Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a landlord-tenant dispute. The respondent-landlord (since deceased, represented by legal representatives) filed HRC No.16/2008 before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant under Section 27(2)(a) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. The landlord alleged that the tenant had sub-let the premises without his written consent and had caused nuisance to the neighbours. The Trial Court allowed the eviction petition on 01.10.2013. The tenant filed a revision before the Principal District Judge, Mysuru (RR No.69/2013), which was dismissed on 30.09.2015. Aggrieved, the tenant filed the present House Rent Revision Petition (HRRP No.26/2016) under Section 46(1) read with Section 115 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court heard the matter and reserved orders on 13.06.2023, pronouncing judgment on 23.06.2023. The court examined the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding sub-letting and nuisance. It noted that the tenant had sub-let the premises to a third party without the landlord's consent, and that the tenant's activities had caused nuisance to neighbours. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and were not perverse. It found no jurisdictional error or illegality in the orders of the courts below. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, confirming the eviction order. The court also observed that the tenant had not made out any ground for interference under Section 46(1) of the Act.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Unauthorised Sub-lease - Section 27(2)(a) Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 - Landlord sought eviction on ground that tenant sub-let the premises without written consent - Trial Court and Appellate Court concurrently found that tenant had sub-let the premises to a third party - High Court in revision held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless perverse or without jurisdiction - Held that the tenant's revision was devoid of merit and dismissed (Paras 1-10). B) Rent Control - Eviction - Nuisance - Section 27(2)(r) Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 - Landlord also sought eviction on ground that tenant caused nuisance to neighbours - Courts below found that tenant's activities disturbed peace of neighbours - High Court upheld the finding as based on evidence - Held that the ground of nuisance was also proved (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tenant's revision against the concurrent orders of eviction under Section 27(2)(a) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is maintainable and whether the findings of the courts below are perverse or suffer from any jurisdictional error.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the revision petition, confirming the eviction order passed by the Trial Court and upheld by the Appellate Court.
Law Points
- Eviction on ground of unauthorised sub-lease
- Eviction on ground of nuisance
- Burden of proof on landlord
- Standard of proof in rent control proceedings
- Concurrent findings of fact not to be interfered with in revision
