Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2025 INSC 1087
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 15565 OF 2021]
H.S. PUTTASHANKARA …..APPELLANT
VERSUS
YASHODAMMA …..RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
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 respondent to ‘quit, vacate and deliver vacant
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Gulshan Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.09.09
17:30:27 IST
Reason:
possession’ of the premise in question within a period of three
months from the date of order.
1
1
3. The eviction proceeding was initiated under Section 27 (2)(a)
(e)(g) and (o) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (in short ‘Rent
) and was resisted by disputing the jural relationship of
Act’
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
th
in question is property No. 7, 26 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;
th
SEPTEMBER 09 2025.
9
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2025 INSC 1087
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 15565 OF 2021]
H.S. PUTTASHANKARA …..APPELLANT
VERSUS
YASHODAMMA …..RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
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 respondent to ‘quit, vacate and deliver vacant
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Gulshan Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.09.09
17:30:27 IST
Reason:
possession’ of the premise in question within a period of three
months from the date of order.
1
1
3. The eviction proceeding was initiated under Section 27 (2)(a)
(e)(g) and (o) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (in short ‘Rent
) and was resisted by disputing the jural relationship of
Act’
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
th
in question is property No. 7, 26 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;
th
SEPTEMBER 09 2025.
9