Karnataka HC Upholds Eviction Of Family Claiming 75-Year Adverse Possession, Says Wrong Rent Act Section Did Not Defeat Landlords’ Personal-Use Case

The respondents sought eviction of the petitioners from a Dharwad residential property, pleading that it was required for demolition and reconstruction for their personal use.

Although the petition cited Section 27(2)(e) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, the petitioners disputed the landlord–tenant relationship and claimed title by adverse possession.

The Rent Court allowed the eviction petition on 13 June 2024; the District Court dismissed the petitioners’ revision on 8 October 2025.

In the High Court, the respondents also sought to produce account books as additional evidence.

Section 46(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act provides for revision against specified Rent Court orders; a revision under Section 115 CPC may lie against a District Judge’s order under Section 46(2), as held in Gangadhar Nayak v. Ananth G. Pai, following Shyamaraju Hegde v. U. Venkatesha Bhat.

Section 115 CPC confines revision to jurisdictional error or material illegality or irregularity, and does not permit a fresh reappraisal of evidence.

Order XLI Rule 27(1)(aa) CPC requires a party seeking to adduce additional evidence to establish that, despite due diligence, the evidence was not within its knowledge or could not be produced earlier.

Under Section 27(2)(r) of the Rent Act, eviction may be sought where premises are required for the landlord’s or a dependent family member’s occupation; the statutory explanation provides for a presumption of requirement in the specified circumstances.

The proviso to Section 27(2)(e) requires plans, estimates and proof of means for eviction sought on the grounds covered by that clause, but those requirements do not apply where the pleaded ground is personal occupation.

The Court also applied the principles in Pratapsingh v. Jaibunnisa Begum on bona fide, complex disputes concerning the landlord–tenant relationship, and Ashok Kumar v. Ananda V. Adivellu (Raju) on compliance with the Rent Act when that relationship is disputed.

The account books were allegedly maintained by the respondents’ predecessors, but the application did not explain their efforts to locate the books during the six-year trial or the subsequent District Court proceedings, or provide adequate details about when and how they were found.

The Court therefore found due diligence unestablished and rejected the application.

On the eviction decision, the respondents admitted the property’s original ownership and the petitioners’ succession, but did not specifically plead when or how their predecessors’ possession became hostile; their adverse-possession claim was therefore insufficiently particularised.

The Court found no revisional error in the concurrent assessment of the evidence supporting the landlord–tenant relationship.

It also held that the petition’s substance and the respondents’ objection showed that the case concerned personal occupation, not eviction for repairs or reconstruction because the premises were unsafe or unfit.

The incorrect statutory citation caused no demonstrated prejudice, and the absence of reconstruction plans and estimates was consequently immaterial.

It rejected the application for additional evidence and dismissed the revision petition, leaving the eviction order undisturbed; pending applications were disposed of.