Karnataka HC Defers Brother-Landlord’s Eviction Enforcement While Tenant Heirs’ Partition Appeal Is Pending

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Executing Court erred in rejecting the petitioners’ memo seeking dismissal of E.P. No. 34/2023.

The court held

The writ petition was disposed of. The Court did not quash the impugned order or dismiss E.P. No. 34/2023; instead, it directed the Executing Court not to precipitate proceedings in E.P. No. 34/2023 until the I Additional District Judge, Kalaburagi, passes an order in R.A. No. 149/2025.

It also directed

The Court left the parties’ rights and contentions concerning the property for determination in that appeal.

01Facts

Respondent No. 1 obtained an eviction order against the petitioners in H.R.C. No. 6/2014.

pp. 3–5

The petitioners’ rent revision succeeded before the District Court, but this Court set that order aside in H.R.R.P. No. 200001/2024 and restored the Trial Court’s order, subject to the result of any appeal in O.S. No. 57/2017; the Supreme Court later dismissed the petitioners’ SLP.

pp. 3–5

The petitioners’ suit for partition and other reliefs concerning the property had been dismissed, and their appeal, R.A. No. 149/2025, was pending before the I Additional District Judge, Kalaburagi.

p. 5

Meanwhile, respondent No. 1 commenced execution proceedings for eviction. The Executing Court rejected the petitioners’ memo seeking dismissal of the execution petition, prompting this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

p. 6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Executing Court erred in rejecting the petitioners’ memo seeking dismissal of E.P. No. 34/2023.

p. 6

ii.2. Whether further proceedings in the execution petition should be deferred pending consideration of R.A. No. 149/2025.

pp. 6–7

03Law Applied

The petition was brought under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, invoking the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction over the Executing Court.

p. 2

The judgment also recounts the rent proceedings under Section 46(2) of the Karnataka Rent Act and the prior direction that the eviction order would be subject to the result of any appeal in O.S. No. 57/2017.

pp. 4–5

The Court stated no separate statutory test or precedent governing either the rejection of the memo or deferral of execution; it concluded that the Executing Court’s reasoning disclosed no error and that deferral was appropriate in the circumstances.

pp. 6–7

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999 Section 46

04Reasoning

The Court found no error in the Executing Court’s rejection of the memo, given the operative eviction order and the history of the rent proceedings.

p. 6

However, the petitioners’ appeal against dismissal of their partition suit remained pending and was, according to counsel, listed for final arguments. To avoid inconvenience while that appeal was considered, the Court directed that execution proceedings not be precipitated in the meantime, without expressing any view on the merits of the parties’ property claims.

pp. 6–7