Karnataka High Court
Smt. Vinutha W/O Madhukar Haldipur vs N V Vikram S/O N V Anantharaman on 26 September, 2025
-1-
HRRP No.100001/2025
RESERVED ON : 18.09.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 26.09.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD
BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO.100001 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. VINUTHA W/O. MADHUKAR HALDIPUR
AGE. 87 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. CLUB ROAD, DESAI CROSS,
HUBBALLI 580029.
2. SRI. GOUTAM S/O. MADHUKAR HALDIPUR
AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. CLUB ROAD, DESAI CROSS,
HUBBALLI 580029.
3. GOURANG S/O. MADHUKAR HALDIPUR
AGE. 64 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
Digitally signed by
MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA
R/O. CLUB ROAD, DESAI CROSS,
KALMATH
Location: HIGH HUBBALLI 580029.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.09.26
14:38:13 +0530
4. SRI. GOURISH S/O. MADHUKAR HALDIPUR
AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. CLUB ROAD, DESAI CROSS,
HUBBALLI 580029.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI V.M. SHEELAVANT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
N.V. VIKRAM S/O. N.V. ANANTHARAMAN
AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. BUSIENSS,
R/O. 'YATIRAJ NILAYAM',
-2-
HRRP No.100001/2025
KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. G. MEERABAI, ADVOCATE)
THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC, 1908,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, ALLOW THE REVISION
PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.08.2022
PASSED BY THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HUBBALLI IN
RCA NO.29/2009 AND THE ORDER DATED 20.03.2025 PASSED
BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND SESSIONS JUDGE
DHARWAD SITTING AT HUBBALLI IN R.R.NO.5002/2022 IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED ON 18.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
CAV ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA)
This revision petition is directed against the order dated
11th August, 2022 passed in RCA No.29 of 2009 by I Additional
Civil Judge & JMFC, Hubballi (for short "the trial Court"), which
is confirmed by the I Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Dharwad sitting at Hubballi (for short "the Revisional Court") in
RR No.5002 of 2022 dated 20th March, 2025.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
3. Petitioner, who is respondent herein, filed petition
seeking vacant possession of the petition premises and for
-3-
HRRP No.100001/2025
recovery of arrears of rent of ₹5,040/- and also future mesne
profits. It is stated in the petition that petitioner is the owner
and landlord of the petition premises. Originally, the said
property belonged to one Siddalingappa Ishwarappa Bulla. The
predecessor of the respondents by name Dr. Panduranga
Haldipur and Dr. R.G. Koppikar had taken portion of the petition
premises for rent from the original owner in the year 1936-37
on a monthly rent of Rs.40/-. Accordingly, the tenants were
residing in the suit premises till the year 1972. It is the further
case of the petitioner that original owner, Sri Siddalingappa I.
Bulla had gifted the entire premises in favour of his wife, Smt.
Parvatevva S. Bulla. Therefore, the predecessor of the
respondents have attorned the tenants in favour of Parvathevva
and they were paying rent to her regularly. The rent of Rs.40/-
was also enhanced to Rs.140/- later on. Respondents were
paying rent to Smt. Parvathevva till the year 1982. After the
death of Dr. Panduranga Haldipur, respondents have started to
reside in the petition premises as tenants. It is the further case
of the petitioner that he had purchased the suit premises on
07th December, 1987 from its previous owner, Smt.
Parvathevva and had also informed the respondent through
notice dated 26th December, 1987 that she had sold the petition
-4-
HRRP No.100001/2025
premises to the petitioner and directed the respondents to pay
the rent to him. Thereafter, the petitioner had also requested
the respondent to pay rent to him. However, the respondents
failed to pay the rent. Respondents filed a suit before the court
of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Hubballi in the year 1988 against the
previous owner-Smt. Parvethevva on the ground that she had
executed a sale deed in favour of them. The respondents have
also made the present petitioner as defendant No.2 in the said
suit. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court, which in
appeal before this Court in RFA No.418 of 1998, was set aside
vide Judgment dated 18th August, 2009 on the ground that
respondents were not ready and willing to perform their part of
obligations. Accordingly, judgment and decree passed by the
trial Court was set aside. Therefore, execution of sale in favour
of the petitioner is made as absolute and the petitioner is owner
of the entire premises. Even after the dismissal of the suit filed
by the respondents, they have not paid rent to the petitioner.
It is the further case of the petitioner that one Sri Kotre who is
tenant in the first floor of the premises, had vacated and
handed over vacant position in favour of the petitioner. Now
the petitioner and his son are doing business in the first floor of
the premises. The petitioner is a senior citizen and is unable to
-5-
HRRP No.100001/2025
carry out business while residing away from the petition
premises. As such, he intends to shift his house from
Keshwapur to petition premises. The petition premises would
be more convenient for the petitioner to carry out business and
it is required for bona fide use of the petitioner. During the
pendency of the petition, original petitioner died and his
grandson came on record and got amended the petition wherein
he has stated that after Graduation, he took up a job and
started his own business in the name and style as "Ananda Print
Solutions". But after lockdown, business of the petitioner
became dull and the petitioner intends to shift his business to
his hometown. His parents are also residing in the petition
premises and as such petition premises is required for the
petitioner to run his business as well as for his residence.
Respondents have not paid any rent to the petition premises
since 1982. Petitioner has restricted his claim of rent only for a
period of three years and hence claiming rent of Rs.5,040/- as
arrears. The petitioner has also issued legal notice to the
respondents on 30th October, 2009 to handover the vacant
position of the petition premises along with arrears of rent. The
said notices were served on respondents. In spite of it,
respondents have failed to handover the vacant possession of
-6-
HRRP No.100001/2025
the petition premises to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner
has filed the petition. Petitioner has filed rejoinder and
contended that the suit filed by the respondents was dismissed
on the ground that they are not ready to perform their part of
contract. Therefore, the respondents are in possession of
petition premises as tenants and not as purchasers on the basis
of the sale agreement. The sale agreement alleged to have
been executed by Smt. Parvathevva, does not disclose delivery
of possession in favour of respondent. The petitioner had filed
one more rejoinder contending that the application filed by
respondents under Section 43 of Karnataka Rent Act was
dismissed by the trial Court as well as the Revisional Court.
Therefore, now respondents cannot re-agitate the said matter.
4. Respondents 1 to 3 appeared before the Court through
their Counsel and filed written statement contending that
petitioner had filed a false, frivolous and illegal petition which is
not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable
to be dismissed. It is admitted that originally suit schedule
premises belonged to one Siddalingappa I. Bulla and it was
gifted by him in favour of his wife. They have also admitted
that they are the tenants under him. It is contended that the
-7-
HRRP No.100001/2025
Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Hubballi passed judgment and decree
dated 17th March, 1998 in OS No.391 of 1988, holding that the
petitioner is not a purchaser of the property and therefore,
petitioner is not entitled to take a contention that he is the
owner of the petition premises. Respondents have further
contended that Smt. Parvathevva had executed an agreement
of sale in favour of respondents on 17th June, 1985, for sale
consideration of Rs.4,00,000/-. The said Parvathevva also
received an advance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- from
respondent on the date of execution of sale agreement. The
said execution of sale agreement was held as legal and valid in
judgment and decree passed in OS No.391 of 1988 as well as
before this Court in RFA No.418 of 1998. The respondents are
in possession of the petition premises, not as tenants but as
purchasers of the suit premises under agreement of sale dated
17th June, 1985. It was also agreed by Smt. Parvethavva that
these respondents are not liable to pay any rent in respect of
petition premises as she had already executed a sale agreement
and delivered possession of the petition premises. It is further
contended that respondents have informed the petitioner not to
purchase the petition premises as the owner had already
executed a sale agreement in favour of them on 17th June,
-8-
HRRP No.100001/2025
1985. In spite of it, petitioner had filed petition on the basis of
bogus sale deed only to cause harassment and loss to
respondents. Further, it stated that on the basis of collusive
and bogus sale deed, petitioner with one Sri R.V. Kotre, got a
compromise decree and the vacant possession of the first floor
from said Sri Kotre during the pendency of Suit in OS No.39 of
1998. The appeal preferred by Smt. Parvathevva and petitioner
against respondent and Sri R.V. Kotre, was allowed. However,
agreement of sale existing in favour of the respondent was held
as barred. It is stated that the High Court has allowed the
petition on the technical ground that respondents have failed to
prove the readiness and willingness. In spite of these issues,
the High Court has not given any finding. The trial Court had
already given its finding, including the issue regarding bona fide
purchaser of the suit property. The said decision has not been
set aside by the High Court. Therefore, petitioner is neither
owner nor a landlord of the petition premises. Petitioner has
filed this petition with an intention to harass the respondents. It
is further contended that the petitioner had filed HRC No.138 of
1998 against the respondent in the court of Principal Civil Judge
(Jr.Dn.), Hubbali, praying to evict the respondents and
handover the vacant possession of the suit premises. The said
-9-
HRRP No.100001/2025
case was filed during the pendency of Original Suit No.381 of
1988 before the Principal Civil Judge, Hubballi. The said suit
filed on 15th February, 1998 and petition in HRC No.138 of 1998
subsequently came to be dismissed for default. In view of the
said order passed in HRC No.138 of 1988, present RCA is not
maintainable under Order IX Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure
and it amounts to constructive resjudicata. On all these
grounds, it was sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. To prove the case, petitioner examined four witnesses
as PWs1 to 4 and got marked fourteen documents as Exhibits
P1 to P14. On closure of petitioner side evidence, one witness
was examined on behalf of respondent as RW1 and eight
documents were marked as Exhibits R1 to R8. Having heard
the arguments on both sides, the trial Court allowed the petition
filed under Section 27(2)(r) of Karnataka Rent Act and directed
the respondents to vacate and deliver the physical possession of
the petition premises to the petitioner within two months from
the date of the order. Being aggrieved by the said order passed
by the trial Court, respondents preferred RR No.5002 of 2022,
before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad,
sitting at Hubballi. By judgment dated 20th March, 2025, the
- 10 -
HRRP No.100001/2025
Revisional Court dismissed the revision petition. Being
aggrieved by the order passed by both the courts below, the
respondents have preferred this revision petition.
6. Sri V.M. Sheelvant, learned Counsel appearing for
revision petitioners would submit that the original owner of the
schedule premises has executed agreement of sale in favour of
revision petitioners on 17th June, 1985, and has confirmed the
possession of the petitioners. Later, the original owner had sold
the property in question to the respondent. Based on the
agreement of sale, petitioners had instituted for specific
performance of contract and also for declaration that they are
the owners of the open space and restraining respondent from
interfering with the position of suit property in OS number 391
of 1988. The said suit was decreed as prayed for by the
petitioners. However, in the suit, Issue No.5 framed as to
whether the defendant No.2 is a bona fide purchaser? is
answered in the negative. That it is held that defendant No.2 is
not a bona fide purchaser and as such he is not the owner of
the property in question. The defendant preferred an appeal
before the High Court in RFA No.418 of 1998. Whereas this
court ordered for refund of earnest money by reversing the
- 11 -
HRRP No.100001/2025
judgment and decree of the trial Court. However, the finding
on issue No.5 that the respondent is not a bona fide purchaser,
remained intact.
7. It is further submitted that the petitioner had filed
application IA No.6 in RCA No.29 of 2009, seeking stay of
proceedings and to direct respondent to competent civil court
for declaring their rights. The application was dismissed against
the HRP No.521 of 2013 was filed before this Court. The said
HRRP came to be dismissed vide order dated 13th February,
2017. The said order was challenged before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in SLP No.16935 of 2017. But, petitioners have
withdrawn the Special Leave Petition with liberty to take
recourse to any other available remedy. Petitioners after
disposal of the Special Leave Petition, have filed OS No.551 of
2017 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi for
declaration against the respondent herein that the petitioners
have right to be in lawful possession of the suit property on the
basis of agreement of sale dated 17th June, 1985, and also on
the basis of the finding given in OS No.391 of 1988 and the
same is pending. He would submit that the both the Courts
have not properly appreciated the material on record in
- 12 -
HRRP No.100001/2025
accordance with law and facts, and accordingly sought to allow
the revision petition.
8. As against this Smt. G. Meera Bai, learned Counsel
appearing for the respondent would submit that the impugned
order passed by the Court below which is affirmed by the
Revisional Court is based on the facts and in accordance with
law and the same does not call for interference.
9. A perusal of judgment passed by the revisional Court
reveals that the present revision petitioners have taken all the
contentions that are urged before this Court before the
revisional Court in RR No.5002 of 2023. The Revisional Court
has considered all the arguments advanced on behalf of the
Revision Petitioners and has assigned reasons at paragraphs 28
to 49 of its judgment. The same reads thus:
28. The counsel for petitioner (Respondent here in)
argued that since the Hon'ble High Court set aside the entire
Judgment and decree dated : 17-03-1998 passed by the
Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi in O.S. No.391/1988 the entire
Judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge
becomes non est and in view of the setting aside of the
entire Judgment by the Hon's High Court, the findings on
Issue No. 5 by the Senior Civil Judge in the said case will not
survive. She further argued that the original petitioner N. A.
- 13 -
HRRP No.100001/2025
Ananth Raman bequeathed the petition schedule premises to
the impleaded petitioner N. A. Vikram as per Ex.P-13 Will.
She further argued that the attesting witnesses to Ex.P-13
Will examined before the trial court as P.W.3 and by virtue
of the said Will subsequently impleaded petitioner has
become the owner of the petition schedule property.
29. The respondents contends that the landlord and
tenant relationship between the respondents and previous
owner Smt.Parvatewwa come to an end on the date of Ex.R-
1 agreement for sale ie on 17-06-1985. Now the question
arises for the consideration of this court is whether the
respondents are entitled to claim protection under Section
53-A of T P Act despite of setting aside of decree of specific
performance by the Hon'ble High Court in RFA No. 418/1998
? In this regard, it is necessary to consider the scope of
Section 53-A of TPAct. Section 53-A of TP Act reads as
under:
53A. Part performance:
Where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any
immoveable property by writing signed by him or on his
behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the
transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty,
and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract,
taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or the
transferee, being already in possession, continues in
possession in part performance of the contract and has done
some act in furtherance of the contract,
and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his
part of the contract,
- 14 -
HRRP No.100001/2025
then, notwithstanding that where there is an instrument of
transfer, that the transfer has not been completed in the
manner prescribed therefor by the law for the time being in
force, the transferor or any person claiming under him shall
be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and
persons claiming under him any right in respect of the
property of which the transferee has taken or continued in
possession, other than a right expressly provided by the
terms of the contract:
Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the rights of
a transferee for consideration who has no notice of the
contract or of the part performance thereof.
From the bare reading of section 53-A of TP Act is clear that
the party who is in possession of the property on the basis of
sale agreement is not entitled for the benefit under said
provision if he fails to prove his readiness and willingness to
purchase the petition schedule property.
30. It is pertinent to note that in the Judgment passed by
Hon'ble High Court in RFA No. 418/1998 it has been held
that the respondents have failed to prove their readiness
and willingness to perform their part of contract and hence
they are not entitled for specific performance of the Ex.R-1
agreement.
31. In the case of Vasanthi Vs. Venugopal (D) through
LRS decided by the Hon'ble Apex court on 21-03-2017 in
Civil appeal No. 4311-4312 it has been clarified that :
" A tenant cannot claim protection under Section 53-A
of TP Act if they fail to prove the execution of sale
- 15 -
HRRP No.100001/2025
agreement and their readiness and willingness to
purchase the property."
32. Further in the case of A. Lewis and another Vs M. T.
Ramamurthy and others reported in (2007) 14 SCC 87 it
was propounded that the right to claim protection under
Section 53-A of T P Act would not be available, if the
transferee remains passive without taking effective steps
and abstains from performing his part of the contract or
conveying his readiness and willingness to that effect.
33. The Hon'ble High Court in the Judgment dated : 18-
08-2009 passed in RFA No. 418/1998 at para No. 22 has
observed that :
"The very fact that the suit for bare injunction is
filed after the sale and reply notice was sent only
on 09-03-1998 clearly shows that the plaintiff
(Revision Petitioners herein) was not ready and
willing to perform his part of contract. He should
have at least shown by Ugadi of 1986, he was
ready with Rs.1,00,000/-. No evidence is adduced
in this regard."
34. Further in para No. 23 of the said Judgment the
Hon'ble High Court observed as under :
"23. Under these circumstances we are satisfied
that the plea of readiness and willingness has
remained as a plea and it is not proved by
acceptable evidence. The trial court committed a
serious error in holding that plaintiffs' eviction is
not disputed and therefore it has been proved.
The said finding runs contrary to the mandatory
- 16 -
HRRP No.100001/2025
requirements of Section 16(c) of the Specific
Relief Act and the settled legal position for
decades. Therefore the finding recorded by the
trial court that the plaintiff was ready and willing
to perform his part of contract cannot be
sustained."
35. In the case of D.S.Parvatewwa Vs. A Srinivasan
reported in AIR 2003 SC 2271 it was held that :
"Tenant claimed possession of the property and
sought part performance, the suit for specific
performance however was rejected by the court,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that because the
tenant failed to provide any evidence of acts
taken to carry out the agreement the operation of
Section 53-A of T P Act would not be permissible"
36. During the pendency of RCA No. 29/2009 the
respondents filed application under Section 43(1) and (2) of
Karnataka Rent act to stop the proceedings. The said
application was dismissed by the trial court and District
court. Against the said order the respondent preferred the
appeal before Hon'ble High Court of Karantaka. The Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka dismissed the said appeal and it
was reported in ILR 2017 Kar 2717 wherein in para No. 22 it
is held that :
"In the fact situation that is not the case. The
petitioners herein were tenants prior to 17-06-
1985, by virtue of some amount was paid as
advance, a concession of not paying the rent was
shown to them. IN any event it was not held that
- 17 -
HRRP No.100001/2025
their possession is in part performance of
agreement of sale. Therefore they cannot claim
that benefit, which they had not claimed in any
place either in the original suit in O.S. No.
391/1988 or in RFA No.418/1998 which was filed
by the landlord along with subsequent purchaser.
In that view of the matter when agreement of
sale has reached finality in SLP No. 37875/2009
being dismissed, he would revert back to the
position as it stood prior to 17-06-1985.
Therefore he should be considered as tenant
now."
The said decision arose out of this proceeding. The
Hon'ble High court in the said decision had already decided
that the petitioner is the landlord and the respondents are
tenants. After the death of the original petitioner the present
petitioner came on record on the basis of the Will executed
by the earlier petitioner. The said Will is marked at Ex.P-13.
In order to prove the Will as per provision of 68 of Evidence
Act petitioner got examined one of the attesting witnesses of
Ex.P-13 Will as PW3. P.W.3 in his evidence deposed
regarding execution of the Will by the original petitioner in
favour of the present petitioner before the trial court.
Though P.W.3 was cross examined in length nothing was
elicited with regard to non-compliance of attestation and the
petitioner has proved the execution of Ex.P-13 Will in his
favour in respect of the petition schedule property. Since the
decree of specific performance has been set aside by Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka in the judgment passed in RFA
No.418/1998 the citation relied upon by the respondents
- 18 -
HRRP No.100001/2025
reported in 2009(3) KLJ 319 is not applicable to the facts of
this case.
37. In the case of Silva Uddin Vs. Nagaraju reported in
ILR 2004 Karnataka 4782 it was held as under :
A) The transfer of Property Act 1882 -
Section 109- Karnataka Rent Act 1999 - sec 3(e)
and 46(1)- The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -
sec, 109 - Right of Transferee under - Held- In
view of transfer of ownership, the transferee
becomes the owner of the premises-The tenant
cannot dispute the right of the transferee land
lord to maintain an Eviction petition under the
Rent Act or to claim rent Attornment by the
tenant is unnecessary to confer validity to the
transfer of the lessor's rights - Section 109
protects payments of rent by the tenant to the
transferor without notice of the transfer, as
section 109 creates a statutory attornment.
B) Karnataka Rent Act 1999. Section 3(e)
Definition of Landlord under Held- The definition
signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord
in favour of any other person is not prohibited.
The transferee of a lessor is entitled to collect
rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes
landlord under Sec. 3(e) of the Act.
From the aforesaid decision and Section 109 of T P Act
it is clear that in view of the transfer of ownership the
transferee becomes the owner of the petition schedule
premises. In this case, by virtue of the sale deed executed
- 19 -
HRRP No.100001/2025
by Parvatewwa , original petitioner Ananth Raman has
become the owner and landlord of the premises and
subsequently on the death of original petitioner by virtue of
Ex.P-13 Will executed by the original petitioner in favour of
present petitioner before the trial court, the present
petitioner has become the owner and landlord of the petition
schedule premises.
38. Hence the trial Court is justified in holding that the
petitioner has established the relationship of landlord and
tenant between himself and respondents. Hence, Point No. 1
is answered in the Affirmative.
39. POINT NO.2 :- The counsel for Revision Petitioners/
Respondents before trial Court has argued that the petition
premises is not required by the petitioner for bonafide use.
He further argued that mere assertion on the part of the
petitioner that he requires the premises for starting his
business and for his residential purpose is not sufficient. He
further argued that to make out a ground for eviction under
Sec.27(2)(r) of Karnataka Rent Act mere desire on the part
of the landlord to occupy the premises is not enough and he
should prove that the petition premises genuinely requires
for his residential and business purpose but the petitioner
has failed to prove that he genuinely requires the petition
schedule premises for his residential and business purposes.
40. The original petitioner N. A. Ananth Raman died
during the pendency of the case before trial Court and the
impleaded petitioner got amended the petition wherein he
has urged that after graduation he took a job and started his
own business in the name and style 'Andhra Print Solutions'
and after lock down the business of the petitioner has
- 20 -
HRRP No.100001/2025
become dull and he intends to shift his business and his
residence to the petition schedule premises. The petitioner
got examined his father P.W.4 who is none other than the
son of original petitioner. P.W.4 in his affidavit filed towards
examination-inchief has stated that his father N. A. Ananth
Raman filed this petition in the year 2009 for his bonafide
use and occupation. He stated that due to Covid-19 his son
present petitioner suffered huge loss in the business and
hence he intends to run his business in the petition schedule
premises and the petitioner is in genuine need of petition
schedule premises for his business and residence. Even
though P.w.4 was cross examined in length nothing is
elicited to show that the petitioner does not need the
petition schedule premises for his residential and business
purpose.
41. The counsel for the petitioner before the trial Court
has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka reported in 2003(2) KCCR 1367 in the case
between Babulal and Another Vs. K. Sharadamba and
Another wherein in para No. 17 it was held that :
"In so far as establishing the requirement under
Section 27(2) (r) of the Act is concerned, it is
sufficient if the landlord has indicated that the
premises is required for use and occupation of himself
or any member of his family. Even assuming that they
were tow owners as petitioners and are joint owners,
if requirement of any one joint owner is established,
that requirement is sufficient to pass an order of
eviction as against the tenant. When a landlord can
maintain a petition for requirement of any member of
- 21 -
HRRP No.100001/2025
his family, it can equally so if two joint owners present
the eviction petition. The requirement of one joint
owner constitutes the requirement of all petitioners.
The only situation where the landlord can be denied
relief and the Court can refuse passing an order of
eviction against the tenant under Section 27(2)(r) is
when the Court finds that the landlord or the person
for whose requirement the petition schedule premises
is sought, for has some other reasonably suitable
accommodation."
42. In this case the petitioner wants to shift his business
from Chennai to Hubballi. The present petitioner who got
examined himself as P.W.2 has produced the Ex.P-14
Registration Certificate of GST which establishes that he is
running the business at Chennai under the name and style "
M/s. Andhra Print Solution".
43. It is pertinent to note that the proceedings under
Karnataka Rent Act is a summary proceeding and as such
strict rules of pleadings are not required. The petitioner in
the amended petition pleaded that he requires the petition
schedule premises for his business and residential purposes.
As per Section 27(2)(r) of Karnataka Rent Act it is sufficient
for the petitioner to show that the premises is required for
the use and occupation of himself and any other member of
his family. The petitioner has proved before the trial Court
that he has no other suitable accommodation for his present
requirement. It is not the case of the respondents that the
petitioner has other suitable accommodation in the area of
the petition premises.
- 22 -
HRRP No.100001/2025
44. Further, when the petition is preferred under Section
27(2)(r) of the Act seeking eviction for the requirement of
the premises for the occupation of the landlord himself, he is
not strictly required to prove his need and the Court has to
presume that the premises are so required when it is shown
that the landlord has no other suitable accommodation for
his present need.
45. In the case of M.Javerilal Vs. N. Achalraj Jain
reported in 2005 1 Kar.LJ 76 it has been held as follows :
"(B) Karnataka Rent Act 1999 Section 27(20)(r)
-Availability of alternative premises - it is no doubt
true that particular shop might have come in
possession of the petitioner but that by itself cannot
be said that the said premises is available and can be
termed as an alternate suitable premises. Time and
again it has been stated it is not open to the tenant to
dictate the landlord how he should carry on business
or where he should carry on and where and how he
should reside, that falls in the requirement of the
landlord"
46. In the case of P. Vaman kini Vs U. Ramachandra Pai
reported in AIR 1985 Kant 23 (DB) it was held as under :
A. Karnataka Rent Control Act 1961 (22 of
1961) Sections 5 and 21(1)(h)- eviction landlord can
seek eviction of tenant from non-residential premises
if such premises are required for business of the firm
of which he is partner.
47. In this case the petitioner has proved that the
petition premises is required for running his business and
the respondents have failed to rebut the same.
48. The counsel for respondent in support of his
contention that mere desire of the landlord is not sufficient
and the burden is on the landlord to show that he genuinely
requires the non-residential accommodation for the purpose
- 23 -
HRRP No.100001/2025
of starting or continuing his own business relied upon the
decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1974 AIR 1596. It
is pertinent to note that the aforesaid finding was given by
the Hon'ble Apex Court while interpreting Section 12(1)(f) of
Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act 1961. But this
case pertains to the Karnataka Rent Act. Explanation 1
Appended to clause (r) sub Section (2) of Section 27 of
Karnataka Rent Act provides inter alia that where landlord in
his application supported by an affidavit submits that the
premises are required by him for occupation for himself or
for any other members of his family, dependent on him
Court shall presume that premises are so required and the
said presumption have the effect of shifting burden of proof
it will be for the tenant to rebut the said presumption. In
view of the aforesaid presumption available to the landlord
under the Karnataka Rent Act, the citation of Hon'ble Apex
Court reported in AIR 1974 SC 1596 pertaining to Madhya
Pradesh Accommodation Control Act 1961 does not applies
to this case. Under the above facts and circumstances the
trial Court is justified in holding that the petitioner has made
out the ground for eviction under Section 27(2)(r) of
Karnataka Rent Act. Hence, I have answered the Point No. 2
in Affirmative.
49. POINT NO. 3 :- The petitioner has proved that he is the
landlord and the respondents are the tenants and the
petitioner further proved that the petition premises is
required for his occupation. Further the petitioner proved the
nonpayment of the rent by the respondents. The
respondents have not questioned the quantum of rent in the
cross-examination of P.W.1 and 2 and the trial Court by
properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence
- 24 -
HRRP No.100001/2025
rightly allowed the petition filed by the petitioner under
Section 27(2)(r) of Karnataka Rent Act and directed
respondents to pay Rs.5,040/- towards arrears of rent and
to vacate the petition schedule premises. I do not find any
error or illegality in the impugned Judgment passed by the
trial Court and the same does not call for interference by this
Court. Hence, I have answered the Point No. 3 in the
Negative."
10. The Revisional Court has elaborately discussed while
dismissing the petition filed by the revision petitioners and also
provisions of Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act.
11. On careful examination of the entire material placed on
record, I do not find any error, illegality of infirmity in the
finding given by the Revisional Court. In the result, I proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER
Revision petition dismissed.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE LNN CT-CMU