/O LATE M. NARAYANAPPA,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:20559
HRRP No. 6 of 2025
HC-KAR
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
KOWDENAHALLI
RAMAMURTHY NAGAR
DOORAVANINAGAR POST
BENGALURU-560 016.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARSHA KUMAR GOWDA H.R, ADVOCATE FOR
C/R1 AND R2)
THIS HRRP FILED UNDER SECTION 46(1) OF THE
KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
27.01.2025 PASSED IN HRC NO.30/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE
CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU,
ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 27(2)(r) OF
THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
This matter is listed for admission and I have heard
learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for
caveator-respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the petitioners
while invoking Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act is
that the father of the respondents i.e., the petitioners herein
was a tenant under petitioners with respect to AC sheet roofed
house described in the schedule having been inducted as a
NC: 2025:KHC:20559
HC-KAR
tenant on 04.09.1994 and rent was Rs.400/- and petition
schedule premises was let out for residential purpose. The
plinth area of petition schedule premises is about 3 squares
comprising a hall, a room, kitchen with a toilet situated outside
the main structure. The walls of the petition schedule premises
are of mud, which was initially intended to be a temporary
construction i.e., to accommodate the members of the family of
petitioners. After the construction was completed, the younger
sister of the petitioners, for whom the petition schedule
premises was actually meant was reluctant to move to that
premises, in view of the plinth area is only 3 squares and the
toilet located outside the house. At that time, father of the
respondents namely Pyarejan approached the petitioners and
requested them to let out the petition schedule premises,
therefore, the schedule premises has been let out to Pyarejan
for residential purpose. Pyarejan initially paid monthly rents,
but after sometime, due to unfortunate accident of an electrical
pole, situated outside the house collapsed and fell on his
younger daughter (Mehrunnisa), Pyarejan stopped paying
monthly rents. The petitioners did not insist on payment of
rent due to unfortunate death of daughter of Pyarejan. The
NC: 2025:KHC:20559
HC-KAR
petitioners are not responsible for the occurrence of incident
within the property i.e., fall of electricity pole on Mehrunnisa.
3. It is also contended that Pyarejan had filed
O.S.No.2252/2000 seeking compensation against the petitioner
No.1-Shivakumar and the said suit is partially decreed and
R.F.A.No.1071/2008 and cross appeal filed against judgment
and decree passed in O.S.No.2252/2000 are pending for
consideration. After the death of Mehrunnisa, daughter of
Pyarejan, Pyarejan did not pay rent. After the death of
Pyarejan, respondents also did not pay rent. During 2002,
Pyarejan expired. Even after death of Pyarejan, respondents
continued to remain in possession of schedule premises. The
petitioners along with 12 members are residing in the house
mentioned in the address of the cause title. The premises in
which the petitioners are residing is not adequate for use and
occupation. The petitioners require the petition schedule
premises for their bonafide use and occupation. Hence, filed the
petition contending that they are intending to demolish the
existing structure and construct a residential house, so as to
NC: 2025:KHC:20559
HC-KAR
accommodate the family of petitioners in the petition schedule
premises.
4. The said petition was resisted by filing statement of
objection by the respondents contending that the petitioners
have no locus standi to file the present petition asserting
ownership over the schedule premises. The respondents are not
at all the tenants of the schedule premises and there is no jural
relationship of landlord and tenants between the petitioners
and respondents. It is contended that the petitioners are
misleading and suppressing the material facts by filing petition
only for escaping their liability of payment of death
compensation regarding death of sister of respondents. The
respondents have vacated the premises after the death of their
sister. Question of payment of rent subsequent to death of their
sister does not arise for the reason that respondents have
vacated the premises very long back. It is also contended that
father of the respondents namely Pyarejan filed
O.S.No.2252/2000 seeking compensation against petitioner
No.1-Shivakumar and KPTCL, which has been partly decreed
and R.F.A.No.1071/2008 and Cross-appeal No.14/2009 filed
NC: 2025:KHC:20559
HC-KAR
challenging the judgment passed in O.S.No.2252/2000 are
pending. During 2001 Pyarejan, father of the respondents
expired, then respondents are possessing Site No.40 formed in
Sy.No.47 of Kowdenahalli Village as owners. The respondents
are possessing the schedule premises as legal representatives
of Pyarejan.
5. Having considered the grounds urged in the petition
as well as the objection statement, the Trial Court allowed the
parties to lead evidence and the petitioners examined the first
petitioner as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to
P18(a). On the other hand, the respondents examined the first
respondent as R.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.R1
to R15. The Trial Court having then considered the material on
record regarding the jural relationship is concerned taken note
of Ex.P10-notice issued by the very father of this respondent on
22.09.1997 before filing a suit claiming the compensation
against the first petitioner and also KPTCL and also reply notice
dated 13.10.1997 which was marked as Ex.P11 denying the
compensation claimed against the owner i.e., first petitioner
and also the judgment Ex.P12 is the copy of the judgment
NC: 2025:KHC:20559
HC-KAR
dated 09.04.2008 passed in O.S.No.2252/2000 directing the
KPTCL and petitioner No.1-Shivakumar to pay Rs.83,000/- each
with interest at the rate of 6% to the present respondents, who
are the plaintiffs as compensation due to the death of
Mehrunnisa, sister of present respondents. Ex.P13 is the copy
of deposition of Pyarejan, son of Ibrahim dated 28.10.1997
recorded in P.Misc.No.930/1997 by Registrar, City Civil Court,
Bangalore. Ex.P14 is the copy of deposition of Pyarejan, son of
Ibrahim dated 09.03.2000 recorded in P.Misc.No.930/1997 by
VI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengalury in which Pyarejan
stated that he is residing in a premises owned by respondent
No.1 i.e., Shivakumar as a tenant. Ex.P15 is the copy of the
amended plaint pertaining to O.S.No.2252/2000.
6. Having considered all these documents, the Trial
Court comes to the conclusion that there is no any dispute with
regard to the relationship between the parties and there are
material placed on record sufficient to come to a conclusion
that the petitioners herein are the tenants, who have continued
the premises after the death of original tenant i.e., Pyarejan.
The Trial Court also having considered the material on record,
NC: 2025:KHC:20559
HC-KAR
comes to the conclusion that the petitioners have filed the
petition seeking the relief under Section 27(2)(r) and also
taken note of the fact that family is consisting of more than 12
members and they are in need of the petition schedule
premises and the same is discussed in paragraph Nos.43 to 48
and comes to the conclusion that petition premises is required
by the original owner and granted the relief of vacating of
premises within four months. Being aggrieved by the said
judgment, the present revision petition is filed.
7. The main contention of learned counsel for the
revision petitioners is that there is no material before the Court
with regard to proving of relationship between the parties and
there is no agreement and for having paid rent also, no
document is placed on record. Learned counsel would
vehemently contend that there are number of documents
placed before the Court i.e., notice issued by the BBMP to pay
property tax, tax paid receipts, residential certificate and other
documents are also placed before the Court and the same has
not been considered by the Trial Court. Learned counsel would
vehemently contend that when the ownership is not proved by
NC: 2025:KHC:20559
HC-KAR
the respondents herein, the question of granting any relief
invoking Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act does not
arise and it requires reconsideration.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the caveator-
respondent Nos.1 and 2 would vehemently contend that though
disputed the relationship between the petitioners and
respondents, the very notice was issued long back in the year
2000 itself by the father of the petitioners herein admitting the
jural relationship that he was a tenant. Even the suit was filed
claiming compensation against the first petitioner in
H.R.C.No.30/2021 and even relief is also granted awarding
compensation of Rs.83,000/- and appeal is also filed before this
Court and R.F.A. is also pending. The Trial Court having taken
note of very admission on the part of the father of the
petitioners herein issuing the legal notice in terms of Ex.P1 and
denying the reply notice issued in terms Ex.P11 and also the
judgment and decree, all these materials were taken note of by
the Court with regard to the jural relationship and comes to the
conclusion that there is no need to consider the relationship in
view of the admission available on record. Regarding
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20559
HC-KAR
requirement is also concerned, taken note of the fact that
family of the respondents consists of more than 12 members
and building is in dilapidated condition and they require more
extent of premises for their residence and they intend to
demolish the petition schedule premises which is in the
occupation of the respondents as tenant and to construct the
new building for their own use and occupation which is
discussed in paragraph No.48 of the judgment of the Trial
Court. Hence, it does not require admission of this matter.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners
and learned counsel for the caveator-respondent Nos.1 and 2
and also considering the material on record and also the
reasons assigned by the Trial Court, it is clear that eviction
petition was filed on 10.11.2021 invoking Section 27(2)(r) of
the Karnataka Rent Act seeking for a judgment and decree
directing the respondents to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant
possession of petition schedule premises. The very specific
pleading of the petitioners before the Trial Court is also that the
father of the petitioners herein was inducted in the year 1994
and thereafter, continued to pay rent and on account of sudden
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20559
HC-KAR
death in the family i.e., death of a daughter of original tenant
i.e., Mehrunnisa, since electric pole fell on her, as a result, she
succumbed to the injuries, he could not continue to pay the
rent thereafter. Admittedly, the document clearly discloses that
original tenant Pyarejan himself has caused legal notice to the
first petitioner admitting that he was a tenant and also claimed
the compensation on account of untimely death of his daughter
one Mehrunnisa and suit is also filed and those documents are
taken note of by the Trial Court and in the original suit itself
categorically pleaded in O.S.No.2252/2000 that he is the tenant
of the premises in which they are residing and also reply notice
was given by the first petitioner denying the compensation that
he is not liable to pay any compensation and also the fact that
original suit ended in decreeing the suit is not in dispute and
appeal is also pending before this Court in R.F.A.No.1071/2008.
All these factors were taken note of by the Trial Court and the
respondents took the defence of no jural relationship.
10. Having considered the material on record that there
was an admission on the part of the original tenant, who is
none other than the father of the first petitioner herein and also
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20559
HC-KAR
taken note of Exs.P10 and P11, copy of the judgment Ex.P12,
copy of the deposition of Pyarejan in P. Misc.No.930/1997
which is marked as Ex.P13 and also Ex.P14 and copy of the
amendment Ex.P15 and deposition recorded in
O.S.No.2252/2000. All these materials were taken note of and
also original owner relied upon Hakku Patra Serial No.5075
dated 25.01.1993 is also marked. Having considered all these
material, comes to the conclusion that relationship is
established and also having taken note of the evidence of the
respondents herein, who has been examined as R.W.1, he
categorically deposed in line of the pleading which was made in
the petition and also relying upon the documents, comes the
conclusion that petitioner i.e., respondents are need of petition
schedule premises for their bonafide use and occupation. When
such being the material on record which are considered by the
Trial Court, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court
in coming to the conclusion that material available on record
establishes the jural relationship as well as requirement.
11. It is also important to note that original tenant i.e.,
father of the first petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20559
HC-KAR
year 1994 and other petitioner is also a daughter of Pyarejan.
When such being the material on record, when father himself
had filed a case against the original owner in the earlier suit
claiming compensation, question of disputing jural relationship
does not arise. The very contention of learned counsel for the
petitioners that no document is placed on record regarding
rental agreement and also having paid the rent also does not
arise, since there is a categorical admission on the part of the
original owner Pyarejan and admitted fact need not be proved
and also when the petitioners not dispute the fact that family is
consisting of 12 members and the same is also taken note of by
the Trial Court. Under the circumstances, it is not a case for
admitting the petition, since the petitioners are squatting on
the property from the year 1994 i.e., more than 30 years.
Hence, I do not find any ground to admit and consider the
petition.
12. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The revision petition is dismissed.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20559
HC-KAR
(ii) However, taking note of the factual aspects,
it is appropriate to grant three months time
to the petitioners to vacate the premises and
handover the same to the respondents. If the
petitioners fail to vacate the premises within
three months from today, the respondents
are given liberty to get the possession in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
