Case Note & Summary
The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from a house rent revision petition decided by the High Court of Karnataka. The dispute concerned eviction of a tenant from property No. 7, 26th Cross, Cubon Pet, Bengaluru. The appellant claimed to be the landlord, while the respondent denied the existence of a jural relationship and questioned the appellant's title. The appellant's case was that the property originally belonged to his great grandfather Sri Banappa and devolved to legal heirs H.S. Shankaranarayana and H.S. Sankappa; he became owner through a release deed dated 04.11.2015. The respondent's mother, Mysore Lingamma, was admittedly a tenant in the same premises, as found in earlier proceedings HRC No. 1971/1980. After her death, the respondent was substituted as her legal heir. The appellant filed an eviction petition on 07.10.2016 under Sections 27(2)(a), (e), (g) and (o) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. The Rent Controller allowed eviction on 01.09.2017, holding that landlord-tenant relationship was established. The respondent filed a revision petition, and the High Court allowed it on 31.03.2021, setting aside the eviction order on the grounds that the appellant failed to prove his lineage from Sri Banappa and that the signature on rent receipts was denied by the respondent's son. The Supreme Court examined Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, which provides that when a dispute about landlord-tenant relationship is raised, the court may accept a document of lease or a receipt of acknowledgment of rent signed by the landlord as prima facie evidence and proceed to hear the case. Only if no such document is produced, or the genuineness of the document is suspected, must the proceedings stop and the parties be referred to a civil court. Section 3(e) defines landlord as a person who receives or is entitled to receive rent. The Court found that original rent receipts issued by the appellant, particularly the receipt dated 20.07.2015 for rent from 01.02.2013 to 31.05.2014, were brought on record and discharged the initial burden under Section 43. The Rent Controller was therefore justified in proceeding on merits. The High Court misdirected itself by conducting a fact-finding exercise on title and lineage, which was beyond the scope of eviction proceedings and beyond revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the Rent Controller's eviction order. Pending applications were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 - Dispute of landlord-tenant relationship - Prima facie proof via rent receipt - Section 43 - Under Section 43, a receipt of acknowledgment of rent signed by landlord is prima facie evidence of relationship; if no document or genuineness suspected, court must stop and refer parties to civil court. The appellant produced original rent receipts, discharging initial burden, and Rent Controller proceeded correctly; High Court erroneously required proof of title and lineage. Held, Rent Controller's order is restored. (Paras 6-11) B) Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 - Definition of landlord - Person entitled to receive rent - Section 3(e) - A landlord includes any person receiving or entitled to receive rent. The rent receipt dated 20.07.2015 issued by appellant for rent from 01.02.2013 to 31.05.2014 established prima facie that appellant stood as landlord; High Court wrongly disregarded this by focusing on signature denial without proper appreciation. Held, appellant satisfied Section 3(e). (Paras 8-9) C) Rent Control Law - Revisional jurisdiction - Limits of fact-finding by High Court - Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, Sections 3(e), 43 - High Court exceeded revisional jurisdiction by conducting fact-finding on lineage and ownership, and by re-evaluating evidence; this was contrary to settled law. The High Court misdirected itself and its order is set aside, restoring Rent Controller's eviction order. Held, revisional court cannot substitute its own findings on disputed facts. (Paras 9-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the Rent Controller's eviction order by requiring proof of title and lineage despite prima facie rent receipt evidence under Section 43; whether landlord-tenant relationship existed as per Sections 3(e) and 43 of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.
Final Decision
The present appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High Court is set aside, restoring the order passed by the Rent Controller. Pending application(s) if any, shall stand dismissed.
Law Points
- Under Section 43 of Karnataka Rent Act
- 1999
- a receipt of acknowledgment of rent signed by landlord is prima facie evidence of landlord-tenant relationship
- enabling the Rent Controller to proceed. Section 3(e) defines landlord to include any person entitled to receive rent. High Court cannot conduct fact-finding in revisional jurisdiction. Title dispute is not required to be adjudicated in eviction proceedings.
