SRI HEMANTH vs BHAVANIBHAI D/O SHRIDHARDAS SAWAKAR

- 1 -
HRRP No. 100004 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DHARWAD

TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026



BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO. 100004/2025

BETWEEN:

1. SRI HEMANTH, S/O. AUGUSTIN EDEN,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.

2. SMT. MARGARET W/O. HEMANT EDEN,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

BOTH ARE R/A: HOUSE NO. 9944 AND 9945,
CTS NO. 41, HALIYAL ROAD,
NEAR DHO OFFICE, K.C. PARK,
POST OFFICE, DHARWAD,

ADDRESS SHOWN IN THE PEITION
HOUSE NO. 112, SAWAKAR COMPOUND,
WARD NO.2, NEAR OLD S.P. OFFICE,
NEAR DHO OFFICE, DHARWAD.
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SHIVANAGOL VEERABHADRA &
SRI PRAKASH R. BADIGER, ADVOCATES)

AND:

1. BHAVANIBHAI D/O. SHRIDHARDAS SAWAKAR,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS.

2. UDAYABAI D/O. SHRIDHARDAS SAWAKAR,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.

3. KUSUMABAI D/O. SHRIDHARDAS SAWAKAR,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.

4. GAYATRIBAI D/O. SHRIDHARDAS SAWAKAR,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

5. SHEELABAI D/O. SHRIDHARDAS SAWAKAR,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS.

RAMDAS S/O. SHRIDHARDAS SAWAKAR,













BHARATHI
H M
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
Date: 2026.10.28
10:38:34 +0530

- 2 -
HRRP No. 100004 of 2025

SINCE DECEASED AND HIS LR’S ARE
ALREADY IN RECORD I.E. R5 & R6 HEREIN.

6. YOGESH D/O. SHRINIVASDAS SAWAKAR,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

7. GEETABAI D/O. SHRIDHARDAS SAWAKAR,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.

8. MANJULABAI W/O. DEVIDAS SAWAKAR,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

9. SHRIDHARDAS S/O. DEVIDAS SAWAKAR,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

10. TRUPTIBAI W/O. VENKATDAS SAWAKAR,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

11. BHAVESH W/O. VENKATDAS SAWAKAR,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.

ALL ARE R/O: SOMESHWAR TEMPLE ROAD,
GADAG DISTRICT, GADAG – 582 101.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.L. PATIL, SRI S.S. BETURMATH,
SRI A.A VASTRAD & SRI P.S. TADAPATRI, ADVOCATES FOR R1
TO R6 & R8 TO R11;
SRI K.L. PATIL & SMT. P.S. TADAPATRI, ADVOCATES FOR C/R7
IN CP NO.24341/2025)

THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 46(1) OF THE
KARNATAKA RENT ACT 1999, PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE
RECORDS IN RRP NO.1/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, DHARWAD AND IN H.R.C.NO.
8/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
(JR.DN) AND JMFC., DHARWAD, AND ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME
GRANT THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS. TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.10.2025 IN RRP NO. 1/2024
ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, DHARWAD AND ALLOW THE SAME BY SETTING ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 13.06.2024 PASSED IN H.R.C.NO.8/2018 ON
THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND
JMFC., DHARWAD CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE PETITION AND
ETC.,

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON
24.07.2026, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:

- 3 -
HRRP No. 100004 of 2025


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

CAV ORDER

The respondents in HRC No.8/2018 on the file of
the learned III Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and
JMFC, Dharwad have preferred this revision petition
praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated
08.10.2025 passed in RRP No.1/2024 on the file of
learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad
and to allow the same by setting aside Order dated
13.06.2024 passed in HRC No.8/2018.

2. The petitioners namely Bhavanibhai and
others instituted the petition in HRC No.8/2018
against Pushpa and others under Section 27(2)(e) of
the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (in short, ‘the Rent
Act’), praying to direct the respondents to vacate and
handover vacant possession of the petition premises,
i.e, residential house No.112 in CTS No.41/D, Sawakar
Compound, Ward No.2, Near Old SP Office, Near DHO
Office, located within the limits of Dharwad City, to
them. The case of the petitioners is that the schedule

- 4 -
HRRP No. 100004 of 2025

premises is a nearly 90 year old house, they require
the said premises for demolition and reconstruction,
for their personal use and occupation. They allege that
despite issuance of the notice dated 14.12.2017, the
respondents failed to comply with their request.
Hence, they filed the eviction petition.

3. On service of the notice, the respondents
appeared before the trial court through their counsel
and filed their objection. In their objection, the
respondents contended that the petitioners are neither
the owners nor in possession of the schedule premises
at any point of time. According to them the father of
Respondent No.2 namely Eden Augustin @ AP Eden
perfected his title to the schedule premises during
June, 1954 itself. Under the said circumstances, the
Petitioners asserted that there is no relationship of
landlord and tenant between the parties to the petition
and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4. During the enquiry on the petition,
Petitioner No.7 deposed before the trial court as PW-1

- 5 -
HRRP No. 100004 of 2025

and got marked documents at Exs. P1 to P8.
Respondent No.2 adduced the evidence on behalf of
the respondents as RW-1 and got marked documents
at Exs. R1 to R15. Thereafter, the trial court heard the
arguments advanced on both sides, considered the
materials on record, framed necessary points for
consideration and then allowed the petition vide its
Order dated 13.06.2024. Consequently, the trial court
directed the respondents to vacate and handover
vacant possession of the schedule premises to the
petitioners within two months from the date of the
order.

5. Respondent No.1 was the mother of
Respondent Nos.2 and 3. She died during the
pendency of the petition, i.e., on 15.12.2016. As on
that date, her legal representatives, i.e., Respondent
Nos.2 and 3, were already on record. Hence, the
petition was proceeded with against Rerespondent
Nos.2 and 3.

- 6 -
HRRP No. 100004 of 2025


6. The respondents preferred RRP No.1/2024
challenging the order of eviction passed in HRC
No.8/2018. The District Court heard both sides,
considered the materials on record and dismissed the
revision petition vide its judgment dated 08.10.2025.

7. Being aggrieved, the respondents have
directed this revision petition under Section 46(1) of
the Rent Act, questioning the correctness of the order
passed in RRP No.1/2024 by the District Judge in a
petition filed under Section 46(2) of the Rent Act.

8. Section 46(1) of the Rent Act provides a
remedy of revision to the High Court only against an
order passed or proceeding taken by the Court of
Small Causes or the Court of Civil Judge Senior
Division referred to in items (i) and (ii) of Clause (c) of
Section 3, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the
legality or correctness of such order or proceeding.
Thus, in the strict sense this revision petition is not
maintainable. However, in Mr. Gangadhar Nayak Vs
Mr. Ananth G. Pai , reported in 2023 (5) KAR LJ

- 7 -
HRRP No. 100004 of 2025

306, the co-ordinate bench of this Court following the
judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Shyamaraju
Hegde Vs U. Venkatesha Bhat , reported in 1987
Supp SCC 321 has held that a revision under Section
115 of CPC against the order of the District Judge
passed under Section 46(2) of the Rent Act is
maintainable.

9. It is well settled that the revision
jurisdiction is confined to the jurisdictional parameters
under Section 115 of CPC and does not permit a re-
appreciation of evidence as in an appeal. Section 115
of CPC permits the High Court to revise an order of a
court, subordinate to it in hierarchy to it, only when
such court has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in
it, or failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it, or
acted illegally or with material irregularity in exercising
the jurisdiction. Hence, the contentions raised by the
respondents need to be appreciated in the background
of these legal parameters.

- 8 -
HRRP No. 100004 of 2025


10. The trial court held that apart from the
property ruled card produced by the petitioners at
Ex.P7 the documents placed on record by the
respondents such as the Order of HDMC dated
11.6.1999 (Ex.R1), Tax Paid Receipts and tax
assessments (Exs. R2 to R7 and R9 to R13) reflect the
name of Smt. Leelavathi, W/o Shridharadas Sawakar
as the owner of the schedule premises and the name
of Sri A.P.Eden as its occupant. The trial court taking
into consideration overall materials on record such as
non-issuance of reply to the legal notice of the
petitioners, the M.O. Slip (space for communication)
produced at Ex.P8, the suggestion on the side of the
respondents to PW-1 that he has not made any
improvement in the schedule premises except having
received the rents from Hemant Eden (i.e, Respondent
No.2) and failure on the part of the respondents to
prove their claim of adverse possession, held that the
petitioners have successfully proved the existence of
jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the
parties to the petition and allowed the petition.

- 9 -
HRRP No. 100004 of 2025


11. The District Court while exercising its
revision jurisdiction under Section 46(2) of the Rent
Act concurred with the findings recorded by the trial
court and held that the petitioners are entitled for
possession of the schedule premises.

12. Sri Shivanagol Veerabhadra, learned
Counsel for the Respondents vehemently submitted
that the orders passed by the courts below are
arbitrary, opposed to law and calls for interference by
this Court. He submitted that the courts below have
held that the respondents have admitted the jural
relationship between the parties by picking out a stray
sentence and misconstruing the admission that the
seal found in Ex.P8 is that of the post office, located
next to the disputed property. He further submitted
that Ex.P8 is a fabricated/ created document because
the property tax paid by the respondents for the year
2003-04 and 2004-05 is much more than the rent
stated to be paid/claimed by the petitioners. He
stated that the signature of Sri A.P. Eden never
matches with so called signature of Sri A.P. Eden in

- 10 -
HRRP No. 100004 of 2025

Ex.P8 and the differences in these signatures can be
made out through naked eyes. He strenuously
submitted that the courts below have not at all
considered the fact that the respondents became the
owners of the disputed property by way of adverse
possession. He drew the attention of this Court to the
admission of PW-1 that the property in dispute was
not included in previous suits filed for partition and
contended that they have abandoned the property in
question as they are not the owners thereof. He
vigorously submitted that as per Section 27(2)(e) of
the Rent Act the Petitioners have to satisfy the court
that they have prepared plans and estimates of
reconstruction but the petitioners neither pleaded nor
adduced any evidence in that regard. Under these
circumstances, he submitted that impugned orders
resulted in miscarriage of justice and calls for
interference at the hands of this Court.

13. Per contra, Sri K.L.Patil, learned Counsel for
the Petitioners supported the findings recorded and
the conclusion arrived at by the courts below. He drew

- 11 -
HRRP No. 100004 of 2025

the attention of the Court to the failure on the part of
the respondents to reply to the legal notice of the
petitioners and to dispute the contents of the legal
notice. He submitted that the respondents have not
whispered anything about the capacity in which they
occupied the schedule premises. He submitted that
the petitioners have sought for an order of eviction
against the respondents under Section 27(2)(r) of the
Rent Act though in the petition it is wrongly mentioned
as a petition under Section 27(2)(e) of the Rent Act.

14. This Court has also heard both sides on I.A.
No.2/2026, filed by the Petitioners, under Order XLI
Rule 27 of CPC praying for permission to produce
addition evidence in case.

15. Taking note of the rival submissions, the
following points arise for consideration of this Court:

i) Whether the petitioners have made out valid
grounds to allow I.A. No.2/2026?

ii) Whether the courts below have committed acted
illegally or with material irregularity either in
holding that the petitioners have proved the
jural relationship of landlord and tenant between
the parties to the suit or that they are entitled to
an order of eviction as prayed for?

- 12 -
HRRP No. 100004 of 2025


Point No.(i) :


16. On 9.7.2026 the petitioners filed an
application i.e., I.A. No.2/2026, under Order 41 Rule
27 of CPC praying for permission to adduce additional
evidence by producing certain documents, i.e., Cash
Books (Kirdi) and Ledger Books (Khata) pertaining to
the year 1990 to 1993, 2007 and 2008 on the ground
that these are the documents maintained by their
father/grandfather during the usual course of their
transaction and that the entries therein suggest
payment of periodical rents by the respondents, which
are very much essential for effective adjudication of
the dispute.

17. It is evident from the record that the
petitioners are seeking permission to adduce their
addition evidence by invoking Order XLI Rule
27(1)(aa) of CPC. In the affidavit accompanying the
application, Petitioner No.12 has stated that all these
books of accounts were maintained by his parents and
grandfather during their life time and that in spite of

- 13 -
HRRP No. 100004 of 2025

due diligence the petitioners could not trace these old
books at the time of filing the petition. It is further
stated that after the death of his father, it had become
difficult to trace the said books and now with great
difficulty they could trace few of them. Thus, he
contended that they could not production of these
books of accounts earlier in spite of having exercised
due diligence.

18. It is to be noted that the eviction petition
was filed in the year 2018 and it was pending before
the trial court for almost six years. Then, the matter
was pending before the District Court for about one
year. This revision petition came to be filed on
18.11.2025. The petitioners have filed the present
application on 09.07.2026. The averments of the
affidavit accompanying the application give an
impression that the petitioners were aware of
existence of books of accounts in question at the time
of the filing the eviction petition. The petitioners have
not stated anything about their efforts to trace these
records during pendency of the petition before the trial

- 14 -
HRRP No. 100004 of 2025

court. They have vaguely contended that “only few of
them were traced now” and without disclosing other
relevant details such as where and when they found
these records and how quickly they sought to produce
them before the court. In the absence of such details,
this Court opines that the contention of the petitioners
about exercise of due diligence in searching for these
records cannot be accepted. Hence, it is held that the
petitioners have not made out valid grounds to
entertain their application for permission to adduce
additional evidence at this stage. Accordingly, Point
No.(i) is answered in the negative.
Point No.(ii) :

19. Learned Counsel for the Respondents
vigorously submitted that the respondents have
perfected their title to the schedule premises by way
of adverse possession but the courts below have failed
to appreciate this aspect. He submitted that the
grandfather of Respondent No.2 namely Sri
Premadhara Eden was in hostile possession of the

- 15 -
HRRP No. 100004 of 2025

schedule premises from May 1942 till his death during
1952, and thereafter the father of Respondent No.2
namely Sri Eden Augustin @ AP Eden continued to be
in possession and enjoyment of the schedule premises
along with his family members, openly, peacefully and
continuously, to the knowledge of the propositus of
the petitioners including the petitioners, for more than
75 years till initiation of the eviction proceeding. Thus,
he contended that the father of Respondent No.2 had
perfected his title to the schedule premises by way of
adverse possession from June 1954 itself and there
was no jural relationship between the parties to the
petition.

20. To better appreciate the respondents'
contention, it is proper to refer to the relevant portion
of the objection, which reads as under:
“6.…One Sri Laxmandasa Keshavadasa
Sahukara was the owner of the property bearing
CTS No.41 and house No.9944 and 9945
measuring East to West 100 ft. and North to
South 120 ft. with existing building measuring
East to West 55 ft. and North to South 80 ft. The
grandfather of Respondent No.2 namely
Premadhara Eden was in occupation/ possession
of the said property from May 1942 along with

- 16 -
HRRP No. 100004 of 2025

his family members i.e., wife and his ten
children. The said person died during 1952. The
father of the Respondent No.2 namely Eden
Augustin @ A.P.Eden being the eldest son of
Premadhara Eden and his family members were
continued to be in possession and enjoyment of
the property. The father of the Respondent No.2
died on 09.12.2008 and mother of the
Respondent No.2 died on 15.12.2016.
7. That the grandfather of the Respondent No.2
namely Premadhara Eden was in hostile
possession of the said property which was
expressly or impliedly in denial of the title of
true owner from May 1942 till his death during
1952. The father of the Respondent No.2 namely
Eden Augustin @ A.P. Eden was continued to be
in possession along with his family members
including the respondents herein till his death.
Thereafter, the said possession was continued
by the respondents herein till this day. The
possession of the grandfather which was
continued by the father of the Respondent No.2
after the death of his father and thereafter the
respondents herein was/is “nec vi, nec clam, nec
precario” i.e., peaceful, open and continuous.
The continuous undisturbed peaceful possession
of the grandfather and the father of the
Respondent No.2 was never questioned either by
Sri Laxmanadasa Keshavadasa Setji Sahukara or
his legal representatives i.e. all his family
members including the petitioners herein which
was also well within their knowledge. Thus, the
hostile possession of the grandfather thereafter
the father of the Respondent No.2 herein was
peaceful, open and continuous to the knowledge
of the propositus of the petitioners herein as
also his legal representatives including the
petitioners for more than 75 years till initiation
of the above proceedings and thus, during the
life time of the father of the Respondent No.2
namely Eden Augustin @ A.P.Eden perfected his
title by way of adverse possession during June
1954 itself in respect of the above said property
which is also the suit schedule property.

- 17 -
HRRP No. 100004 of 2025

8. That the father of the respondent No.2 Mr.
Eden Augustin @ AP Eden being the owner of
the premises, exercising his ownership over the
property in question has erected compound wall
around the property in question in the year 1984
itself. Further, he was also paying the property
tax to the concerned jurisdictional authorities
regularly till this date.
9. That the respondents being the legal
representatives of Premadhara Eden and Eden
Augustin are the absolute owners of the said
property by way of adverse possession and
were/are in continous and peaceful possession
over the same till this day. There is no
relationship of landlord and tenant between the
petitioners and respondents herein. The
petitioners are neither owners nor in possession
of the premises in question at any point of time.
….”

21. The above extract brings out the
contradiction in the contention of the respondents,
particularly in respect of the petitioners' ownership
over the schedule premises. On one hand, they
categorically admit that the schedule property
originally belonged to Sri Laxmanadasa Keshavadasa
Setji Sahukara and that the petitioners herein are his
legal representatives and family members. On the
other hand, they contend that the petitioners were not
the owners of the schedule premises at any point in
time.

- 18 -
HRRP No. 100004 of 2025


22. It is well settled that when a person sets up
the claim of adverse possession he must plead
specifically the particulars such as when he entered
possession, the nature of his initial possession, when
and how it became hostile to the true owner, etc. In
the present case, the respondents have not pleaded
the nature of their grandfather’s possession over the
schedule premises, when and how it became hostile to
the true owner, etc. Further, the respondents have
even not pleaded or proved any act which symbolizes
the exercise of their right of ownership over the
schedule premises between May 1942 and the date of
the petition. The only claim made by the respondents
in this regard is the alleged construction of compound
wall, that too in the year 1984. The respondents have
not adduced any evidence to probabilise this
contention.

23. The respondents have produced certain
documents relating to the payment of property tax
and tax assessment for the schedule premises at Exs.
R2 to R7. These documents bear the name of

- 19 -
HRRP No. 100004 of 2025

L.S.Sahukar/ Smt. Leelavati Sridhardas Sahukar as
the owner of the property. It is relevant to note that
the petitioners had got issued legal notice to the
respondents prior to institution of the eviction petition,
calling upon them to handover its vacant possession to
them. Indisputably, such notice was duly served on all
the respondents personally. Despite this, the
respondents did not reply to it and even failed to offer
an explanation for their silence.

24. The case papers reveal that during the
evidence the respondents came with one more
contention that as they had perfected their title to the
schedule premises by way of adverse possession, the
petitioners and their family members left out the
schedule premises from their suits for partition
amongst the family members. During his cross-
examination, PW-1 has not only admitted filing of the
suits in OS Nos.166/2002, 128/2006 and 121/2012 for
partition amongst his family members but also that
the schedule premises was not the subject matter of
those suits. However, this aspect cannot be a ground

- 20 -
HRRP No. 100004 of 2025

for the respondents to deny either the title of the
petitioners to the schedule premises or to dispute their
entitlement to maintain the eviction petition. It is well
settled that if at all there is any inter-se dispute
amongst the co-sharers, it is for them to resolve such
dispute and it cannot be a ground for the tenant to
dispute the title of a co-sharer. As pointed out at the
outset, the respondents have unequivocally admitted
the title of Sri Laxmanadasa Keshavadasa Sahukara
and that the petitioners herein are his legal heirs and
successors. Since the respondents admit that the
schedule premises was not the subject matter of the
earlier suits for partition, it must be presumed that the
property still remains joint.

25. The respondents contend that the courts
below erred in relying on Ex.P8, which is not a rent
receipt, and a stray sentence in the cross-examination
of RW-1 to hold that the respondents were the tenants
of the schedule premises under the petitioners.
According to them Ex.P8 is a fabricated/created
document because when they have admittedly paid

- 21 -
HRRP No. 100004 of 2025

the tax for the year 2003-04 and 2004-05, the
question of paying rents did not arise as the tax paid
by them was much more than the rent stated to be
paid/claimed by the petitioners. They further
submitted that the signature of Sri A. P. Eden never
matches with so called his alleged signature on Ex.P8.
Thus, they argued that the findings of the courts
below on these aspects are totally perverse and
unsustainable.

26. Firstly, the scope of revision is confined to
jurisdictional errors and not to mere mistakes of facts
or law. It does not permit the court to reweigh
evidence or substitute another possible view.
Moreover, the courts below have recorded their
findings based on an overall appreciation of the
materials on record, i.e., the pleadings as well as the
oral and documentary evidence. This Court finds no
material irregularity or illegality committed by the
courts below either while appreciating the materials on
record or in arriving at the conclusion that there exists

- 22 -
HRRP No. 100004 of 2025

a jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the
parties to the petition.

27. Learned Counsel for the Respondents,
relying on the decision in Prathapsingh Vs
Jaibunnisa Begum , reported in AIR 1989 KAR 70
submitted that when the respondents raised a dispute
regarding ownership of the petitioners over the
schedule premises, the courts below ought to have
directed the petitioners to approach the competent
civil court for determination of the question of title is a
complicated aspect as the question involved therein
was a mixed question of fact and law. He, relying on
the decision in Ashok Kumar Vs Ananda V. Adivellu
(Raju) and Another , reported in ILR 2007 Kar
4045 , further submitted that the trial court disposed
of the application filed by the respondents under
Section 43 of the Rent Act without holding an enquiry
and without providing a reasonable opportunity of
hearing.

- 23 -
HRRP No. 100004 of 2025


28. In Pratapsingh’s case (referred supra),
this Court has held that if there is a bona fide dispute
between the parties as to the existence of landlord
and tenant relationship between the parties, the court
cannot decide such a complicated question in a
summary proceeding and that such a dispute can only
be determine by a civil court. Similarly, in Ashok
Kumar’s case (referred supra), this court held that if
once the jural relationship is disputed, it is the duty of
the Court to follow the mandatory provisions of the
Rent Act and proceed with the matter in strict
compliance of the relevant provision of the Act.

29. The case papers reveal that during the
pendency of the proceeding before the trial court the
respondents had filed an application, i.e., I.A. No.II
under Section 43 of the Rent Act on 20.10.2018
praying to stop all further proceedings and to direct
the petitioners to approach the competent court of law
for declaration of their rights. The trial court dismissed
the said application vide its Order dated 19.09.2019. If
we appreciate the finding of the trial court in the

- 24 -
HRRP No. 100004 of 2025

background of the pleadings of the parties and the
materials available on record, it is to be held that the
trial court was justified in holding that there existed
the relationship of landlord and tenant between parties
to the petition. It is well settled that if the rent court is
satisfied about existence of the jural relationship on
the basis of any prima facie evidence, it is competent
to continue with the proceedings and such decision of
the rent court cannot be faulted or interfered with in
revision. It is relevant to note that the respondents did
not challenge the said order and thus, the said order
attained finality. In light of this, it is not open for the
Respondents to re-agitate the matter, particularly
when they have failed to question the correctness of
the trial court’s order on I.A. No.2.

30. In addition, as observed in Pratapsingh’s
case , if it is found that the dispute raised regarding
existence of jural relationship is bonafide and such
dispute found to be really a complicated question,
then it would be unfair to resolve such a dispute in a
summary proceeding. Whereas, in the present case

- 25 -
HRRP No. 100004 of 2025

the respondents have unequivocally admitted that
originally the property in question belonged to Sri
Laxmanadasa Keshavadasa Sawakara and that the
petitioners herein are his legal representatives and
successors. Further, the respondents have not
whispered anything about the nature of their
grandfather’s possession and about when and how his
possession turned into hostile possession. In the
absence of specific pleadings on these aspects, this
Court finds no reason to presume that the dispute
raised by the respondents is a bona fide one.

31. Learned Counsel for Respondents relying on
the decisions in Mahadeva Vs Vasantha Kumar ,
reported in ILR 2009 KAR 356 and M/s Alagu
Pharmacy and Others Vs N. Magudeshwari ,
reported in AIR 2018 SC 3821 , submitted that the
courts below ought not to have allowed the petition
when the petitioners have failed to make out a
statutory ground for eviction and to satisfy the
ingredients of the provision invoked by them. He
submitted that the petitioners are not entitled for an

- 26 -
HRRP No. 100004 of 2025

order of eviction under Section 27(2)(e) of the Rent
Act as they have failed to satisfy the ground by
producing the plan and estimate as contemplated in
the proviso to the said provision.

32. In M/s Alagu Pharmacy and Others
case (referred supra), Hon’ble Apex Court has held
that where protection under a Rent Act is available, no
eviction can be ordered unless ground seeking eviction
is made out, even if parties had entered into a
compromise. Further, in Mahadeva’s case (referred
supra), this Court held that unless the requirement of
the provision is fulfilled, the landlord is not entitled to
for an order of eviction. This was a case wherein the
eviction petition was filed under Section 27(2)(f) of
the Rent Act and it was dismissed on the ground that
there was no notice or order of demolition by the
Government or any local authority against the
respondent and thereby the requirement of Section
27(2)(f) of the Rent Act was not complied with.

- 27 -
HRRP No. 100004 of 2025


33. In the present case, the petition is under
Section 27(2)(e) of the Rent Act seeking an order of
eviction against the respondents. The proviso to
Section 27(2)(e) of the Rent Act mandates that no
order for recovery of possession under the said clause
or clause (g), (h) or (i) shall be made unless the court
is satisfied that the plans and estimates of proposed
repairs or reconstruction as the case may be, have
been properly prepared and that the landlord has the
necessary means to carry out the said repairs or
reconstruction. In this case the petitioners have
neither produced any such plan and estimate
pertaining to their proposed reconstruction nor
adduced evidence regarding their means to carry out
the proposed reconstruction. This Court of the
considered view that the said lapse has no bearing on
the case. It is because the case papers reveal that it
is a case of quoting a wrong provision. Section
27(2)(e) of the Rent Act is applicable only when an
order of eviction is sought on the ground that the
premises or any part thereof have became unsafe or

- 28 -
HRRP No. 100004 of 2025

unfit for human habitation and or required by the
landlord for carrying out repairs or reconstruction
which cannot be carried out without the premises
being vacated. Whereas, the averments of the petition
go to show that the petitioners have sought for an
order of eviction on the ground that they need the
schedule premises for their personal use and
occupation, i.e., under Section 27(2)(r) of the Rent
Act.

34. The relevant averments of the petition
reads as under:
“5. The petitioners submit that petition property is
nearly ninety years old house and it is very old
premises and petitioners are in need of the petition
premises for the purpose of demolition and
reconstruction for their personal use and occupation.
(Emphasis supplied)
6. The petitioners submit that for the purpose of
demolition and reconstruction of petition premises,
petitioners requested respondents to vacant and
deliver vacant possession of petition premises. But,
respondents did not vacate the petition premises.”

The petitioners have reiterated these contentions
during their evidence. Thereby, it becomes clear that
the petitioners did not seek an order of eviction

- 29 -
HRRP No. 100004 of 2025

against the respondents under Section 27(2)(e) of the
Rent Act, i.e., on the ground that the possession of
the schedule property is required for carrying out the
repairs or reconstruction as it is unsafe or unfit for
human habitation as provided.

35. The materials on record make it clear that
the respondents were not misled on account of
invoking the wrong provision in the petition. It is
because the averments of their objection go to show
that the respondents understood the case of the
petitioners, which is evident from the following
extract:
“d. The averment made in para 5 of the petition that
the property in question is nearly ninety years old
house was true and correct but, the further averment
that the petitioners are in need of the petition
premises for the purpose of demolition and
reconstruction for their personal use and occupation
or all hereby specifically denied as false and created
stories of the petitioners are required to strict proof
of the same. The respondents submits that the
property in question though is old construction, but
in good condition to live.” (Emphasis supplied)


36. It is well settled that quoting a wrong
provision is not fatal to a case and that it does not bar

- 30 -
HRRP No. 100004 of 2025

a Court from considering an application under the
correct provision of law if no prejudice is caused to the
other side. Section 27(2)(r) of the Rent Act provides a
remedy to the landlord to seek eviction from a let out
premises when it is required for occupation of the
landlord for himself or for any member of his family
when the landlord or such person has no other
reasonably suitable accommodation. The Explanation 1
of this provision clarifies that where the landlord in his
application, supported by an affidavit, submits that the
premises are required by him for occupation for
himself or for any member of his family dependant on
him, the court shall presume that the premises are so
required. In this case, Petitioner No.7 has entered into
witness box and reiterating on oath that they require
the schedule premises for their personal use.
Thereby, the petitioners have proved their case by
satisfying the Court regarding compliance with Section
27(2)(r) of the Rent Act. For the foregoing reasons,
this Court holds that the courts below have not
committed any material irregularity or illegality in

- 31 -
HRRP No. 100004 of 2025

accepting the version of the petitioners and directing
the respondents to vacate and handover vacant
possession of the schedule premises to the petitioners.
Hence, Point No.(ii) is answered in the negative.

37. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass
the following:
ORDER

(i) I.A.No.2/2026 filed under Order XLI
Rule 27 of CPC is rejected .

(ii) The revision petition is dismissed .

(iii) Pending applications if any, stand
disposed of, as they do not survive for
consideration.


SD/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGE


HMB/RH/ASN
CT-ASC