Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

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