Dismissed¶50

Smt T S Shashikala v. Sri G Vyshak G Sappe

Karnataka HC17 Jul 2025HRRP/10/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HRRP No.10 of 2025, High Court of Karnataka (H.P. Sandesh J., 17.07.2025): revision under Section 46(1) CPC against the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru order dated 3.04.2025 in HRC No.30/2020 dismissing IA No.V under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999; denial of landlord-tenant jural relationship after partition deed dated 08.03.2019; attornment letter dated 15.03.2019; monthly rent cheques of Rs.3,999/-; petitioner cannot blow hot and cold; revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the H.R.R.P. was dismissed, with the clarification that the observations made in the revision petition shall not influence the Trial Court while considering the matter on merits. ¶50

Smt T S Shashikala Vs Sri G Vyshak G Sappe — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the H.R.R.P. was dismissed, with the clarification that the observations made in the revision petition shall not influence the Trial Court while considering the matter on merits.

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the application filed under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, which sought to direct the parties to approach the competent court of civil jurisdiction for declaration of their rights. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

On the material on record, particularly Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2, the Trial Court committed no error; no ground was made out to invoke Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, and no ground exists to entertain the revision petition.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

There being correspondence between the parties as tenant and landlord, and the petitioner herself having sent a letter along with cheques towards monthly rent, the petitioner cannot blow hot and cold in contending that no such landlord-tenant relationship existed between the parties.

¶42

Key takeaways

The observations made in this revision petition shall not influence the Trial Court while considering the matter on merits.obiter¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

House Rent Revision Petition (HRRP No.10 of 2025) under Section 46(1) CPC against the order dated 3.04.2025 of the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, dismissing IA No.V filed under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 in HRC No.30/2020, whereby the petitioner sought a direction that the parties approach the competent court of civil jurisdiction for declaration of their rights, contending that no landlord-tenant relationship existed between her and the respondent and that the respondent had failed to substantiate, through the partition deed dated 08.03.2019, that the schedule premises were allotted to his share. The respondent relied on an attornment letter dated 15.03.2019 (Ex.P.1) issued by his father recording the partition and requesting the petitioner to pay monthly rent to him, acknowledged by the petitioner (Ex.P.2), monthly rent of Rs.3,999/- sent by the petitioner by cheque for April-June 2019 (Ex.P.3) and further cheques for July-September 2019, the respondent's insistence on a registered lease agreement, reply/covering letters dated 16.05.2019, 01.07.2019 and 10.07.2019 (Ex.P.4, Ex.P.5) and a postal acknowledgment card (Ex.P.6). The Trial Court had concluded that the materials showed the tenancy status stood admitted and that the denial of the jural relationship in the affidavit filed with IA No.5 was unsupported by legal and valid evidence. Holding that the petitioner, having herself sent letters with rent cheques, could not blow hot and cold by denying the relationship, and finding no error in the Trial Court's order and no ground made out to invoke Section 43, the High Court dismissed the revision petition, clarifying that its observations shall not influence the Trial Court while considering the matter on merits.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:26684 HRRP No. 10 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO.10 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. T.S. SHASHIKALA W/O SRI T.V. BHASKAR, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, NO.83, GROUND FLOOR, G P S COMPLEX, JUMMA MASJID ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. K. SURESH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI. G. VYSHAK G. SAPPE S/O SRI. S.P. GAVI RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT NO.325/19, 24TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR 6TH BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 070. REPRESENTED BY SMT. S.G.HEMALATHA GPA HOLDER.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. C.PATTABI RAMAN, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 46(1) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 3.04.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.V IN HRC NO.30/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE IA NO.V FILED UNDER SECTION 43 OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999., SEEKING TO DIRECT THE PARTIES TO APPROACH

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:26684 HRRP No. 10 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

COMPETENT COURT OF CIVIL JURISDICTION FOR DECLARATION OF THEIR RIGHTS.

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶25

the learned counsel for respondent files statement of objections to this petition and counsel is absent.

¶26

The main contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner in this revision petition that the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the application filed under Section 43 of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. The counsel would vehemently contend in his argument that Trial Court failed to appreciate the case of the petitioner that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and the petitioner and also counsel would contend that in spite of repeated requests and demands did not send a copy of the partition deed dated 08.03.2019 to substantiate that scheduled property was allotted to his share and also the Trial Court failed to

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:26684 HRRP No. 10 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

appreciate that partition deed produced as per Ex.P.9, schedule property is not allotted to the petitioner. The counsel would vehemently contend that the respondent has clearly admitted in his cross examination that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties

¶30

and in spite of it, the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the application and hence it requires interference of this Court.

¶31

Having heard the petitioner’s counsel and also considering the statement of objections filed by the respondent, the counsel mainly relies upon the document of Ex.P.1 i.e., attornment letter dated 15.03.2019 sent by the father of the respondent to the petitioner and the petitioner herein acknowledged the receipt of the same as per acknowledgment Ex.P.2 mentioning with regard to the partition of their property and in the said partition, the scheduled property is the share of this respondent herein, hence, the letter requested the petitioner to send the monthly rent to the respondent herein and also the

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:26684 HRRP No. 10 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

petitioner herein sent monthly rent by way of Cheque for Rs.3,999/- as monthly rent for the months of April 2019 to June 2019 with covering letters dated 16.05.2019 and 01.07.2019 which is marked as Ex.P.3. Thereafter, the respondent herein denied to accept the monthly rent and in his reply letter has requested the petitioner to cooperate for registering the lease agreement between the respondent and even thereafter the petitioner herein without co-operating for registering the lease agreement again sent monthly rent by way of cheque of Rs.3,999/for the months of July 2019 to September 2019 with covering letter dated 01.07.2019 that is marked as Ex.P.9. The counsel referring these statements of objections would contend that the Trial Court also taken note of these documents and rejected the application.

¶35

Having heard the petitioner’s counsel and also the statements of objections filed by the respondent and when there was a correspondence between the parties as tenant and landlord and it appears that the respondent

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:26684 HRRP No. 10 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

insisted to enter into a registered lease deed and hence, the petitioner did not come forward to have the registered sale agreement. But, the very documents which have been placed before the Trial Court that is marked as Ex.P.1, Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.5 all these documents were taken note of by the Trial Court in detail discussed in paragraph Nos.23 to 26 and comes to the conclusion that above said materials shows that respondent admitted her status as tenant with respect to the schedule premises and her father of the petitioner and also in paragraph No.28, an observation is made that there is no explanation on behalf of the respondent under which provisions of law she is denying her status of tenancy with respect to the schedule premises under the petitioner who asserting acquisition of ownership over the schedule premises from his father Gavirangappa under a partition deed dated 08.03.2019. Hence, it is clear that allegation made in the affidavit filed with I.A.No.5 regarding denial of jural relationship of landlord and tenant with respect to schedule premises

¶39

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:26684 HRRP No. 10 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

between petitioner and the respondent are not supported by any type of legal and valid evidence and rejected the applications.

¶42

Having considered the reasons assigned by the Trial Court and also invoking of Section 43 of Karnataka Rent Act by the petitioner and also there are correspondence with regard to the relationship between the parties. Now, the petitioner cannot blow hot and cold in coming to the conclusion that no such relationship between the parties, by himself sent a letter along with Cheques. But, the very contention of the respondent also that insisted the petitioner to enter into a registered lease agreement but, he did not come forward. When such being the case and when the material available on record, particularly the Trial Court taken note of all these aspects into consideration. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court and Trial Court based on the material on record, particularly the documents of Ex.P.1 and also the Ex.P.2 comes to such a conclusion and also

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:26684 HRRP No. 10 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Ex.P.5 is the letter dated 10.07.2019 reply given by the petitioner, Ex.P.4 is two letters dated 16.05.2019 and 01.07.2019 and Ex.P.6 is the postal acknowledgment card wherein address and signature of the respondent was also taken note of. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to entertain the revision petition and the Trial Court taken note of documentary evidence and given the reasoning that not made out any ground to invoke Section 43 of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.

¶47