Tenancy rights under Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Act are inheritable only for five years post-death, and failure to pay rent for five years constitutes grounds for eviction.

ORDER :

H.P. Sandesh, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for caveator-respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. These two revision petitions are filed by the petitioners-respondent Nos.2, 3(a) to 3(c) and 4 to 7 before the Trial Court praying to set aside the order 03.08.2021 passed in H.R.C.No.3/2013 by the learned III Additional Civil Judge, Mangaluru, D.K. and the order dated 05.04.2024 passed in Rev. (Rent) Nos.14/2021 and 10/2021 by the learned IV Additional District Judge and Commercial Court, D.K. Mangaluru.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the petitioners before the Trial Court is that while seeking the relief of eviction, invoked the provisions of Section 27 (2)(r) and 31(1)(a) read with Section 5 of the KARNATAKA RENT ACT , 1999 directing the respondents to vacate and surrender the vacant possession of petition premises to the petitioners. The petition property is a non-agricultural immovable property residential building bearing Door No.4-1-77, R.S.No.394, T.S.No.227, East Southern portion measuring 0-10 cents situated in Kodialbail Village and Ward, Mangaluru Taluk within the Mangalore City Corporation and within the registration Sub-District of Mangalore City (hereinafter referred to as ‘petition premises’).

4. It is the case of the original petitioner in H.R.C.No.3/2013 that her husband late Ranganath Rai along with his mother Smt. Akkamma Rai and brother Narayana Rai respectively had granted the petition premises on permanent lease in favour of late Narayana Shetty as per registered deed of transfer dated 27.07.1961. As per the terms of the deed, late Narayana Shetty was required to pay Rs.30/- per annum on or before 27^th July of next succeeding year. It is also the case of the original petitioner that the respondents are the legal heirs of deceased Narayana Shetty. The said late Narayana Shetty during his life time and after his death, his heirs (as legal representatives of respondents) have defaulted continuously in the payment of the annual rent for the past more than five years and as such, have contravened the terms of lease. As a result, the respondent’s moolgeni lease stood forfeited in terms of clause of the document of deed of transfer dated 27.07.1961. It is also the case of the original petitioner that the petition premises is required for her own use and occupation as she is presently residing in the family house of her husband and there is paucity of space and lack of privacy in the above house for the petitioner. The petitioner has caused a registered legal notice dated 17.07.2012 through her advocate calling upon the respondents to surrender the vacant possession of petition premises in favour of the petitioner within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. Having r