Karnataka High Court
Sri Namruth Raj S Shetty vs Sri M S Subramanya on 27 October, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:42742
CRP No. 546 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.546 OF 2025 (SC)
BETWEEN:
SRI NAMRUTH RAJ S SHETTY
S/O SHRINIVAS D SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT NO.302, J J HILL VIEW,
FOURTH A MAIN, NAGARABHAVI MAIN ROAD,
NEAR KALYAN NAGARA BUS STOP,
VIJAYANAGARA,
BENGALURU-560072
LEASED PREMISES AT NO.14/1,
GROUND FLOOR, PROPERTY NO.14,
17TH CROSS, MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
VIJAYANAGARA,
BENGALURU-560 040
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI JAYSHAM JAYASIMHA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by SRI M S SUBRAMANYA
MALATESH
KC S/O M.S. SWAMINATHAN,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
Location:
HIGH R/AT FLAT NO.MC 1204,
COURT OF MULBERRY TOWERS,
KARNATAKA PARK WEST APARTMENTS,
1/1, HOSAKERE ROAD,
BINNYPET,
BENGALURU-560 023
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S.K.VENKATACHALAPATHI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:42742
CRP No. 546 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF KARNATAKA
SMALL CAUSES COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 2.07.2025 PASSED IN SC NO.96/2023 ON THE
FILE OF IX ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND ACJM, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, BENGALURU, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
EVICTION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri Jaysham Jayasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Venkatachalapathy, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Revision Petitioner is the defendant in S.C No.96/2023 on the file of the IX Addl. Small Causes Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bengaluru , challenging the validity of the judgment dated 02.07.2025.
3. Operative portion of the order reads as under:
"The suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed with costs.
The defendant is hereby directed to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within two months from the date of this order. In the event of failure of the defendant to deliver the vacant possession of the schedule property, the plaintiff is -3- NC: 2025:KHC:42742 CRP No. 546 of 2025 HC-KAR at liberty to get delivery of vacant possession of the schedule property by due process of law.
The plaintiff is granted liberty to file separate case to claim alleged mesne profit under Order XX Rule 12 of CPC in the manner known to law.
Draw decree accordingly."
4. Facts in the nutshell for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:
A suit came to be filed by the respondent/plaintiff contending that revision petitioner/defendant is a tenant in respect of the shop unit privately numbered as 14/1 in the ground floor of the property bearing Municipal No.14, situated at 17th Cross, Magadi Chord Road, Bengaluru, Corporation Ward No.126, Old Ward No.35, within the limits of Maruthi Mandira Ward, BBMP, Bengaluru, measuring East to West 7 feet 9 inches, North to South 11 feet 9 inches, bounded on East by 17th Cross, West by Shop No.14/2, North by 21st Main Road, South by residential premises bearing No.1714 hereinafter referred to as 'suit property'.-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:42742 CRP No. 546 of 2025 HC-KAR
5. Plaintiff claims that he is the owner of the suit property by virtue of the Gift Deed executed by his father Sri M.S.Swaminathan on 14.02.2020. Thereafter plaintiff got mutated the revenue entries in his name.
6. Plaintiff contended that the defendant is a tenant under him on a monthly rent of Rs.12,000/- and defendant has deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the refundable security deposit. It is further contented that defendant took possession of the suit property for commercial purpose that is to run STD booth, Fax, Xerox and booking tickets for the travel related items and is entitled to carry on the said business during the subsistence of the lease period and it shall not affect any major addition or alteration to the premises.
7. Plaintiff further contended that defendant became defaulter in the payment of rent. Therefore plaintiff was constrained to terminate the lease by issuing a notice vide Ex. P-6 in respect of rent agreement dated 01.01.2021 marked at Ex. P-4.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:42742 CRP No. 546 of 2025 HC-KAR
8. On receipt of the notice, defendant issued an untenable reply vide Ex.P-10 which necessitated the plaintiff to file the suit for ejectment.
9. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant appeared before the Court and filed written statement admitting the tenancy, but denied the other averments in the plaint and specifically contended that the suit for ejectment is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and the Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
10. Defendant also contended that the schedule premises was much less than the plinth area of 14 square meters. Therefore, the Karnataka Rent Act will apply and not the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, Sections 2(3)(e) and 2(3)(g) of the Karnataka Rent Act would come into picture and not the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit.
11. Learned Trial Judge recorded the evidence of the parties. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC:42742 CRP No. 546 of 2025 HC-KAR
12. Plaintiff got examined himself as P.W-1 and placed on record 10 documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P-1 to 10 comprising of general power of attorney, endorsement issued by the BBMP, property tax receipt, rent agreement, legal notice dated 11.12.2021, legal notice dated 28.10.2022, postal acknowledgment cards and reply notice.
13. As against the evidence placed on record by the plaintiff, the defendant got examined himself as D.W-1 and placed on record two documents which were exhibited and marked as Ex. D-1 and Ex. D-2 viz., certified copy of the order passed by this Court on 11.07.1997 in HRRP No.1486/1993 and certified copy of the order dated 29.09.1993 passed in HRC No.470/1993.
14. The order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court vide Ex.D-1 i.e., in HRRP No.1486/1993 dated 11.07.1997 reads as under:
"This is tenant's Revision Petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondents are absent.
2. This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 12th of October, 1993, passed by the House Rent and Accommodation Controller, West Range, Bangalore, -7- NC: 2025:KHC:42742 CRP No. 546 of 2025 HC-KAR under Section 14 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) fixing the fair rent in respect of the premises occupied by the petitioner-tenant at the rate of Rs 1,100/- per month. I do not find any infirmity in the order impugned. Therefore this Revision Petition is liable to be rejected. Accordingly it is rejected."
15. The operative portion of the Order of the learned Trial Judge in HRC No.470/1993 dated 20.09.1993 reads as under:
"The petition is rejected. The petitioner is directed to pay rents to respondent No.3 who shall issue receipts as per law. Respondent No.3 is entitled to receive the amounts in deposit as rent in this case. There is no order as to costs."
16. Taking note of the probative value of Exs.P-1 to P10 and Exs.D-1 and D-2, Learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and noted that there is no proper explanation offered by the defendant for the termination of the tenancy and upholding the validity of the termination notice marked at Ex.P- 6, passed the order of ejectment impugned in this revision petition.
17. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant has filed the present revision petition on the following grounds: -8-
NC: 2025:KHC:42742 CRP No. 546 of 2025 HC-KAR "It is an admitted fact that the suit schedule premises measures East to West: 7 feet 9 inches and North to South: 11 feet 9 inches (as obtained from the schedule of the plaint). Thus, the suit schedule premises approximately measures 91 sq.ft which translates to 8.5 sq.mtrs approximately.
Section 2(3)(g) of the of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 contemplates that the Act would not apply to a premises used for non-residential purpose excluding premises having plinth area of not exceeding 14 sq.mtrs used for commercial purpose.
In other words, Section 2(3)(g) mandates that the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 would not apply to premises used for non-residential purposes. However, it also carves out an exception and thereby provides that the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 would apply to premises having a plinth area of less than 14 sq.mtrs which are used for commercial purposes.
The Suit Schedule premises admittedly having a plinth area of 8.5 sq.mtrs and admittedly being used for commercial purpose, the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 are applicable. The provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 being applicable to the case at hand, the Respondent ought to have filed a House Rent Case before the Trial Court.-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:42742 CRP No. 546 of 2025 HC-KAR It is forthcoming from the perusal of Exhibits D1 and D2 that the suit schedule property was once a subject matter of H.R.R.P.No.1486/1993 before this Hon'ble Court and was also a subject matter of H.R.C.No.470/1993 before the Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru. Thus, undisputedly the suit schedule property was once governed by the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.
Perusal of Exhibit D-1 reflects that even as of 1997, the fair rent with respect to the suit schedule property was fixed at Rs.1,100/-. Thus, it is evident that the fair rent even as on 1997 was much less than the threshold of Rs. 3,500/- as contemplated under Section 2(3)(e) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. The Petitioner has thus proved before the Trial Court that the fair rent/standard rent was much less than the threshold at the time of the commencement of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.
It is expedient to state here that, the criterion stipulated by Section 2(3)(e) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is not dynamic but is static/fixed to the period of commencement of the Act. Thus, once a premises comes within the purview of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, if not for the change in measurement/plinth area of the premises, such premises would continue to remain within the purview of the Act, notwithstanding the rent agreed between the parties.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42742 CRP No. 546 of 2025 HC-KAR Admittedly, the measurement/plinth area of the suit schedule property has remained the same throughout and therefore, the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 applies to the suit schedule premises.
Section 27(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 provides that a notwithstanding any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by the court against a tenant, save as provided under sub- section (2). The non-obstantate clause in the said provision excludes the application of any other law including the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Therefore, eviction proceedings completely governed by the principles of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 could not have been maintained by the Respondent.
The Learned Trial Court grossly erred in ignoring the non-obstantate clause in Section 27(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and decreed the suit of the Respondent applying the provision of the Transfer of Property Act.
It cannot be gainsaid that the parameters for eviction under Section 27 of the Karnataka Rent Act and Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act are completely different and cannot be applied in lieu of another. Thus, the Trial Court did not have the jurisdiction to try the suit preferred against the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42742 CRP No. 546 of 2025 HC-KAR Petitioner under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, much less decree it.
It is an established principle of law that a decree passed without jurisdiction is nullity. It is a fundamental principle that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether it is in respect of the subject-matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties.
The Learned trial court ought to have appreciated that it did not possess the jurisdiction to try the suit filed by the Respondent herein and ought to have rejected the plaint in the first instance.
The Petitioner herein raised a specific defence before the Learned Trial Court that it did not possess jurisdiction to try and decree the suit before it. Further, specific questions were put to the PW-1(the Respondent herein) regarding the measurement of the suit schedule premises (which is crucial for the determination of the applicability of the Rent Act). Despite a specific plea having
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42742 CRP No. 546 of 2025 HC-KAR been taken in that regard, the Trial Court failed to consider the defence of the Petitioner.
The very fact that the Trial Court has out rightly ignored the defence of the Petitioner goes to show that non-application of mind is writ large in the impugned judgment and decree.
It was incumbent on the Trial Court to frame a point for consideration on every defence raised by the Petitioner. Perusal of the Impugned judgment and decree reflects that the aspect of jurisdiction is not a point for consideration and has not been discussed at all."
18. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, attacked the impugned order primarily on the ground of statutory jurisdiction to entertain the petition by contending that, having regard to the plinth area of the suit property or the rent that has been paid by the defendant to the plaintiff at an undisputed point of time, suit for ejectment by terminating the tenancy by issuing notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is per se not maintainable.
19. To buttress his arguments, he would place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in the case of
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42742 CRP No. 546 of 2025 HC-KAR Kiran Singh and others vs. Chaman Paswan and others reported in (1954)1 SCC 710, wherein, at paragraph 6 it is held as under.
"6. The answer to these contentions must depend on what the position in law is when a court entertains a suit or an appeal over which it has no jurisdiction, and what the effect of Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act is on that position. It is a fundamental principle well established that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether it is in respect of the subject-matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties. If the question now under consideration fell to be determined only on the application of general principles governing the matter, there can be no doubt that the District Court of Monghyr was coram non judice, and that its judgment and decree would be nullities. The question is what is the effect of Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act on this position."
20. He would further contend that a co-ordinate bench of this Court in HRRP No.7/2016 connected with HRRP No.41/2016 has raised the relevant question which is akin to the facts involved
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42742 CRP No. 546 of 2025 HC-KAR in the present case and has answered that the termination of the tenancy is impermissible if the Karnataka Rent Act is applicable to a given set of facts where the plinth area of the suit property is less than 14 square meters and if the property is used for commercial purpose,the rent is less than Rs.3,500/-. Therefore, the very petition before the learned Trial Judge itself is not maintainable.
21. Per contra, Sri S.K.Venkatachalapathy, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff-landlord supports the impugned order.
22. He would further contend that in the plaint itself, it has been specifically stated about the measurement of the premises as well as the rate of rent being paid by the defendant.
23. He would further contend that an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be filed by the defendant which on contest came to be dismissed and defendant did not pursue the matter further. Therefore defendant cannot be permitted to re-agitate the said issue before this Court.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42742 CRP No. 546 of 2025 HC-KAR
24. He would also contend that learned Trial Judge, taking note of the relevant aspects of the matter, passed the order of ejectment which is perfectly justified and sought for dismissal of the revision petition.
25. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
26. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that there is no dispute as to the tenancy is concerned. Exs. D-1 and D2 itself make it clear that fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller was questioned before this Court and this Court in the HRRP No.1486/1993 marked at Ex. D-1 as referred to supra has fixed the fair rent in a sum of Rs.1,100/-.
27. In the cross examination of D.W-1, plaintiff elicited that defendant is a B.Com graduate and he is tenant under the plaintiff as per Ex.P-4 which is the rent agreement and he is paying monthly rent of Rs.11,500/-. That would confer the jurisdiction for the learned Trial Judge to decide the case under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act and not under the
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42742 CRP No. 546 of 2025 HC-KAR provisions of Karnataka Rent Act as is contented by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.
28. To appreciate the arguments of the revision petitioner, it is necessary to cull out Section 2(3)(e) and 2(3)(g) of the Karnataka Rent Act, which reads as under:
"2. Application of the Act.-
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (3) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply,-
(a) xxx xxx xxx
(b) xxx xxx xxx
(c) xxx xxx xxx
(d) xxx xxx xxx
(e) to any premises, deemed rent on the date of commencement of this Act or the standard rent of which exceeds,-
(i) three thousand five hundred rupees per month in any area referred to in part A of the first schedule; and
(ii) two thousand rupees per month in any other area.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42742 CRP No. 546 of 2025 HC-KAR
(g) to any premises used for non-residential purpose but excluding premises having a plinth area of not exceeding fourteen square meters used for commercial purpose;"
29. Under such circumstances in the teeth of such an admission on oath by the defendant, the contentions urged by the revision petitioner that the ejectment suit is not maintainable in view of Section 2(3)(e) and 2(3)(g) of the Karnataka Rent Act cannot be countenanced in law.
30. Taking note of these aspects of the matter and taking note of the contents of the reply vide by Ex.P-10, this Court is of the considered opinion that the question of jurisdiction that has been pressed into service by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner does not merit for further consideration.
31. Though principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kiran Singh supra are not applicable to the case on hand in view of admission of tenant referred to supra.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42742 CRP No. 546 of 2025 HC-KAR
32. Since the rate of rent is Rs.11,500/- as agreed by tenant on oath, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted.
33. Further, the Order passed by the co-ordinate Bench in HRRP No.7/2016 connected with HRRP No.41/2016, has no application to his case since the relationship is admitted and there is proper termination of tenancy by notice at Ex.P-6 and in view of the contents of the reply, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned Order so as to revise the same by exercising the powers vested in this Court under the revisional jurisdiction.
34. In view of the above, the following:
ORDER
(i) Revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed.
(ii) However, in order to facilitate the tenant to vacate and hand over the suit property, reasonable time is to be granted.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42742 CRP No. 546 of 2025 HC-KAR
(iii) Accordingly, time is granted till end of November 2025 Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 2 Sl No.: 52