The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the burden of proving unlawful sub-letting rests with the landlord and clarified the distinction between revisional and appellate jurisdiction, emphasizing that High Courts must not reappreciate evidence unless findings are perverse.

JUDGMENT :

R. MAHADEVAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This Civil Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.05.2023 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru¹[Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”] in House Rent Revision Petition No. 56 of 2017, whereby the High Court allowed the revision petition preferred by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and set aside the order dated 14.07.2017 passed by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru²[Hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”] in H.R.C. No. 63 of 2016. By the said order, the trial Court had allowed the eviction petition and directed the respondents to vacate the schedule premises and hand over vacant possession to the appellant (since deceased), within a period of three months.

3. The appellants are the legal representatives of late Sri M.V.Ramachandrasa, who originally initiated the rent control proceedings before the trial Court. It is their case that the deceased appellant now represented through his legal representatives, was a long-term lessee in respect of immovable properties bearing Municipal New Nos. 22 to 33, situated at Uttaradhi Mutt Lane, Chickpet, Bengaluru. The said lease was created by virtue of a registered lease deed dated 02.02.1983 for a period of 55 years. Under the terms of the lease, the deceased appellant was duly authorised to sub-lease the whole or any portion of the property.

4. It is the further case of the appellants that Respondent No. 1, M/s.Mahendra Watch Company, a partnership firm, became a tenant under the deceased appellant³[Hereinafter referred to “the landlord”] through its partner, Rajesh Kumar, Respondent No. 4, in respect of premises viz., Shop No.1, Ground Floor, Maruthi Plaza, Block C, U.M. Lane, Chickpet, Bangalure, by virtue of a lease deed dated 22.02.1985 registered as Document No. 3669 / 1985. Subsequently, the landlord came to be aware that Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 were no longer in possession of the premises and that the business therein was being carried on by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely Ashish M. Jain and Atul M. Jain, who were not parties to the said lease agreement. Upon issuance of notice in this regard, the landlord instituted H.R.C. No. 63 of 2016 under Sections 27(b)(ii), 27(d)(i)(ii) and 27(p) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, seeking eviction on the ground that Respondent No. 1 had unlawfully sublet the premises and parted with possession in favour of third parties without the consent of the landlord.

5. The trial Court, upon consideration of the pleadings and the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, concluded that the persons in actual occupation of the premises were strangers to the original tenancy and that the tenant had unlawfully parted with possession in their favour. Pointing out that the lease deed expressly prohibited sub-letting or parting with possession without the consent of the landlord, the trial Court held that the respondents had rendered themselves liable for eviction. Accordingly, by order dated 14.07.2017, the eviction petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to vacate the premises and hand over vacant possession to the landlord.

6. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents preferred House Rent Revision Petition No. 56 of 2017 under Section 46 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 against the appellants herein, who are the legal representatives of the deceased appellant / landlord. The High Court, by its impugned judgment dated 23.05.2023, allowed the revision petition and set aside the eviction order passed by the trial Court. It is in these circumstances that the appellants have approached this Court by way of the present appeal.

7. The