Eviction petition under the Karnataka Rent Act for arrears and bonafide requirement. Tenant denied tenancy claiming ownership under unregistered sale deed. High Court held statutory attornment under Section 109 TP Act sustained landlord-tenant relationship and non-deposit barred revision, dismissing the petition with time-bound vacation undertaking option.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO. 24 OF 2019 (EVI)
BETWEEN:
2 . KUMARI THAMMANNA, D/O LATE RIYAZ ULLA KHAN, AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, PETITIONER NO.2 IS MINOR, REP. BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND SMT. RESHMA, FIRST PETITIONER
BOTH ARE R/O DOOR NO.71, LIG 2ND STAGE, K.H.B. COLONY, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MANDYA CITY - 571 401.
…PETITIONERS
[BY SRI JAGADISH J.R., ADVOCATE (PH)]
AND:
Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka
SRI G.S. SATHISH, S/O LATE G.S. SHIVARUDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O NO.86, 12TH CROSS, K.H.B. COLONY, CHAMUNDESWARINAGARA, MANDYA CITY - 571 401.
…RESPONDENT
[BY SRI V.S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE (PH)]
THIS HRRP IS FILED U/SEC.115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.11.2018 PASSED IN RENT REVISION NO.01/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MANDYA, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.03.2018 PASSED IN H.R.C.NO.5/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANDYA, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 27(2)(a) AND (r) OF THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999.
NC: 2024:KHC:42077 HRRP No. 24 of 2019
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 13.06.2024, THIS DAY, THE COURT, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CAV ORDER
Challenging judgment dated 20.11.2018 passed by V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, in Rent Revision no.01/2018 ('Revisional Court', for short) dismissing order dated 15.03.2018 passed by II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya, in H.R.C.no.5/2012 ('Rent Court', for short) filed under Section 27(2)(a) and (r) of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 ('Rent Act' for short), this petition is filed.
NC: 2024:KHC:42077 HRRP No. 24 of 2019
upto December, 2011 and from January, 2012 became willful defaulter, having failed to pay rent despite demand. Arrears accrued till September, 2012 was Rs.18,000/-. On ground that premises was required for bonafide own use and occupation, as he did not have any other alternative accommodation, he had demanded respondent to vacate and handover possession by issuing notice on 24.07.2012.
NC: 2024:KHC:42077 HRRP No. 24 of 2019
acted on her assurances. It was later realized that on 15.11.2011, KHB had executed sale deed in favour of Smt.Shakeela Bhanu, who without his permission allegedly sold it to GS Satish and said sale was illegal. It was stated as Riyaz Ulla Khan was not tenant, but 'owner in possession' under unregistered sale deed and also by being in 'adverse possession' for more than 25 years, petition under Rent Act, was not maintainable. During pendency of proceedings, Riyaz Ulla Khan died. His wife and daughter were brought on record as legal representatives.
points for consideration:
another as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to 6. Two
witnesses were examined by respondents as RWs.1 and 2 and Exs.R1 to 22 were marked.
1. Whether the petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable as the revision petitioners have not deposited the arrears or rent?
2. Whether the impugned order passed by the trial Court in H.R.C. No.05/2012 dated 15.03.2018 calls for interference by this Court?
NC: 2024:KHC:42077 HRRP No. 24 of 2019
3. What order?
Revisional Court answered point no.1 in negative, point no.2 as not arising for consideration and point no.3 by dismissing petition as not maintainable. Aggrieved, present House Rent Revision Petition was filed.
NC: 2024:KHC:42077 HRRP No. 24 of 2019
NC: 2024:KHC:42077 HRRP No. 24 of 2019
receipt of notice issued by GS Sathish to her husband - Riyaz and about taking no steps to verify claims made in notice or for payment of rent. It was submitted combined effect of said admissions was taken note by Rent Court to decide existence of relationship of landlord and tenant and allowed petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:42077 HRRP No. 24 of 2019
In any case, said deed being unregistered document cannot convey valid title. On above grounds, sought for dismissal.
2. Whether, Revisional Court erred in dismissing revision petition merely on ground of nondeposit of rent?"
Re point no.1:
NC: 2024:KHC:42077 HRRP No. 24 of 2019
ground that tenancy claimed was oral and even after plea of dispute about tenancy, neither rent receipt or acknowledgement of payment of rent signed by landlord produced, thereby attracting Section 43 of Rent Act, as per which parties would require to approach Civil Court for declaration of their rights.
NC: 2024:KHC:42077 HRRP No. 24 of 2019
case. However, same cannot be read as a threshold bar against
recording of evidence to establish tenancy.
of Dileep Kumar Mishra v. T.M. Vinay , reported in (2015) 3
Kant LJ 158, as follows:
" 13. What is argued before this Court by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners is that, the mandatory provision of Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 has not been complied with, when nothing came in the way of the respondents therein to file an application under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act and request to decide the aspect regarding the relationship of the landlord and tenant first. Having not done so at the earliest, they cannot turn round and say that there exists no jural relationship of landlord and tenant, at this stage."
Rent Court regarding existence of jural relationship cannot be questioned on said ground at this stage.
NC: 2024:KHC:42077 HRRP No. 24 of 2019
10.11.2011. This Court in Silva Uddin v. Nagaraju , reported
in (2004) 7 Kant LJ 484, has held:
"7. In view of transfer of ownership of the premises to the respondent by the previous lessor, the respondentbecomes the lessor and becomes entitled to receive rent in terms of the lease by operation of Section 109 of the T.P. Act. It is relevant to state that in India no attornment of tenancy is necessary in law as Section 109 of the T.P. Act creates a statutory attornment. The section does not insist that transfer of the lessor's rights can take effect only if the tenant attorns. Attornment by the tenant is unnecessary to confer validity to the transfer of the lessor's rights. However, the section protects payment of rent by the tenant to the transferor without notice of the transfer. The transfer of ownership of the premises to the respondent by the previous lessor has resulted in statutory attornment by the tenant in favour of the lessor's transferee i.e. the respondent herein and consequently jural relationship of landlord & tenant.
8. In this context, it is also relevant to examine as to whether the right of the transferee under Section 109 of the T.P. Act is curtailed or modified by the Rent Act. The definition of ‘landlord’ under Section 3(e) of the Rent Act reads as follows:
“Landlord” means a person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive, the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or on account of or on behalf of or for the benefit of any other person or as a trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person or who would so receive the rent or to be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant;”
The expressions ‘entitled to receive the rent’ and ‘to be entitled to receive the ‘rent’ in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited. Hence the right of the transferee under Section 109 of the T.P. Act is not curtailed/modified by the Rent Act. Thus a transferee of a lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes landlord under Section 3(e) of the Rent Act. The tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an
NC: 2024:KHC:42077 HRRP No. 24 of 2019
eviction petition under the Rent Act or to claim rent. Hence in the case of a valid transfer of the premises by the lessor by way of sale, question of referring the parties namely the transferee of the lessor and the tenant to a Civil Court under Section 43 of the Rent Act does not arise. The judgment relied on by learned Counsel for the petitioner in Ayesha Begum v. Shahzadi [ILR 2003 Kar 4255.] is not applicable to the facts of this case or cases of the present nature i.e., cases to which Section 109 of the T.P. Act is applicable."
In re point no.2:
C.S. Sheshagiri v. Jayalakshmi , reported in ILR 2016 Kar
1866, as follows:
"34. Therefore, to attract Section 45 two conditions must be fulfilled. Firstly, the person who is contesting the original proceedings or an order on an application under Section 27 should be a tenant and there should be an order in a proceedings under Section 27. Secondly, even though he disputes the jural relationship, once the Court holds that he is a tenant for the purpose of Section 45, he is bound to comply with the obligation imposed under Section 45 and deposit the rent.
35. Then the words used are “preferred” or “prosecute”. Ultimately if he succeeds in the revision, the amount in deposit would be refunded to him. But, without depositing the rent, a person who is held to be a tenant by an order of a Court in a proceedings under Section 27 is neither permitted to prefer or prosecute the revision. The word
NC: 2024:KHC:42077 HRRP No. 24 of 2019
“preferred” refers to deposit of arrears of rent till the date of filing of the revision petition. On such deposit, his obligation to pay future rents does not cease. Not only he should deposit the rent as on the date he preferred the revision petition but also continue to pay the rent, if he wants to prosecute the revision."
Parties to bear their own costs.
Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE
psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 43 of the Rent Act mandated relegation to Civil Court given denial of oral tenancy and absence of rent receipts.
Whether the Revisional Court erred in dismissing the rent revision solely for non-deposit of arrears under Section 45.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dileep Kumar Mishra v. T.M. VinayRelied on¶24
(2015) 3 Kant LJ 158
Silva Uddin v. NagarajuRelied on¶26
(2004) 7 Kant LJ 484
C.S. Sheshagiri v. JayalakshmiRelied on¶28
ILR 2016 Kar 1866 · Who else cites this
10 provisions across 4 enactments
Smt. Reshma
Kumari Thamanna
Sri G.S. Sathish
Ravi V Hosmani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
