The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:23904 HRRP No. 9 of 2025 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO.9 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SUNEEL SIVARAMA PILLAI S/O. LATE SHRI NEELAKANDAN SIVARAMA PILLAI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.43, ANNAYAPPA GARDEN, 9TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN, NEW THIPPASANDRA, BENGALURU – 560075 (BY SRI BHARGAVA D BHAT, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:
Legal Reasoning
1. SMT. SAHIJA J W/O LATE SHRI JAYARAJ, MAJOR, R/O NO.P-135, 8TH MAIN, LIC COLONY, HAL III STAGE, JEEVAN BHIMA NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560075 2. SHRI ASHIN J, S/O LATE SHRI JAYARAJ, AGED MAJOR, R/O NO.P-135, 8TH MAIN, LIC COLONY, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:23904 HRRP No. 9 of 2025 HC-KAR HAL III STAGE, JEEVAN BHIMA NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560075 3. MASTER ADIK J, S/O. LATE SHRI JAYARAJ, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. SAHIJA V J, R/O NO. P-135, 8TH MAIN, LIC COLONY, HAL III STAGE, JEEVAN BHIMA NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560075 (NOTICE TO R1 TO R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED V/O DATED 01.07.2025) …RESPONDENTS THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 46(1) OF THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT 1999 READ WITH SECTION 115 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.03.2025 PASSED ON IA NO. XII IN HRC.NO.33/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:23904 HRRP No. 9 of 2025 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner wherein he would vehemently contend that the trial court committed an error in dismissing the application filed under Section 45 of the Karnataka Rent Act (for short ‘the Rent Act’) and brought to notice of this Court the reason assigned by the trial court while rejecting the said application in paragraphs 14 and 15 wherein the trial court comes to the conclusion that when the matter is set down for evidence of the wife and children of the original tenant, it is neither fit nor proper nor feasible to direct them to pay the arrears of rent from August 2018 to November 2022. The counsel also brought to notice of this court that there is a clear admission on the part of original tenant who had filed the statement of objection wherein in paragraph 9 of the objection, he has categorically stated that he was a tenant under one Kemparaj and thereafter tenancy was attorned to V P Raghavan and the respondent has paid rents to the said V P Raghavan till March 2019 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:23904 HRRP No. 9 of 2025 HC-KAR and only in the month of April 2019, rent sent through money order has been refused by the said V P Raghavan. Such being the exact position, question of the petitioner traversing otherwise does not arise at all. The counsel would contend that this admission shows that attornment of tenancy is in respect of fictitious person - Raghavan and also very clear that rent was refused by him in the month of April 2019 and nothing is placed on record for having paid the rent even to the fictitious person. When such being the case, the trial court ought not to have rejected the application filed under Section 45 of the Rent Act. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also on perusal of material on record, the point that would arise for consideration of this court is: 1. Whether the trial court committed an error in rejecting the application filed under Section 45 of the Rent Act? 2. What order? - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:23904 HRRP No. 9 of 2025 HC-KAR Point no.1: 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also on perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that the petition is filed against the original tenant - Jayaraj who passed away during the pendency of the petition and his legal heirs were brought on record. It is also not in dispute that when the case is set down for recording evidence of the legal heirs of original tenant, an application was filed praying to direct the tenants to deposit the arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.1,30,000/- towards damages from August 2018 to November 2022. The counsel also brought to notice of this court that the property was purchased by the petitioner in the month of July 2018 and thereafter rent was not paid. The counsel brought to notice of this court paragraph 9 of the statement of objections filed by the original owner wherein he admits that he was a tenant under one Kemparaj and the counsel submits that this petitioner has purchased the property from the said - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:23904 HRRP No. 9 of 2025 HC-KAR Kemparaj. The counsel would vehemently contend that a false defence was set out in paragraph 9 of the statement of objections that tenancy was attorned in favour of Raghavan and also categorically admitted that the said Raghavan refused to receive the rent from April 2019. When such being the case, the trial court fails to take note of the very admission on the part of the original owner made in his objections and the trial court also fails to take note of the very provision of Section 45 of the Rent Act. Once, the court noticed that rents are not paid, ought to have invoked Section 45 of the Rent Act but the trial court instead of invoking the provision of Section 45 of the Rent Act, reason is given that when case is set down for recording the evidence of legal heirs of deceased original tenant, an application is filed but the provision does not say that the original owner cannot file an application when the case is set down for evidence. Hence, the reasoning given by the trial court is erroneous. Accordingly, I answer the above point as affirmative. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:23904 HRRP No. 9 of 2025 HC-KAR Point No.2: In view of discussions made above, I pass the following:
Decision
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the order dated 06.03.2025 passed on I.A.No.XII filed under Section 45 of the Rent Act in HRC No.33/2019 by the trial court is set aside and the said application is allowed directing the respondents to deposit the rent as sought in the application within a period of one month from today before the court. If rents are not deposited within one month, the trial court is directed to proceed in accordance with Section 45 of the Rent Act. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN