Allowed¶69

Y. Rajashekar, v. Surathanamma

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2025HRRP/16/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: HRRP No. 16 of 2023; NC: 2025:KHC:25439; Section 115 CPC revision; Karnataka Rent Act 1999 Section 27(2)(r); jural relationship landlord-tenant dispute; categorical admission of tenancy by R.W.2; Ex.P.1 lease agreement genuineness; rent revision reversal set aside; eviction order restored; 3 months time to vacate; Mysuru; HRC No.20/2017; R.R.No.03/2022; H.P. Sandesh, J.; deceased petitioner represented by legal representatives.

What did the court decide?

Rent Revision Petition allowed; order dated 04.09.2023 in R.R.No.3/2022 of the Rent Revision Court set aside; order dated 21.01.2022 of the Trial Court in H.R.C.No.20/2017 restored; respondents given 3 months time to vacate the premises. ¶69

Y. Rajashekar, Vs Surathanamma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶69

Issue for consideration

Whether the Rent Revision Court committed an error in reversing the order passed by the Trial Court in coming to the conclusion that there is a dispute of jural relationship between the parties and that Ex.P.1 creates doubt in the mind of the Court. +1 more

¶56

Ratio / Principle

The reasoning given by the Rent Revision Court in its paragraph No.20 that the document Ex.P.1 is doubtful is an erroneous order.

¶62

Key takeaways

Ex.P.1 (lease agreement) contains the signature of the respondent's husband with no specific denial of the signature, and there is a clear admission on the part of the tenant/respondent that the petition schedule premises was occupied as a tenant; hence the Rent Revision Court committed an error in reversing the finding of the Trial Court.ratio¶66
Point No.1 is answered affirmatively: the Rent Revision Court committed an error in reversing the finding of the Trial Court.ratio¶66

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (H.P. Sandesh, J.) — House Rent Revision Petition No.16 of 2023 under S.115 CPC against the order dated 04.09.2023 of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru (Rent Revision Court) in R.R.No.03/2022, which had reversed the Trial Court's eviction order dated 21.01.2022 in HRC No.20/2017 (IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru) granting 3 months to vacate under S.27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. Held: the Rent Revision Court erred in reversing the Trial Court's finding on the ground that Ex.P.1 (lease agreement) was doubtful and the jural relationship of landlord and tenant was disputed — Ex.P.1 bears the signature of the respondent's husband with no specific denial of the signature, and R.W.2 (the respondent) categorically admitted occupying the petition schedule premises as a tenant after marrying Suresh. Point answered affirmatively; revision allowed, the revisional order dated 04.09.2023 set aside, the Trial Court order dated 21.01.2022 restored, and the respondents granted 3 months time to vacate the premises.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:25439 HRRP No. 16 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

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

¶8

HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO.16 OF 2023 (EVI)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Y. RAJASHEKAR,

¶11

DEAD, REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES.

¶12

PREMA KUMARI,

¶13

WIFE OF LATE Y. RAJASHEKAR, AGED 61 YEARS.

¶14

SUDESH

¶15

SON OF LATE Y. RAJASHEKAR, AGED 41 YEARS.

¶16

DIVAKAR,

¶17

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶18

SON OF LATE Y RAJASHEKAR, AGED 41 YEARS.

¶19

JAYARAJ,

¶20

SON OF LATE Y. RAJASHEKAR, AGED 37 YEARS.

¶21

MANURAJ,

¶22

SON OF LATE Y. RAJASHEKAR, AGED 35 YEARS.

¶23

ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE R/AT NO.4312/5, 1^ST CROSS ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, MYSURU-570007.

¶24

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SACHIN R.R., ADVOCATE)

¶25

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:25439 HRRP No. 16 of 2023

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

AND:

¶28

SURATHANAMMA, WIFE OF LATE SURESH, AGED 51 YEARS.

¶29

SHANTHA MOHANRAJ, AGED 30 YEARS.

¶30

JOSEPH IMMANUAL, AGED 28 YEARS.

¶31

ALL THE RESPONDENTS ARE R/AT NO.4302 NEW L-23, CHIKKAMMADEVI, DEVASTHANADA RASTE, GANDHINAGAR, LASHKAR MOHALLA, MYSURU-570007.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI. NATARAJA BALLAL A., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

¶34

THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.09.2023 PASSED IN RR. NO.03/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, ALLOWING THE PETITION AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2022 PASSED IN HRC NO.20/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU.

¶35

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

¶36

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:25439 HRRP No. 16 of 2023

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

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

¶39

ORAL ORDER

¶40

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

¶41

and also the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to

¶42

This revision petition is filed against allowing of rent revision petition and reversing the judgment of the Trial Court wherein Trial Court allowed the petition filed under Section 27(2)(r) of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and granted 3 months time to vacate the premises.

¶43

The main contention of the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that the Trial Court taking into note of the requirement as well as relationship between the parties and particularly taking into note of admission on the part of R.W.2 wherein she categorically admitted that after she married Suresh, she occupied the house as a tenant. The Trial Court taken note of both the admission

¶44

as well as requirement and allowed the petition and granted 3 months time to vacate the premises.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:25439 HRRP No. 16 of 2023

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Being aggrieved by the same, Rent Revision

¶49

No.3/2022 is filed before the Rent Revision Court and Rent Revision Court having re-assessed the material available on record, reversed the same in coming to the conclusion that Ex.P.1 said to have been stated as these agreements creates doubt in the mind of the Court as to its genuinity and also the fact of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The petitioners have specifically disputed the sole ownership of deceased respondent over the petition schedule premises and also the relationship of landlord and tenant between them and hence reversed the finding.

¶50

The counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that when there is a clear admission on the part of R.W.1 in the cross-examination that she has occupied the premises as a tenant and the Rent Revision Court ought not to have given such finding in paragraph No.20 of the petition since there is a clear admission.

¶51

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:25439 HRRP No. 16 of 2023

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

Per Contra, the counsel appearing for the

¶54

respondents would contend that the relationship is admitted with regard to fact that they are the joint family members and also P.W.1 categorically admitted that 1^st defendant’s husband is his brother and also the petition schedule premises measuring 364 square feet and also admitted that except Ex.P.1 there are no other rental agreement and when such admission was given by P.W.1, Rent Revision Court rightly comes to the conclusion that there is a dispute with regard to the jural relationship between the parties.

¶55

Having heard the revision petitioners’ counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondents and also taken note of the material and record, the point that would arise for the consideration of this Court are:

¶56

1. Whether the Rent Revision Court committed an error in reversing the order passed by the Trial Court in coming to the conclusion that there is a dispute of jural relationship between the parties and

¶57

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:25439 HRRP No. 16 of 2023

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

Ex.P.1 creates the doubt in the mind of the Court.

¶60

1. What Order?

¶61

Having heard the petitioner’s counsel as well as

¶62

the counsel appearing to the respondents and this Court also secured the records of the Trial Court. The Trial Court while considering the petition, taken note of the grounds which have been urged under Section 27(2)(r) of Karnataka Rent Act,1999 and also taken note of admission on the part of R.W.2 who is none other than the respondent wherein categorically admitted that petition schedule premises was occupied as a tenant after she married Suresh who is her husband. No doubt, Suresh none other than the brother of the petitioner, but when that specific admission was given that petition schedule premises was occupied as tenant. The very reasoning given by the Rent Revision Court in paragraph No.20 that the very document of Ex.P.1 is doubtful is an erroneous order. The lease agreement is also placed on record before

¶63

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:25439 HRRP No. 16 of 2023

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

the Court as Ex.P.1 which contains the signature of the

¶66

husband of the respondent and no specific denial of signature on Ex.P.1 and apart from that when there is a clear admission on the part of the tenant/respondent that petition schedule premises was occupied as a tenant. Hence, Rent Revision Court committed an error in reversing the finding of the Trial Court. Hence, I answered the point as affirmative.

¶67

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

¶68

ORDER

¶69

i) Rent Revision Petition is allowed .

¶70

ii) The order passed by the Rent Revision Court dated 04.09.2023 in R.R.No.3/2022 is set aside and the order passed by the Trial Court in H.R.C.No.20/2017 dated 21.01.2022 is restored.

¶71

NC: 2025:KHC:25439 HRRP No. 16 of 2023

¶72

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

iii) The respondent/s is given 3 months time to vacate the premises.

¶75

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶76

RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37