Karnataka High Court
Sri Krishna vs Smt. N. Bharathi on 9 December, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:52245
CRP No. 69 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 69 OF 2024 (SC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. KRISHNA
S/O SRI DHARMALINGA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
2. SMT DESHAMMA
S/O SRI M KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.107, 2ND FLOOR,
JANASHAKTHI NAGAR
BSK IIIRD STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 084
...PETITIONERS
Digitally signed (BY SRI. T.N. VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE)
by
SHARADAVANI AND:
B
Location: High
Court of 1. SMT. N. BHARATHI
Karnataka
S/O SRI SHEKHAR
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.131,
3RD MAIN, NAGARABHAVI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 072
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KESHAVA MURTHY B., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.18 OF THE KARNATAKA
SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT, 1964., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:52245
CRP No. 69 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND DECREE DATED 21.12.2023 PASSED IN SC
NO.531/2021ON THE FILE XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE AND ACMM, BENGALURU., PARTLY DECREEING THE
SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Sri. T.N. Viswanatha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Keshava Murthy B., learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Defendant in S.C. No.531/2021 is the revision petitioner challenging the validity of the judgment of ejectment passed in the said suit and also to pay the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per month from the date of termination of tenancy till the date of handing over the position.
3. Brief facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:52245 CRP No. 69 of 2024 HC-KAR 3.1 A suit came to be filed by the plaintiff contending that defendant is the tenant in respect of the property bearing No.107, BPMP PID No.55-775-107 measuring East to West 6.10 mtrs. and North to South 4.57 mtrs. totaling 27.99 square mtrs formed by the Bangalore Development Authority situated in Ambedkar Nagara, Slum Area. Banashankari III Stage, Bangalore.
3.2 Plaintiff contended that he purchased the suit property through registered sale deed dated 05.09.2011.
Suit property includes first and second floor of RCC roofed building.
3.3 Further it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants No.1 and 2 being the husband and wife jointly entered into rental agreement on 03.05.2007/12.07.2018.
3.4 As per the rent agreement, defendants are in occupation of second floor of the aforesaid property, measuring three squares consisting of a hall, room, kitchen and bathroom and agreed to pay rent of -4- NC: 2025:KHC:52245 CRP No. 69 of 2024 HC-KAR Rs.3,500/- per month and a sum of Rs.50,000/- paid towards the interest free refundable security deposit. Tenants also agreed to enhance the rent at the rate of 5% every year.
3.5 Defendants failed to pay the rent regularly from October 2019 and there is arrears of rent in a sum of Rs.70,000/-. Plaintiff further contended that he requested the defendants to vacate and hand over the premises which was not complied by them. Therefore a legal notice came to be issued.
3.6 According to the plaintiff, though legal notice is duly served, there is no reply nor compliance which necessitated the plaintiff to file the suit for ejection.
3.7 Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant entered appearance and filed written statement denying the plaint averments.
3.8 It is also contented that in respect of the suit property there is a litigation between the plaintiff and the -5- NC: 2025:KHC:52245 CRP No. 69 of 2024 HC-KAR son of the defendants wherein the son of the defendants has sought for cancellation of the sale deed executed by him in favour of plaintiff. Therefore the ejectment decree cannot be granted.
3.9 Learned Trial Judge after due trial recorded a finding that there existed a jural relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff and defendants in view of the rent agreement, decreed the suit.
3.10 Operative portion of the Trial Court Decree reads as under:
The suit of Plaintiff is partly decreed.
The defendants are directed to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit property in favour of plaintiff within 45 days from the date of this order.
It is further ordered that the defendants shall pay sum of Rs.3,500/- monthly rent to the plaintiff till from the date of termination of tenancy till actual possession. Draw decree accordingly.
By considering the facts of the case, no order as costs.-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:52245 CRP No. 69 of 2024 HC-KAR
4. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants have filed the present revision petition on the following grounds:
The impugned Judgment and Decree of the Court below suffers from infirmity, illegality and the same requires modification from the hands of this Hon'ble Court in all probabilities and circumstances of the case.
The Trial Court erred in holding that the Petitioners are tenant under Respondent as per Rental Agreement dated 12.07.2018 without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed by the Petitioners. The finding recorded by the Trial Court is contrary to the evidence on record. The very pleadings and the evidence placed by the Petitioners with regard to the signatures taken on blank stamp paper has not been appreciated by the Trial Court while holding that there is relationship between landlord and tenant.
The Trial Court failed to take note of the pendency of civil suit filed by Shakthivelu in O.S.1211/2021, while considering the issue relating to the landlord and tenant. The court below failed to notice that the Respondent has not placed any document to establish that the Petitioners have failed rent to the Respondent in respect of the Schedule property. The said aspect -7- NC: 2025:KHC:52245 CRP No. 69 of 2024 HC-KAR has not been appreciated by the Trial Court while passing the impugned Judgment and Decree.
The Court below erred in relying on stray admission/cross examination while determining the issue relating to the landlord and tenant. The procedure followed by the Trial Court in not appreciating the evidence on record amounts to miscarriage of justice.
The Trial Court having noticed that the Respondent has not placed any material to establish with regard to the alleged arrears of rent, the Court below ought to have drawn adverse inference and ought to have answered Issue No.1 in favour of the Petitioners.
The Court below having answered Issue No.2 in the negative, it ought to have dismissed the suit for ejectment by holding that the Petitioners are in possession since from the date of allotment and continued in possession have not produced any document to show that he is the owner of the suit schedule property. The said finding of the Court below is perverse, capricious and contrary to the oral and documentary evidences placed by the Petitioner.
The Court below further failed to notice that the Rent collector can maintain the petition for Ejectment in the -8- NC: 2025:KHC:52245 CRP No. 69 of 2024 HC-KAR absence of dispute. In the instant case, the Respondents used to credit every month rent to the Canara Bank Account of the Petitioner who has inherited to the property in question by way of succession. The said aspect has not been appreciated by the Court below while passing the impugned Judgment. Petitioner has placed the entire account extract from January, The 2014 till January, 2019. The said document clearly establishes that the Respondents were remitting the rental amount to the Petitioner's account as and when it became due. The said Exhibit clearly establishes the relationship of landlord and tenant. Such being the case, the finding recorded by the Court below that the Petitioner failed to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant is contrary to the said Exhibit P-4.
The Court below further erred in holding that the Petitioner is not entitled for the relief of ejectment when the Petitioner has placed cogent material to establish that the Respondents have defaulted in paying the rent with respect to the suit property.
The Court below failed to notice that the Deed of Partition Dated 20.01.1971 which clearly establishes that the suit property was acquired by the father of the Petitioner and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. The very case of the Petitioner is that he has inherited to the property in question and he has in-turn let out the suit property to -9- NC: 2025:KHC:52245 CRP No. 69 of 2024 HC-KAR the Respondents on rental basis. The said aspect is not disputed by the Respondents. The inheritance of the suit property by the petitioner from his father is not in dispute. Such being the case, the finding recorded by the Court below that the petitioner has not produced any documents to show that the Petitioner is the owner of the Property in dispute is perverse, capricious and contrary to the pleadings and evidence.
The Court below ought to have allowed the suit for ejectment by appreciating the oral and documentary evidence in the absence of any claim and rebuttal evidence.
The impugned Judgment and Decree of the Court below is opposed to law and principles of natural justice.
The Petitioner has not filed any other Revision Petition either before this Hon'ble Court or before any other Court on the same cause of action.
The Court fee of Rs. 20/- is paid on this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition under Article 11 (9) (ii) of Schedule-II of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:52245 CRP No. 69 of 2024 HC-KAR
5. Sri. T.N. Vishwanatha, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that when the ownership itself is in question in view of the son of the defendants having filed a suit before the Civil Court seeking cancellation of the sale deed executed, question of ejectment of the defendants from the suit property would not arise and thus sought for admitting the revision petition for further consideration.
6. Per contra, Sri. B. Keshava Murthy. learned counsel for the respondent, supports the impugned judgment.
7. In view of the rival contentions, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
8. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that as on the date of filing of the suit, it is the plaintiff who is the owner of the suit property having purchased the same by virtue of registered sale deed.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:52245 CRP No. 69 of 2024 HC-KAR Admittedly, there is rental agreement between plaintiff and defendants which establishes the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between them.
9. Admittedly, a legal notice was issued calling upon the defendants to pay the arrears of rent in a sum of Rs.70,000/- from October 2019, by the plaintiff. There is no reply to the said legal notice nor compliance.
10. Merely on the ground that the son of the defendants having filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed would not come in the way of the Trial Court exercising its' jurisdiction in passing an Order of ejection against the defendants.
11. It is made clear that if the son of the defendants succeeds in the said suit and the sale deed of the plaintiff gets cancelled, the defendants can re-enter into the property by filing necessary application Under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:52245 CRP No. 69 of 2024 HC-KAR
12. With that liberty for the defendants, this Court does not find any good grounds to admit the revision petition for further consideration.
13. Accordingly, following Order:
ORDER
(i) Revision petition dismissed.
(ii) However, to facilitate the defendants to search an alternate accommodation and vacate the premises, time is extended till 09.01.2026 subject to payment of arrears of rent and filing an undertaking that they would not drive the respondent/landlady to an execution petition.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC ct:SG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3