The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO.22/2019 C/W. HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO.21/2019 HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO.23/2019 IN HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO.22/2019: BETWEEN: 1 . SHRI. MAHESH S/O LATE GANAPATHI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS MAHESH FOOT WEAR J.C.ROAD, SAGAR TOWN SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 401. … PETITIONER AND: (BY SRI. B.N.SHETTY, ADVOCATE) 1 . SHRI. SATHYANARAYANA M.R., S/O RAMACHANDRA M.K., AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS CLOTH MERCHANT J.C.ROAD, SAGAR TOWN SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 401. (BY SRI. S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE – [THROUGH V.C]) … RESPONDENT 2 JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.03.2019 PASSED IN HRC.RENT REV.10001/2018 ON THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS (SITTING AT SAGAR) ALLOWING THE PETITION AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.09.2018 PASSED IN HRC NO.3/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAGAR, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 27[2](r) OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999. IN HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO.21/2019: BETWEEN: 1 . SHRI. SATHYANARAYANA S/O EASHWARA ACHAR AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT SRINIDHI LOTTERY CENTRE BEEDA SHOP, J.C.ROAD SAGARA TOWN SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 401. … PETITIONER AND: (BY SRI. B.N. SHETTY, ADVOCATE) 1 . SHRI. SATHYANARAYANA M.R., S/O RAMACHANDRA M.K, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS CLOTH MERCHANT J.C.ROAD, SAGAR TOWN SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 401. (BY SRI. S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 – [THROUGH V.C]) … RESPONDENT 3 JUDGE SHIVAMOGGA THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.03.2019 PASSED IN HRC.RENT REV.10002/2018 ON THE FILE OF V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS (SITTING AT SAGAR), ALLOWING THE PETITION AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.09.2018 PASSED IN HRC NO.1/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAGAR DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 27[2](r) OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999. IN HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO.23/2019: BETWEEN: 1 . SMT. VATHSALA BAI W/O DAMODARA NAIK AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O 3RD CROSS, AZAD ROAD, SAGARA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577401. AND: (BY SRI. B.N.SHETTY, ADVOCATE) … PETITIONER 1 . SHRI. SATHYANARAYANA M.R., S/O RAMACHANDRA M.K. AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS CLOTH MERCHANT J.C.ROAD, SAGAR TOWN SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577401. 2 . SHRI. JALEEL AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, COCONUT MERCHANT, R/O J.C. ROAD, SAGAR TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577401. … RESPONDENTS 4
Legal Reasoning
Having considered the grounds which have been urged in HRC No.3/2015, the original owner examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked document at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 and respondent also examined himself as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.12. In HRC.No.1/2015, landlord examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 and respondent/tenant examined himself as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.D.1. In H.R.C.No.2/2015, landlord examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3. The respondent did not choose to examine any of the witness and original tenant was no more and wife was brought as the respondent and also impleaded the sub-lessee No.1 as respondent No.2. 5. The Trial Court having assessed both oral and documentary evidence in all the cases answered the point Nos. 1 to 3 as affirmative, but comes to the conclusion that petitioner is not entitled for the relief as sought in the petition referring the judgment of this Court reported in ILR 9 2005 KAR 4817 in case of Chennachari and others V/s S.Saroja and others, at paragraph No.23, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that, this case do not dispute that father of the respondent has put up the shop on a temporary basis on the area let out to him by the earlier owners. It is also not disputed that earlier suit property belongs to Kaikini Datta Bhatta and from him, the father of the petitioner purchased the schedule property premises and later the father of the petitioner executed a gift deed in favour of the petitioner, ultimately what remains is the father of the respondent was inducted as a tenant to a vacant site and not to a commercial shop and father of the respondent has put up the shop over the area on which he was inducted as a tenant. It is held in the above judgment that when there is no plinth area, there is no building. In this case, only a vacant land was offered to the father of the respondent as such, going by the above judgment referred by the respondent, Court holds that petition is not 10 maintainable, only given vacant land and he has put up the structure over the same. Hence, the landlord questioned the order passed by the Trial Court in all the cases before the Rent Revision Court. The common grounds urged in all the revision petitions. 6. The District Court in the revision petition, having considered the grounds which have been urged, taken note of the Trial Court has not read Section 2(3)(g) of Karnataka Rent Act,1999 which reads any premises used for non- residential premises, but excluding premises having a plinth area of not exceeding 14 square meters and also the Trial Court not read Section 3(h)(l)(ii) premises means any land not used for agriculture purpose and also Section 3(n) which reads tenants any person by whom on whose account or behalf of rent of any premises. The Trial Court erred in holding that judgment is applicable on the facts of the case and also the revision Court relied upon the judgment reported in 2010 (2) Kar LJ 102 in case of 11 Sri.Jayanthilal Chandulal Kothari V/s Sri.C.K.Radesh Murthy and having taken note of principles laid down in the judgment and having considered the very requirement of the land lord and also taking note of the above referred provisions and comes to the conclusion that when the Trial Court given finding on all the points and answered the point Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative, but committed an error in coming to the conclusion that petition is not maintainable and set-aside the said finding and also ordered to pay the damages of Rs.1,000/- directing all the tenants to pay the damages. 7. Being aggrieved by the reversal of the order passed by the Rent Revision Court, these revision petitions are filed before this Court. The main contention raised in all the petitions is that the order passed by the District Judge is erroneous, illegal and unsustainable in law and the same is opposed to the provisions of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and also contend that there is no question of terminating 12 the tenancy under the Rent Act. After termination of the lease, the tenant becomes the statutory tenant under the Rent Act. It is also contended that under the Rent Act, it is the rent controller (delegated power to the Civil Judge) the Civil Judge sitting in a capacity of authority under the Rent Act, terminated the tenancy comes under Section 106 of the T.P Act and only in such case, after termination of the tenancy, the tenant becomes a trespasser and only in civil suit, rent by way of damages after termination of tenancy arises, but not under the Rent Act. 8. The counsel also contended that in case Section 27(2)(r) of the Rent Act is proved, the tenant is liable for eviction and not a trespasser, the District Judge committed an error in awarding damages of Rs.1,000/- and also contend that District Judge committed an error when the petitioner is brought under Section 27(2)(r) of the Rent Act, the Court cannot treat it as an application under Section 40 13 of Rent Act. Hence, impugned order passed by the Rent Revision Court is liable to be set-aside. 9. The counsel relied upon the judgment reported in ILR 2000 KAR 565 in case of Ramesh P.Seth V/S M.S.Krishna Murthy and Another referring this judgment the counsel would contend that thereafter the possession of the tenant does not become unlawful even after the determination of lease and hence such tenant paying damages for use and occupation of the premises does not arise so all other rights and obligations and liabilities continue to operate under the Rent Control Act. Landlord can maintain a suit for ejectment and rent in the Court of small causes as the question of tenant paying damages does not arise. 10. The counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in ILR 2007 KAR 3309 in case of Sarojamma W/o Narasiah V/s K.M.Venkatesh and brought to notice of this Court when the premises totally measuring more 14 than 14 square meter, suit for ejectment and damages and the premises measures more than 14 square meter and monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- held that premises measures more than 14 square meters and being outside the purview of the Rent Act, small cause Court could not have taken cognizance and as such, the judgment under provision is not sustainable and ordered to return the plaint after remitting the matter. The counsel referring these two judgments would contend that petition itself is not maintainable and also contend that question of damages does not arise. 11. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would vehemently contend that the measurement of the premises it is pleaded in all the petition that 7 ft x 9 ft, 4ft x 5 ft and 4ft x 5ft and rate of rent is in respect of two premises Rs.10/- per month and Rs.8/- in other premises. The counsel would vehemently contend that the tenants have not paid the rent from 1996. The 15 counsel also would vehemently contend that in all the cases documents are placed before the Court that is license, plan and no challenge with regard to the capacity to build a building and in all the petitions specifically pleaded that premises is required for bonafide use and occupation of the landlord and the same is admitted and even admitted in the cross examination of tenant that license is obtained and plan also obtained. The counsel also would vehemently contend that though petition is filed under Section 27(2)(r) and when there is no dispute with regard to the premises is required and the same cannot be questioned and license and plan also obtained and having sufficient fund to reconstruct the building. 12. The counsel relied upon the judgment reported in 2009 Legal Eagle (KAR) 1171 in case of Sri.Jayanthilal Chandulal Kothari V/s Sri.C.K.Radesh Murthy, the counsel referring this judgment would contend that in this judgment, this Court taken note of applicability 16 of the Rent Act and also discussed regarding invoking Section 40 of the Act seeking possession of the scheduled premises and also would contend that this Court in detail discussed Section 40 of the Karnataka Rent Act as well as similar Section 24 of the Delhi Rent Act, 1958, special provision regarding vacant building sites and also contend that the word premises under the Karnataka Act is defined under Section 3(i) and having considered the same, counsel brought to notice of this Court discussions made in paragraph Nos.23 and 24 of the judgment and also brought to notice of paragraph No.30 of the Judgment wherein discussed to note that Section 40 begins with a non- obstante clause and also Section 27 and 40 are mutually exclusive and also discussed Section 21(1)(i) and (m) of the 1961 Act, and also the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 Section 40 is the only provision available for a petitioner to seek possession of the premises comprising of vacant land. Therefore, both conditions mentioned in Section 40 namely 17 the readiness and willingness of the petitioner to commence the work and that the severance of the vacant land from the rest of the premises will not cause any undue hardship to the respondent are not mandatory conditions, but the second condition would be applicable depending upon the need of the petitioner and the facts and circumstances of the case. The counsel referring this paragraph No.30 would vehemently contend that in the present case on hand, the principles laid down in the judgment are aptly applicable to the case on hand. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the very same judgment was considered by the District Court and extracted paragraph Nos.22 to 26 and discussion was made and allowed the revision petitions. Hence, it does not require any interference of this Court. 13. Having heard the revision petitioner’s counsel and the learned counsel for the respondent/s and considering the material on record, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: 18 1) Whether Rent Revision Court committed an error in allowing the petition filed under Section 27(2)(r) of Rent Act by the Landlord? 2) Whether the Rent Revision Court committed an error in awarding damages of Rs.1,000/- per month in respect of the premises which is in question? 3) What Order? Point No.1: 14. Having heard the respective counsel and also the contents of the petition, it is the case of the landlord that property was purchased by their father Ramachandra from Kaikini Datta Bhatta and it was a vacant site measuring 22 ft x 52 ft with a common passage about 4 ft on its northern side. It is also important to note that the said Ramachandra gifted the property in favour of the petitioner who becomes the owner. No doubt it is disputed that Ramachandra had purchased the property from a joint 19 nucleus and Ramachandra was the manager of his branch consisting of his two sons and daughters and site in question is a joint family property and alleged gift deed is void. The tenant cannot dispute the nature of the property and cannot plead on behalf of the other family members that it is a joint family property and also even cannot question the gift deed and only family members can question the same and the status of tenant is only a tenant and the said contention cannot be accepted. However, the tenants also admits that originally property belongs to one Kaikini Datta Bhatta and also not disputes the fact that father of the petitioner had purchased the same in the year 1979 and also it is not in dispute that gift deed is also executed in favour of the petitioner and the same is also not disputed. 15. It is also important to note that petition is filed under Section 27(2)(r) of Rent Act. The Court while considering the petition comes to the conclusion that 20 referring the judgment ILR 2005 KAR 4817 that it is only a vacant land was offered to the father of the respondent and comes to the conclusion that the petition is not maintainable. But, the fact is that though it was a vacant land, it was given by the original owner Kaikini Datta Bhatta. But, the fact is that property was purchased by the father of the petitioner and continued to pay the rent to the father of the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.10/- and Rs.8/- respectively. 16. It is also important to note that when the petition is filed under Section 27(2)(r), it is admitted by the tenants in two petitions that plan was obtained and license was taken and possession was sought for the purpose of construction. It is also important to note that petitioner has sought for the petition for the construction of the commercial complex since he is running the cloth business and the same is also admitted by the tenants and not disputed the same. No doubt in other case the tenants have 21 not challenged the requirement and even not lead any evidence also and specifically pleaded that premise was subletted to the 2nd respondent and the tenants did not choose to lead any evidence and contest the matter. It is rightly pointed out by the counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord that Ex.P.3 is a license and Ex.P.5 is a plan and with regard to the capacity is concerned that there was no any challenge and requirement is proved and also made all efforts to put up the commercial complex. 17. Now, the question before this Court is in view of main contention of the petitioner that it was only a vacant land and constructed the shop and Trial Court rightly dismissed petition, but the Revision Court committed an error in relying upon the judgment of this Court in a case of Sri.Jayanthilal Chandulal Kothari V/s Sri.C.K.Radesh Murthy, it has to be noted that the said petition was filed under Section 40 of Rent Act and the same is a special provision regarding vacant building sites. The said provision 22 is an additional right granted to the petitioner to seek possession of vacant land and not withstanding any such right, a petitioner may have under Section 27 of the Act which deals with eviction of a respondent. It is very clear in paragraph No.30 of the judgment that though discussed in detail in paragraph Nos.23 to 26, this Court held that Section 40 begins with a non-obstante clause, the Court also taken note of Section 21 of old Act as well as New Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and also the present Section 27 and 40 and held that both are mutually exclusive in the absence of old Act and new Act and held that Section 40 is the only provision available for a petitioner to seek possession of the premises comprising of vacant land. Therefore, both the conditions mentioned in Section 40 namely the readiness and willingness of the petitioner to commence the work under the severance of the vacant land from the rest of the premises will not cause any undue hardship to the respondent are not mandatory conditions, 23 but the second condition would be applicable depending upon the need of the petitioner and the facts and circumstances of the case. But, in the case on hand, already this Court has comes to a conclusion that there was a need and also made all preparedness for obtaining license as well as the plan and the same is also admitted and when such being the case, even though petition is filed under Section 27(2)(r) and the judgment is in respect of Section 40 is concerned, both the provisions of Section 27 as well as Section 40 also discussed in the judgment. 18. It is important to note that the Revision Court also taken note of the fact that the discussion made in the judgment particularly with regard to Section 2(3)(g) of the Rent Act which reads as any premises used for non residential premises, but excluding the premises having a plinth area of not exceeding 14 square meters, but in the case on hand, it has to be noted that originally vacant land was given to the tenants and thereafter, tenants put up the 24 shop premises i.e., petty shop premises that is wooden shops and also it has to be noted that the Trial Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion that vacant land was not comes within the meaning of Karnataka Rent Act and the same is erroneous and the Revision Court also taken note of Section 3(h)(I)(ii) premises means any land not used for agriculture purpose and in the case on hand when the land is used for non agriculture purpose and not for agriculture purpose and also Section 3(n) of Rent Act is very clear that tenants any person by whom on whose account or behalf of rent of any premises. Having taken note of the definition, comes to the conclusion that Trial Court committed an error in relying upon judgment reported in ILR 2005 KAR 4817 and also taken note of the discussion made in the judgment of Jayanthilal Chandulal Kothari case reported in 2010 (2) Kar LJ 102 extracted paragraph Nos.22 to 26 and also taken note of the harmonious reading of Section 2(3)(g) with Section 3(i) 25 read with Section 3(n) and Section 40 of the Rent Act and held that the empowerment of Section 2(3)(g) of the Act is only in the context of building having a plinth area and not in the context of Section 40 of the Act which deals with vacant land. The judgment which was relied upon by the counsel appearing for the petitioner reported in ILR 2007 KAR 3309 is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. In the case on hand though counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that area is more than 14 square and the same cannot be accepted and the tenants also not disputes the fact that they are in occupation only to the extent of 7 ft x 9 ft and 4 ft x 5ft each in respect of two premises and though site vacant is more than that the same cannot be a ground and they are running the business in the small area which is less than the definition under Section 2(3)(g) of 14 square. 19. It is important to note that, taking into note of the Trial Court affirmed with regard to point Nos.1 to 3 26 holding that petitioner is the owner of the property and respondent is the tenant and also petitioner required the premises for the bonafide use and occupation having considered the admission on the part of the tenant who have categorically admitted that the landlord is doing the business as well as obtained the plan and license but committed an error in relying upon judgment of Chennachari’s case. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Revisional Court in coming to the conclusion that petitioner is in need of premises under Section 27(2)(r) for his bonafide use and occupation. No doubt the counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the judgment which has been relied upon pertains to Section 40 of the Karnataka Rent Act and in the case on hand Section 27(2)(r) is concerned, but the fact is that though premises was taken which was a land and the same is not used for the agriculture purpose and the same is used for the commercial purpose after 27 shops are constructed and not disputed the business run in the shop premises. The fact that they are running the business in the very same premises is not in dispute and hence the very contention that the petition under Section 27(2)(r) is not maintainable cannot be accepted. Hence, I answer the point No.1 as Negative. Point No.2: 20. The main contention of the petitioner before this Court is that awarding of damages is concerned, Revision Court committed an error. The counsel appearing for the petitioner also contend that judgment reported in ILR 2000 KAR 565 is applicable is very clear regarding damages is concerned. No doubt the Revision Court awarded damages of Rs.1,000/- per month. The counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord also would contend that he is not going to claim any damages and the tenants are enjoying the premises by paying nominal amount of Rs.10/- from 1950 28 onwards and even not willing to vacate the premises and also not paid the rent after 1996. 21. The counsel also would contend that he will not press for the relief of awarding Rs.1,000/- as damages. In view of the said submission of the counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord, the issue does not arise for consideration of this Court as he is not pressing the damages as claimed in the petition and hence the point No.2 is answered as affirmative in coming to the conclusion that Rent Revision Court committed an error in awarding damages of Rs.1,000/- per month. Point No.3: 22. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
Arguments
(BY SRI. S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 – [THROUGH V.C]; R2 - IS DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 04.01.2024) THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.03.2019 PASSED IN HRC. RENT. REV. NO.10003/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA [SITTING AT SAGAR], ALLOWING THE PETITION AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.09.2018 PASSED IN HRC NO.2/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAGAR, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 27[2](r) OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999. THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED THIS DAY, THE COURT FOR ORDERS ON 07.07.2025 PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CAV ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent/s in all the petitions. These petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the Rent Revision Court in HRC.Rent.Rev.No. 10001/2018, HRC.Rent.Rev.No.10002/2018 and HRC.Rent.Rev.No.10003/2018 allowing the Rent Revision Petition filed under Section 27(2)(r) of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 directing the tenants/petitioners to quit and vacate 5 the schedule property and hand over the possession in favour of the petitioner within 3 months and also directing to pay the damages of Rs.1,000/- per month from the date of petition till handing over the possession in favour of the respondent in the revision petitions. 2. The factual matrix of case of the landlord while filing the eviction petition, it is contented that the respondent is the owner of the petition schedule property and by way of gift, property devolves upon the respondent and the gift deed was executed by father. The premises mentioned in all the petitions is measuring 7 ft x 9 ft and 4 ft x 5 ft and the rate of rent is Rs.10/- per month. The respondent is running the foot wear shop in the premises. In H.R.C.No.2/2015, it is contended that original tenant died that is husband of the respondent and now the respondent No.1 has sublet the premises to respondent No.2 on monthly rent of Rs.100/- who is running a coconut selling shop. It is also the case of petitioner in all the 6 petitions that the petitioner wanted to build a shopping complex for his business in the above said property including the schedule property and he has already obtained license by submitting the plan and estimate and petitioner is required the schedule premises for his bonafide use and occupation. The counsel also contend that legal notice was issued and the same was served and reply notice was given which clearly discloses that not willing to hand over the vacant possession and also contend that in view of termination of tenancy, the respondent is liable to pay damages for their illegal possession at Rs.1,000/-per month and also contended that respondents have not paid the rent in spite of the demand and issuance of notice. The tenants appeared and filed the written statement contending that the vacant land was given and petition itself is not maintainable and also contended that petitioner is not the owner of the schedule premises and Sri.Ramachandra purchased the schedule premises out of 7 the joint family nucleus. The site in question is the joint family property and the alleged gift deed is void. 3. It is also contended that entire site belongs to one Kaikini Datta Bhatta and it was a vacant site measuring 22 ft x 52 ft with a common passage about 4 feet on its northern side to support this site, out of this site, the respective tenants took the northern portion on a monthly rent of Rs.10/- for installing wooden cloth shop and after the death of the original tenant, the respondent is running a foot wear shop and also contend that there were talks to purchase the premises between the respondent and original owner Kaikini Datta Bhatta, but the father of the petitioner had purchased the premises behind the back of this respondent. It is also contented that earlier also HRC petition was filed and same was allowed and hence challenged in HRC.RP and the same was allowed and the same was questioned before this Court and in HRRP also, confirmed the order of the District Court. 8 4.
Decision
ORDER i) Revision Petitions are partly allowed. 29 ii) The damages awarded by the Rent Revision Court is set-aside and petition allowed under Section 27(2)(r) of Karnataka Rent Act is confirmed. RHS Sd/- (H.P. SANDESH) JUDGE