Tender Age Doctrine Dictates Custody Must Ordinarily Rest With Mother For Child's Holistic Development: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | Newspaper Publication Confers Deemed Notice; Candidates Cannot Cite Rural Residence To Seek Belated Recruitment Applications: Calcutta High Court Proving Ownership Does Not Establish Jural Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant: Madras High Court Rules 1998 Overrules 1983 Guidelines; Selection Process For Principals Cannot Be Challenged By Unsuccessful Candidates Who Participated Without Demur: Allahabad High Court Panjab University Is An Inter-State Body Under S.72 Punjab Reorganisation Act, UGC Regulations Enhancing Superannuation Age To 65 Inapplicable Without Central Govt Sanction Under S.31 PU Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Police Enquiry Reports Do Not Bind Magistrate In S. 200 Private Complaint, Inquest Statements Under S. 174 Cannot Warrant Quashing Murder Summons: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 197 CrPC | Special Court Cannot Mechanically Treat Protest Petition As Complaint Without Reasoned Judicial Order: Allahabad High Court 'Errant Developer Cannot Seek De-Registration Of Society By Taking Benefit Of Own Wrong': Bombay High Court Quashes Order Disbanding 18-Year-Old Housing Body Section 12(5) A&C Act Cannot Be Applied Retrospectively To Invalidate Arbitrator Appointment Made Before 2015 Amendment: Delhi High Court Section 9 Arbitration Act | Non-Signatory Group Entities Can Be Restrained If They Are Used To Indirectly Defeat Negative Covenants: Bombay High Court CGST Act | Penalty Applies Prospectively From Jan 1, 2021; 'Any Person' Includes Non-Taxable Entities: Delhi High Court Nominated Members Barred From Voting Cannot Be Included In 'Total Number' To Compute 2/3rd Majority In No-Confidence Motion: Rajasthan High Court Full Bench Specific Performance | Agreement Executed By Some Co-Sharers Without Consent Of Others Is Not Enforceable: Madras High Court Trusteeship Of Public Charitable Trust Not Personal Property Capable Of Testamentary Devolution; Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Breach Of Service Rules By Arbitrator Does Not Automatically Trigger De Jure Ineligibility Under Section 12(5) A&C Act: Delhi High Court Declaration And Recovery Of Possession | Plaintiff Must Establish Title Irrespective Of Weakness In Defendant's Case: Madras High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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