MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Landlord-Tenant Relationship Established: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Second Revision Petition

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court, presided over by The Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh, dismissed a second revision petition challenging the order passed in Rent Revision Petition No.15/2018 and I.A. No.V in HRC No.21/2011. The judgment pronounced on 21st July 2023 reaffirms the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties.

The petitioner, Mr. Gangadhar Nayak, had filed the House Rent Revision Petition (HRRP) under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) against the District Court’s revisional order. He contested that the Courts erred in establishing the landlord-tenant relationship without concrete evidence of lease or rent receipts.

However, the Court carefully examined the evidence presented and considered the crucial admission made by the respondent (Mr. Ananth G. Pai) during cross-examination. Mr. Pai had admitted that Mr. Nayak, the petitioner, is the son of the landlord, Mr. Ganapathi Pai, and that the property is registered in the landlord’s name.

Justice Sandesh, while addressing the petitioner’s contention, stated, “No explanation was provided as to why the respondent admitted the relationship between the parties if there was no landlord-tenant association.” The Court upheld the decisions of both the Trial Court and the revisional Court, emphasizing that a revision cannot re-assess evidence when there is no misinterpretation or misapplication of law.

The High Court further directed the Trial Court to expedite the matter, as the HRC petition had been pending for over a decade, ordering the case to be resolved within three months.

The ruling sets a significant precedent and highlights the importance of considering all evidence presented during hearings. It also reinforces the essential principle that decisions rendered by superior Courts should be loyally followed and should not be frequently changed to unsettle established positions.

Date of Decision: 21st July 2023

GANGADHAR NAYAK vs   MR. ANANTH G. PAI 

Latest Legal News