A civil suit for possession against an unauthorized subtenant is maintainable absent landlord–tenant privity.

The plaintiffs claimed ownership of the suit property, alleged that defendant No.1 was their lessee and had sublet the premises to defendant No.2, and sought ejectment.

Defendant No.2 contested the suit, asserting that he had no landlord–tenant relationship with the plaintiffs.

The Trial Court decreed the suit and directed defendants No.1 and 2 to deliver vacant possession.

Defendant No.2 appealed.

The Trial Court found no landlord–tenant relationship between the plaintiffs and defendant No.2, but held him to be an unauthorised occupant.

1. Whether defendant No.2 was an unauthorised occupant liable to be evicted from the suit property.

2. Whether the absence of a landlord–tenant relationship between the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 made the suit, valued under Section 41(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, not maintainable.

3. Whether the plaintiffs had validly terminated defendant No.2’s tenancy.

4. Whether the Trial Court’s judgment and decree required appellate interference.

The Court considered Section 3(c) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, in distinguishing a Rent Court from the City Civil Court, and Section 43 of that Act in the context of the appellant’s jurisdictional argument.

It also considered Sections 41(2) and 28 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act: the Court treated Section 41(2) as the provision under which the suit had been valued, but held that the valuation provision invoked did not itself alter the suit’s nature; it stated that a claim for possession ought to have been valued under Section 28.

The Court referred to the authorities cited by the appellant but held them inapplicable on the facts.

The Court accepted that the plaintiffs owned the property, defendant No.1 was their lessee, and defendant No.2 occupied the premises under defendant No.1, rather than as a tenant of the plaintiffs.

It therefore rejected the contention that the suit had to be brought before the Rent Court: the plaintiffs sought possession from an alleged sub-tenant with whom they had no landlord–tenant relationship, and the suit was filed in the City Civil Court.

The Court further held that valuing the suit under Section 41(2) did not convert it into a landlord–tenant ejectment action or defeat maintainability; the incorrect valuation provision could be corrected by assessing the possession claim under Section 28 and paying the requisite court fee.

On the record, defendant No.2 was an unauthorised occupant, and the notice and termination relied on by the plaintiffs were found sufficient.

It dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 17 February 2026.

It directed the plaintiffs to compute the suit under Section 28 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and pay the requisite court fee before the High Court, after which the Registry was to draw the decree accordingly; no costs were ordered.