Revisional courts cannot reappreciate evidence; divesting original tenant of control via partnership constitutes unlawful sub-letting.

The deceased appellant (landlord) held a 55-year lease from Uttaradi Math and subsequently sub-leased a shop to Respondent No. 1 (represented by Respondent No. 4) via a registered deed in 1985 for 53 years

The deed prohibited sub-letting without written consent

The landlord discovered that Respondent No. 4 (the original partner) was no longer in possession, and the business was being conducted by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who were strangers to the original agreement

Eviction was sought under the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, on grounds of unauthorized sub-letting.

The Trial Court allowed eviction, finding that the tenant had unlawfully parted with possession

However, the High Court, in a revision petition under Section 46 of the Act, set aside the order by reappreciating oral and documentary evidence to conclude there was no sub-letting

The legal heirs of the landlord appealed to the Supreme Court.

1. Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 46 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999?

2. Whether the burden of proving unlawful sub-letting lies upon the landlord, and if so, whether such burden was duly discharged?

3. Whether the alleged retirement of the original tenant-partner and continuation of business by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 constitutes a mere reconstitution of partnership or amounts to unlawful sub-letting/assignment?

The court primarily applied Section 46 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, which limits revisional jurisdiction to examining the legality, correctness, or propriety of an order, rather than acting as a full-fledged appeal

It relied on Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, establishing that revisional courts cannot reappreciate evidence unless findings are perverse or suffer from manifest illegality

Regarding sub-letting, the court applied principles from Mahendra Saree Emporium (II) v. G.V. Srinivasa Murthy and Joginder Singh Sodhi v. Amar Kaur, which state that once a landlord proves exclusive possession by a third party, the burden shifts to the tenant to explain the nature of that possession

Furthermore, it applied the "lifting the veil" doctrine from Celina Coelho Pereira v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar to determine if a partnership reconstitution is a mere "cloak" to conceal sub-letting

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by undertaking a fresh analysis of depositions and documents, effectively converting a revision into an appeal

On the merits of sub-letting, the Court found that the landlord discharged the initial burden by proving Respondent No. 4 (the sole original tenant) was absent and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 held exclusive possession

The burden then shifted to the respondents, who failed to produce the original partnership deed or evidence of the landlord's consent for the alleged reconstitution

The Court held that for a partnership not to constitute sub-letting, the original tenant must retain legal possession and control

Here, the original tenant had retired and divested himself of all control, and the "reconstitution" was deemed a device to circumvent rent control laws

The Court held that the High Court improperly reassessed facts and that the respondents were liable for eviction due to unlawful sub-letting under Sections 27(2)(b)(ii) and 27(2)(p) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999

The respondents were granted three months to vacate and hand over possession to the appellants