Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam Co-Sharer Has Superior Right of Pre-emption Even If Land Is Gair Mumkin Bara: Punjab & Haryana High Court Neighbours Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 498A IPC Merely For Alleged Instigation: Karnataka High Court No Party Has a Right to Demand a Local Commissioner — It's Purely the Court’s Discretion: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Civil Revision

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