Disposed¶28

Sri Swamy G R v. Sri M Chennappa

Karnataka HC13 Oct 2025HRRP/13/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Karnataka Rent Act; Section 46(1) revision petition; Section 27(2)(e); Section 27(2)(g); Section 27(2)(h); Section 27(2)(i); eviction from shop premises; sanctioned plan to be obtained prior to filing; Order 41 Rule 27 CPC additional documents; HRC No.1/2022; Rev.(Rent) No.8/2023; Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru; liberty to approach afresh; Justice H.P. Sandesh; HRRP No.13 of 2024; NC: 2025:KHC:40261; decided 13-10-2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court afresh with appropriate documents i.e., prior sanctioned plan, estimation and other documents; Registry directed to return the original documents to the petitioner after obtaining copies. ¶28

Sri Swamy G R Vs Sri M Chennappa — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the revision petition under Section 46(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act should be entertained and the Revisional Court's order set aside, given that no sanctioned plan was obtained prior to filing of HRC No.1/2022 and the eviction prayer lacked documentary proof.

¶23

Court's answer

No ground to entertain the revision petition because no sanctioned plan was obtained prior to filing of HRC No.1/2022.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The documents placed before the Court (memorandum of understanding as originals, proposed first floor plan signed by the Architect, and estimation copy) did not include a sanctioned plan obtained prior to filing of the petition.

¶22

Key takeaways

No reasons to set aside the order of the Revisional Court, which had set aside the Trial Court's order allowing the eviction petition partly under Section 27(2)(g) and (i) of the Karnataka Rent Act and directing eviction of the respondent from the shop premises.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

House Rent Revision Petition No.13/2024 under S.46(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act by Sri Swamy G R against the order dated 22.07.2024 of the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru in Rev.(Rent) No.8/2023, whereby the Revisional Court set aside the Trial Court's order in HRC No.1/2022 allowing eviction of Sri M Chennappa from the shop premises partly under S.27(2)(g) and (i) (claims under S.27(2)(e) and (h) having been rejected). The Court observed that the petitioner had placed only the memorandum of understanding, a proposed first floor plan signed by the Architect and an estimation copy before the Court (via memo of 22.08.2025 and I.A.No.2/2025 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC), but had not obtained a sanctioned plan prior to filing of HRC No.1/2022; finding no ground to entertain the revision and no reason to set aside the Revisional Court's order, the petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court afresh with the prior sanctioned plan, estimation and other documents, and the Registry was directed to return the original documents after obtaining copies.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:40261 HRRP No. 13 of 2024

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

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

¶7

HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO.13 OF 2024 (EVI)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SRI SWAMY G R AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O LATE H GOVINDA, R/AT NO.L-132, (807) HUDCO 2^ND STAGE KUVEMPUNAGAR MYSRUU - 570022 PRESENT ADDRESS R/AT NO.530, ANUGRAHA CONSTRUCTIONS 7^TH CROSS, II MAIN, H-BLOCK RAMAKRISHNANAGARA MYSURU - 570022 …PETITIONER (BY SRI BHADRINATH R, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI M CHENNAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O LATE MARIYAPPA R/AT NO.440, M-BLOCK, 2^ND STAGE, KUVEMPUNAGAR MYSURU - 570022

¶11

…RESPONDENT

¶12

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:40261 HRRP No. 13 of 2024

¶13

HC-KAR

¶14

THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.46(1) OF THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.07.2024 PASSED IN REV.(RENT) NO.8/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

ORAL ORDER

¶18

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and perused the memo and original documents filed by the petitioner before this Court on 22.08.2025 and so also I.A.No.2/2025 wherein invoking the provision under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, three copies of earlier document Nos.3 to 5 are produced before this Court.

¶19

On perusal of the material on record, it discloses that the Trial Court allowed the petition in part and the Revisional Court allowed the petition only on the ground that sanctioned plan and estimation are not produced before the Court when the relief is sought. Having perused the documents which have been placed before this Court, it discloses that the

¶20

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:40261 HRRP No. 13 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

documents of the memorandum of understanding are placed before the Court as original documents but not produced any sanctioned plan which was obtained prior to filing of the petition. Except proposed first floor plan signed by the Architect and estimation copy, ought to have obtained the sanctioned plan prior to filing of the petition but the same is not placed before this Court.

¶23

Considering the order passed by the Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court wherein the Trial Court has assigned the reason for dismissing the petition as that sanctioned plan is not produced which ought to have been obtained prior to filing of the petition and the prayer is sought in the absence of documentary proof. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to entertain this revision petition since no such sanctioned plan is obtained prior to filing of the HRC No.1/2022. The Revisional Court held that the Trial Court was not correct in allowing the petition under Section 27(2)(g) and (i) after rejecting the claim under Section 27(2)(e) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Act. Therefore, the order of the Trial Court in allowing the petition partly under Section 27(2)(g) and

¶24

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:40261 HRRP No. 13 of 2024

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

(i) of the Karnataka Rent Act and directing eviction of the respondent from the shop premises is set aside by the Revisional Court. Hence, I do not find any reasons to set aside the order of the Revisional Court since this Court considered the grounds invoked for eviction by the Revisional Court.

¶28

The petitioner is given liberty to approach the Court afresh with appropriate documents i.e., prior sanctioned plan, estimation and other documents. With this liberty, the petition is disposed of.

¶29

Registry is directed to return the original documents

¶30

in favour of the petitioner after obtaining the copies of the

¶31

same.

¶32

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶33

Sri Swamy G R v. Sri M Chennappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Swamy G R v. Sri M Chennappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Nagarathnamma Vs Smt Lakshmidevamma

Smt Saroja Shedthy Vs Mr Uday Shetty

Smt Siddagangamma Vs Sri Bylappa

Sri. Narayanaswamy Vs Smt. Narayanamma

Smt. Ngamma Vs Sri. D Puttaswamy

Subramanya Vs Srikanth Shastri