H.S. Puttashankara vs Yashodamma

NON-REPORTABLE 2025 INSC 1087 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 15565 OF 2021]

H.S. PUTTASHANKARA …..APPELLANT

VERSUS

YASHODAMMA …..RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant has preferred the instant appeal challenging

the impugned final judgment dated 31.03.2021 passed by High

Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in House Rent Revision Petition

No. 68 of 2017, whereby the High Court allowed the revision and

set-aside the order dated 01.09.2017 passed by the Court of

Small Causes at Bangalore (for brevity ‘Rent Controller’)

directing Signature Not Verified respondent to ‘quit, vacate and deliver vacant Digitally signed by Gulshan Kumar Arora

possession’ of the premise in question within a period of three Date: 2025.09.09 17:30:27 IST Reason:

months from the date of order.

1 3. The eviction proceeding was initiated under Section 27 1(2)(a)

(e)(g) and (o) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (in short ‘Rent

Act’) and was resisted by disputing the jural relationship of

landlord and tenant between the appellant and the respondent

and also questioning the title of appellant on the property. The

Rent Controller, after considering the available material

concluded that the landlord-tenant relationship had been

established between the appellant and respondent and allowed

the eviction petition directing to vacate the suit property. The

question of title was not looked into in detail considering the

scope in eviction proceedings which is limited to look into

landlord and tenant relationship. On revision petition filed, High

Court allowed the same vide impugned order and set-aside the

order of Rent Controller, noting that no positive documentary

evidence has been brought to prove Sri Banappa was indeed his

great grandfather, however, failed to prove his lineage and

ownership. Further, the signature on the counter-foils of rent

receipts issued by the appellant was categorically denied by the

son of the respondent stating that those signatures were never

1 Protection of tenants against eviction.

2 put by him. Being aggrieved, the appellant-landlord filed the

present appeal.

4. As the present dispute revolves around the existence of the

landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, however, our

focus is on the facts relevant on the issue. The disputed property

in question is property No. 7, 26 th Cross, Cubon Pet, Bengaluru,

560002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’). Briefly

outlined, the case of the appellant is that the respondent is

tenant in the suit property, which originally belonged to his great

grandfather namely Sri Banappa and devolved to his legal heirs

namely H.S. Shankaranayarana and H.S. Sankappa. The said

katha continued in the name of Sri Banappa and steps were

being taken before the concerned authority for changing it in the

name of appellant. The appellant became the owner of the suit

property on the basis of the release deed dated 04.11.2015,

which was executed in his favour by the H.S. Shankarnarayana

and H.S. Sankappa. Admittedly, the mother of the respondent

namely Mysore Lingamma was a tenant in the suit premises,

which is reflected from the finding given by Rent Controller in

HRC No. 1971/1980, i.e., eviction petition filed by appellant’s

father H.S. Shankarnarayana against respondent’s mother

3 Mysore Lingamma qua the same suit premises, wherein it was

admitted by Mysore Lingamma that appellant’s father had been

collecting rent from her. Therefore, the jural relationship of

landlord-tenant existed between H.S. Shankarnayana and Mysore

Lingamma. After her death, respondent being her daughter was

substituted as her legal heir. Therefore, there is no dispute so far

as jural relationship of landlord-tenant is concerned.

5. The respondent’s case in brief is that there exists no jural

relationship between the parties. The suit property belongs to

Ankalappa Mutt and Sri Banappa was one of the Trustees of the

Mutt. The appellant has no title to the suit property. Objections

with respect to execution of release deed dated 04.11.2015 qua

the suit property in favour of the appellant has already been

submitted by the respondent to the revenue official, who have

verified the documents, however, the factum of transfer is under

cloud. The respondent is tenant under the Ankalappa Mutt. The

appellant has not been able to prove his lineage through Sri

Banappa and therefore, not being the owner of the suit property,

eviction could not have been directed in favour of appellant.

4

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and

perused the material on the record. The parties are at discord

with respect to existence of jural relationship of landlord-tenant

between them. In this regard, Section 43 of Karnataka Rent Act,

1999 (for brevity “1999 Act”), assumes significance, which is

reproduced below as thus: -

“43. Dispute of relationship of landlord and tenant. – (1) where in any proceeding before the Court, a contention is raised denying the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant as between the parties it shall be lawful for the Court to accept the document of lease or where there is no document of lease, a receipt of acknowledgement of payment of rent purported to be signed by the landlord as prima-facie evidence of relationship and proceed to hear the case. (2) Where, –

(a) the lease pleaded is oral and either party denies relationship, and no receipt or acknowledgement of payment of rent as referred to in sub-section (1) above is produced, or

(b) in the opinion of the Court there is reason to suspects the genuine existence of the document of lease or the receipt or acknowledgement of payment of rent.

the Court shall at once stop all further proceedings before it and direct the parties to approach a competent Court of civil jurisdiction for declaration of their rights.”

7. On reading of the aforesaid, it is clear that whenever there is

a dispute with respect to existence of landlord-tenant

relationship, it shall be lawful for the Court to accept the

document of the lease and in absence thereof, a receipt of

5 acknowledgment of payment of rent purported to be signed by the

landlord as prima-facie evidence of relationship and proceed to

hear the case. Landlord is defined under Section 3(e) of the 1999

Act, as per which: -

“(e) “landlord” means a person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive, the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or on account of or on behalf of or for the benefit of any other person or as a trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person or who would so receive the rent or to be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant;”

8. On a conjoint reading of the Section 3(e) and Section 43, it

becomes evident that whenever a dispute arises as to the jural

relationship between the parties, the Court has to examine lease

agreement or in its absence, receipts acknowledging payment of

rent signed by the landlord as prima-facie proof of such

relationship and proceed with the hearing of the case. In case the

existence or genuineness of these documents are put to question,

or where the lease is oral and the parties deny the relationship,

or there are reasons for Court to suspect the genuineness of the

documents of either lease or receipt or acknowledgment of

payment of rent, the proceedings shall to be halted and the

parties be referred to a competent civil Court.

6

9. In the present case, as is borne from the original rent

receipts brought on the record, the appellant issued the rent said

receipt dated 20.07.2015 to the respondent for the rent collected

qua the suit property in question for the period from 01.02.2013

to 31.05.2014, prima-facie indicates that he stood as the landlord

for the purpose of Section 3(e) with respect to property in

question. When the initial burden as per mandate of Section 43

of the 1999 Act was discharged by the appellant-landlord by

producing the rent receipts acknowledging the payment of rent by

the respondent-tenant qua the suit property, the Court rightly

proceeded with hearing of the case and adjudicated the matter on

merits. The High Court in its own wisdom, misdirected itself in

exercise of revisional jurisdiction in setting aside the order of the

Rent Controller on the premise that jural relationship of landlord-

tenant does not exist between the parties because the appellant-

landlord wasn’t able to prove his lineage and relationship with Sri

Banappa, who was purportedly the original owner of the suit

property. Also, the High Court was heavily swayed by the fact

that since the son of the respondent denied his signature on the

rent receipts, meaning thereby that the signatures were never put

by him and hence, there was no relationship that ever existed.

7 The High Court in reaching a conclusion contrary to the Rent

Controller, conducted a fact-finding exercise, which as per settled

law ought to have been avoided in revisional jurisdiction.

10. Be that as it may, upon review of facts in the present case,

we find that the appellant-landlord filed a suit for eviction on

07.10.2016 against the respondent-tenant under Section 27 (2)(a)

(e)(g) and (o) of the 1999 Act. The jural relationship of landlord-

tenant was disputed by the respondent before the Rent

Controller. The domain is governed by Section 43 of the 1999 Act,

whereby, in case of such dispute, the Court has to examine the

lease document, or in absence thereof, a receipt of

acknowledgment of payment of rent purported to be signed by

landlord as prima-facie evidence of the relationship between the

parties. If such document is placed on record, the Court is to

proceed with the hearing of the case. As discussed above, the

original rent receipts issued by appellant-landlord were brought

on record, discharging the initial burden as contemplated in

Section 43 discussed above. Only in case where the lease is oral

in nature and party denies the jural relationship and no receipt

or acknowledgement of payment of rent is produced, or the Court

suspects the genuineness of the documents, the Court is bound

8 to stop further proceedings and refer the parties before the

competent Court for adjudication of their title, which implies that

Rent Controller was not empowered to adjudicate the dispute

related to title between the parties.

11. Having said so, once the initial burden was discharged by

the appellant producing the rent receipts issued by him, the Rent

Controller was justified in proceeding with the hearing of the

case. The High Court, in revisional jurisdiction, ought to have

appreciated the same in light of Section 43 of the 1999 Act before

setting aside the order of Rent Controller, which, in our view, has

not been duly considered. Therefore, the present appeal is

allowed and the order passed by the High Court is set aside,

restoring the order passed by the Rent Controller. Pending

application(s) if any, shall stand dismissed.

….………………….…………J. (J.K. MAHESHWARI)

….………………….…………J. (VIJAY BISHNOI)

NEW DELHI;

SEPTEMBER 09th 2025.

9