Dismissed¶84

Sri T Gnaneshwar v. Sri H S Puttashankara

Karnataka HC12 Nov 2025HRRP/65/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HRRP No. 65 of 2017 (NC: 2025:KHC:46118), High Court of Karnataka, decided 12.11.2025 by Mrs. Justice M G Uma. Tenant's revision petition under S.46(1), Karnataka Rent Act 1999 against eviction ordered in HRC.No.32/2016 under S.27(2)(o) and (r) (grounds under S.27(2)(a)(c)(e)(g) rejected) by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru. Jural relationship of landlord-tenant upheld relying on Apex Court decision in companion SLP(C).No.15565/2021 (order dated 09.09.2025) and admitted delivery of possession in Execution Petition No.1737/2017; petition dismissed with cost. Related: HRC.No.86/2016, HRRP.No.68/2017, RFA.No.683/1989 (Ex.P4), Release Deed dated 04.11.2015 (Ex.P2).

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner-tenant; the House Rent Revision Petition is dismissed with cost and the Trial Court's eviction order stands.

Sri T Gnaneshwar Vs Sri H S Puttashankara — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioner-tenant; the House Rent Revision Petition is dismissed with cost and the Trial Court's eviction order stands.

¶84

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner (tenant) has made out any grounds to allow the House Rent Revision Petition?

¶12

Court's answer

The jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties stands established: the Hon'ble Apex Court had already held in the companion matter (concerning the respondent-tenant's mother) that a landlord-tenant relationship exists; the tenant claims no ownership over the schedule property and points to no other claimant; therefore the tenant's denial of jural relationship is rejected.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

As the tenant admits that the landlord has already taken possession of the schedule property through Execution Petition No.1737/2017, the landlord is entitled to eviction of the tenant and taking of possession under due process of law.

¶78

Key takeaways

The impugned Trial Court findings — that the landlord is entitled to possession of the schedule premises by evicting the tenant — were arrived at after considering the rival contentions at length and require no interference; the point framed is answered in the negative.ratio¶82

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

House Rent Revision Petition under Section 46(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 filed by the tenant against the order dated 15.07.2017 of the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru in HRC.No.32/2016, which allowed the landlord's eviction petition under Section 27(2)(o) and (r) and directed delivery of vacant possession within three months. Held (single Bench, Mrs. Justice M G Uma): the jural relationship of landlord and tenant stood proved — the Apex Court had already upheld the identical finding in the companion case concerning the respondent-tenant's mother (SLP(SPL(C)).No.15565/2021, allowed on 09.09.2025 on the strength of rent receipts prima facie proving ownership); the tenant disclaimed ownership and identified no rival claimant; and possession of the schedule property had already been taken by the landlord in Execution Petition No.1737/2017, a fact admitted by the tenant. No grounds made out to interfere with the Trial Court findings; petition dismissed with cost.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:46118 HRRP No. 65 of 2017

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO. 65 OF 2017 (EVI)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. T. GNANESHWAR S/O LATE THAMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.7, 26^TH CROSS ANKALAPPA MUTT BUILDING CUBBONPET BANGALORE-560 002

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR D.A, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SRI. H.S. PUTTASHANAKARA S/O LATE H.S.SHANKRANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.57/2 ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET NARAYANA SHETTY PET BANGALORE-560 002 REPRESENTED BY SPA HOLDER SRI.H.S. PURUSHOTHAMA

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. C. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.46(1) OF THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.07.2017 PASSED IN HRC.NO.32/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT BENGALURU, ALLOWING PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.27(2)(0) AND (r) OF

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:46118 HRRP No. 65 of 2017

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999 FOR EVICTION. AND DISMISSED UNDER SEC.27(2)(a)(c)(e) AND (g) OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Though the petition is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶25

The petitioner-tenant being the respondent in HRC.No.32/2016 on the file of learned Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-1) (hereinafter referred as to 'Trial Court') is impugning the order dated 15.07.2017, allowing the petition filed by respondent herein under Section 27(2)(o) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short 'the Act of 1999') and directing petitioner herein to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the schedule property within

¶26

three months from the date of order. While, rejecting the petition filed under Section 27(2)(a)(c)(e) and (g) of the Act, 1999.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:46118 HRRP No. 65 of 2017

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.

¶31

The petitioner before the Trial Court being the landlord has filed HRC.No.32/2016 under Section 27(2)(a)(c)(e)(g) and (o) of the Act, 1999 seeking eviction of the respondent herein. It is the contention of the petitioner - landlord that the schedule property was originally belonging to one Sri.Banappa, who is the great grandfather of the landlord, who was kathadhar and revenue records were standing in his name. The family members of the landlord executed a registered Release Deed dated 04.11.2015 and thus the petitioner became the owner of the schedule property. It is contended that the respondent - tenant has indulged in various activities without the knowledge of the respondent - landlord and therefore, a legal notice dated 19.06.2005 was issued. The demands made therein were not complied. On 17.08.2012 the respondent - tenant has unauthorizedly demolished the wall of another portion of the property bearing No.7, and tried to trespass over the same. A police complaint in that regard was filed by the petitioner - landlord.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:46118 HRRP No. 65 of 2017

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

It is contended that the petitioner-landlord

¶36

submitted an application for change of katha, but the respondent - tenant has raised objections and therefore, the prayer of the petitioner - landlord was not considered. The petitioner - landlord contended that the respondent being the tenant under him was not having any locus standi to question his prayer for change of katha. The schedule attached to the petition describes the property measuring East to West 12 feet, North to South 10 feet, and sought for eviction of the respondent - tenant.

¶37

It is also contended that respondent - tenant is also a chronic defaulter in payment of rent. It was also learnt by the petitioner - landlord that his father had filed eviction petition against the grandmother of the respondent by name Mysore Lingamma in HRC.No.1971/1980 in respect of a portion of the property, adjacent to the petition schedule property, where she admitted that the father of the petitioner was the landlord and was collecting the rent. The petition came to be

¶38

dismissed only on the ground that the statutory notice under Section 27(1)(a) of the Act, 1999, was not issued. Under these

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46118 HRRP No. 65 of 2017

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

circumstances, he has prayed for evicting the respondent - tenant.

¶42

The respondent - tenant contended that he is in

¶43

possession of the property measuring East to West 28 feet, North to South 6 and 1/2 feet on the Eastern side and 818 and 1/2 on the Western side of the petition schedule property.

¶44

The respondent has appeared before the Trial Court and filed the statement of objections by denying his relationship with the petitioner and contended that one Banappa, was the original owner. It is denied that the petitioner was the great grandson of the said Banappa. It is contended that the property belonging to Sri. Ankallappa Mutt, was being looked after by said Banappa. Therefore, the katha stood in the name of Banappa. The petitioner - landlord is trying to change the katha in his name in respect of the schedule property. In that regard, the respondent has submitted his objections to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The BBMP has accepted the objections and not transferred the katha in the name of the petitioner. However,

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:46118 HRRP No. 65 of 2017

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

the petitioner created a Release Deed dated 04.11.2015 to claim the property.

¶49

The contention of the petitioner that, the

¶50

respondent had encroached upon a portion of the property by demolishing the wall is denied. It is contended that the damage to the wall was due to heavy rain and the respondent got it repaired. Therefore, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶51

The petitioner before the Trial Court examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to 32 in support of his contention. The respondent examined RWs.1 and 2, and got marked Ex.R1 and 2 in support of his contention. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner has proved the existence of jural relationship of landlord and the tenant. It also held that, the respondent even though denied the jural relationship, is not successful in proving the same. Accordingly, the petition was allowed-in-part under Section 27(2)(o) and (r) of the Act, 1999. Being aggrieved by the same, the tenant is before this Court.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:46118 HRRP No. 65 of 2017

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

Heard Sri. Shivakumar D A, learned counsel for the

¶56

petitioner and Sri. C Prakash, learned counsel for the caveator - respondent. Perused the material on record.

¶57

In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶58

"Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition?"

¶59

My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following:

¶60

REASONS

¶61

It is the contention of the petitioner before the Trial

¶62

Court that the respondent is the tenant of schedule property and he is to be evicted under various clauses of Section 27(2) of the Act, 1999. The Trial Court held that there exists a jural relationship between the parties and the petitioner - landlord has proved his contention as required under Section 27(2)(o) and (r), of the Act, 1999. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

¶63

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:46118 HRRP No. 65 of 2017

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

The main ground urged by the tenant is that, he

¶66

was not a tenant under the petitioner and there is no jural relationship. However, the petitioner - landlord places reliance on Ex.P2 - the registered Release Deed executed by his family members in his favour. The petitioner also places reliance on the certified copy of the judgment in RFA.No.683/1989 - Ex.P4, where there is a finding that Banappa is the owner and kathadhar of the schedule property. The registered Release Deed dated 04.11.2015 - Ex.P2, refers to the judgment in RFA.No.683/1989, and describes Banappa, as the great grandfather of the petitioner.

¶67

Admittedly, the petitioner has filed similar HRC in HRC.No.86/2016. The respondent in the said HRC is none other

¶68

than the mother of the respondent before the Trial Court. The said HRC was also contested by the mother of the petitioner on similar grounds. She also denied the jural relationship with the petitioner, but HRC.No.86/2016 came to be allowed by the Trial Court. Challenging the said judgment and order, HRRP.No.68/2017 was preferred before this Court. Since HRRP.No.68/2017 was allowed, the landlord has challenged the

¶69

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:46118 HRRP No. 65 of 2017

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

same by preferring Special Leave to Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SPL(C).No.15565/2021 and the said SLP came to be allowed vide order dated 09.09.2025, holding that the finding recorded by the Trial Court was just and proper as there are rent receipts relied on by the landlord, which prima facie prove the ownership.

¶73

Learned counsel for the respondent - tenant contends that there were rent receipts produced in HRC.No.86/2016, but there are no such documents in the present case. Therefore, this petition is liable to be allowed.

¶74

The relationship between the tenant in HRC.No.86/2016 and with the respondent-tenant in this case is to be taken into consideration in appreciating the contentions of the parties. Admittedly, the schedule properties in these HRC petitions are adjudicated to one another and both are used for residential purpose. The tenant in HRC.No.86/2016 is none other than the mother of the present petitioner. She had also taken similar contentions before the Trial Court, when HRC.No.86/2016 was filed against her.

¶75

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:46118 HRRP No. 65 of 2017

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

The contentions taken by the mother of the respondent - tenant was rejected by the Hon'ble Apex Court and it held that there exists landlord tenant relationship. Admittedly the tenant is not claiming ownership over the petition schedule property. Nor he states then is any other person who claiming ownership. Under such circumstance, I do not find any reason to accept the contention taken by the tenant in the present case.

¶78

It is also brought to the notice of the Court that the landlord in the present case has already taken possession of the schedule property from the tenant by instituting Execution Petition No.1737/2017. This fact is never disputed, rather it is admitted by the tenant. Under such circumstances, I do not find any force in the contentions raised by the tenant herein in contending that the jural relationship between the petitioner and the respondent as landlord and tenant is not proved. Therefore, landlord is entitled for eviction of the tenant and for taking possession of the premises under due process of law.

¶79

I have gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court which has taken into

¶80

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:46118 HRRP No. 65 of 2017

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

consideration the rival contentions of the parties and discussed at length to record the findings that the landlord is entitled for possession of the schedule premises by evicting the tenant. I do not find any reason to interfere with the said findings. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'Negative' and proceed to pass the following:

¶83

ORDER

¶84

The petition is dismissed with cost.

¶85

In view of the dismissal of the petition, the pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and hence stands disposed off.

¶86

Send back the Trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment.

¶87

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶88

PNV - List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Sri T Gnaneshwar v. Sri H S Puttashankara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri T Gnaneshwar v. Sri H S Puttashankara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri S H Kantharaju Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Manjunath Vs Deputy Registrar

Chikkadasenahalli Milk Producers Co. Operative Society Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Obalamma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Smt. Hanumakka Vs Sri. Madduraiah

Sri. Haribabu Reddy Vs Narayanappa Dead by Lrs