Perpetual Tenancy Is a Legal Myth — Moolageni Lease Does Not Override Section 5 of Rent Act: Karnataka High Court

“Inheritance of Tenancy Ends After Five Years — Law Does Not Permit Tenancy from Grave,” Karnataka High Court, in a significant ruling that clarifies the scope of tenant rights under the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, held that the concept of perpetual tenancy is alien to the rent law framework. The court emphatically declared, “Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Act imposes a clear and unambiguous limitation — the right of tenancy devolves upon the legal heirs of the original tenant for only five years from the date of death. Thereafter, the tenancy extinguishes as a matter of law.”

High court examined whether a Moolageni tenant’s successors could indefinitely claim tenancy rights beyond the period allowed by law.

“Bonafide Requirement Dies With the Person — No Eviction Possible on Dead Person’s Needs,” Observes the Court

While setting aside the eviction granted under Section 27(2)(r) and Section 31(1)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Act on the ground of bonafide personal requirement, Justice H.P. Sandesh delivered a sharp observation:
“The personal requirement is personal to the petitioner. Once the original petitioner dies, the claim that the property is needed for her own occupation becomes legally extinct unless properly amended to show the necessity of her heirs. No such amendment was brought. The cause cannot survive death without proper pleadings.”

The court condemned the Rent Revision Court’s failure to appreciate this basic principle and restored the finding of the Trial Court, which had rejected eviction on the personal use ground.

“Rent Court Is Not an Appraisal Tribunal — Cannot Decide Value of Improvements,” Declares the Court

Coming down heavily on the Trial Court’s direction to determine the value of improvements as a precondition for eviction, the High Court observed in no uncertain terms,
“Such directions are wholly outside the jurisdiction of the Rent Court. The Rent Act does not empower the Rent Court to decide issues relating to valuation of improvements. That is a matter for separate civil proceedings. Introducing that into a rent control case defeats the very purpose of summary eviction mechanisms.”

The court cautioned that allowing the Rent Court to entertain disputes on valuation would result in “an endless spiral of factual controversies wholly alien to rent control jurisprudence.”

“Moolageni Lease Does Not Confer Eternal Tenancy — Statutory Protection Ends After Five Years”

The court decisively rejected the tenant’s contention that Moolageni leases are perpetual and cannot be governed by the Karnataka Rent Act.
Justice Sandesh observed,
“The Rent Act, 1999, explicitly defines 'tenant' under Section 3(n) to include any person by whom rent is payable under a contract. A Moolageni lease is not immune. The notion of a ‘perpetual tenant’ is not recognised under the Rent Act framework. Section 5 imposes a legislative limitation overriding any assumption of perpetual tenancy.”

Citing a string of precedents including Patric John v. Somashekhar (2009 SCC Online Kar 79), the court held that “inheritance of tenancy is limited to five years, not more, regardless of whether the lease document uses the term ‘permanent’ or ‘99 years.’”

The court made it abundantly clear that “after five years from the tenant's death, the heirs become trespassers in the eyes of rent law.”

“Non-Payment of Rent for Five Years Is Fatal — The Lease Dies a Legal Death”

Addressing the specific issue of rent default, the court underlined that the lease deed (Ex.P8) itself contained a forfeiture clause.
Justice Sandesh remarked,
“The document speaks for itself. If the rent remains unpaid for a continuous period of five years, the lease stands forfeited. This is not a mere technicality — it is a substantive contractual condition acknowledged and accepted by the tenant’s predecessors themselves.”

The court dismissed the tenant's contention that payment offered after the issuance of legal notice should cure the forfeiture. It held,
“The law does not compel the landlord to accept rent after forfeiture has legally occurred. Once the lease is forfeited by operation of contract and law, no unilateral action by the tenant can revive it.”

“Statutory Succession is a Temporary Privilege, Not a Perpetual Right” — High Court’s Categorical Declaration

In a sweeping clarification of the law, the court declared,
“Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Act creates a temporary right for legal heirs to continue as tenants for five years from the death of the original tenant. This is a legislative policy decision and supersedes any notion of perpetual or contractual tenancy that might have existed under private agreements.”

Citing the authoritative judgment in Jaya Andrews v. Yusuf (MANU/KA/0673/2004), the court reiterated,
“The maximum period of tenancy that can be inherited is five years. There is no such concept as a minimum guaranteed term — it is the outer limit. If the landlord establishes default or grounds for eviction even within this period, eviction may occur earlier.”

“This Court Cannot Be Blind to the Legislative Mandate” — Justice Sandesh Upholds Rent Act’s Spirit

Concluding the judgment, the High Court ruled,
“This Court cannot turn a blind eye to the clear legislative mandate under Section 5. The tenancy, even if born from a Moolageni lease, extinguishes after five years from the death of the tenant. Attempts to convert this limited protection into perpetual tenancy are plainly unsustainable in law.”

The court dismissed the tenant's plea for continued possession and ordered that possession be handed over to the landlord within two months.

The Karnataka High Court set aside the eviction on the ground of bonafide personal requirement but confirmed eviction under Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.

The court further invalidated the Trial Court’s direction requiring the landlord to compensate the tenants for improvements, ruling it to be beyond the Rent Court’s jurisdiction.

The tenants were directed to vacate the premises within two months, bringing an end to a protracted legal battle that had spanned well over a decade.

Date of Decision: 27th June 2025