IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO. 65 OF 2017 (EVI)

BETWEEN:

SRI. T. GNANESHWAR S/O LATE THAMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.7, 26^TH CROSS ANKALAPPA MUTT BUILDING CUBBONPET BANGALORE-560 002 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR D.A, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. H.S. PUTTASHANAKARA S/O LATE H.S.SHANKRANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS Digitally signed by RESIDING AT NO.57/2 NANDINI B G ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET Location:

High Court of NARAYANA SHETTY PET Karnataka BANGALORE-560 002 REPRESENTED BY SPA HOLDER SRI.H.S. PURUSHOTHAMA …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. C. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.46(1) OF THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.07.2017 PASSED IN HRC.NO.32/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT BENGALURU, ALLOWING PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.27(2)(0) AND (r) OF THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999 FOR EVICTION. AND DISMISSED UNDER SEC.27(2)(a)(c)(e) AND (g) OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

ORAL ORDER

Though the petition is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner-tenant being the respondent in HRC.No.32/2016 on the file of learned Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-1) (hereinafter referred as to 'Trial Court') is impugning the order dated 15.07.2017, allowing the petition filed by respondent herein under Section 27(2)(o) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short 'the Act of 1999') and directing petitioner herein to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the schedule property within three months from the date of order. While, rejecting the petition filed under Section 27(2)(a)(c)(e) and (g) of the Act, 1999.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.

4. The petitioner before the Trial Court being the landlord has filed HRC.No.32/2016 under Section 27(2)(a)(c)(e)(g) and (o) of the Act, 1999 seeking eviction of the respondent herein. It is the contention of the petitioner - landlord that the schedule property was originally belonging to one Sri.Banappa, who is the great grandfather of the landlord, who was kathadhar and revenue records were standing in his name. The family members of the landlord executed a registered Release Deed dated 04.11.2015 and thus the petitioner became the owner of the schedule property. It is contended that the respondent - tenant has indulged in various activities without the knowledge of the respondent - landlord and therefore, a legal notice dated 19.06.2005 was issued. The demands made therein were not complied. On 17.08.2012 the respondent - tenant has unauthorizedly demolished the wall of another portion of the property bearing No.7, and tried to trespass over the same. A police complaint in that regard was filed by the petitioner - landlord.

5. It is contended that the petitioner-landlord submitted an application for change of katha, but the respondent - tenant has raised objections and therefore, the prayer of the petitioner - landlord was not considered. The petitioner - landlord contended that the respondent being the tenant under him was not having any locus standi to question his prayer for change of katha. The schedule attached to the petition describes the property measuring East to West 12 feet, North to South 10 feet, and sought for eviction of the respondent - tenant.

6. It is also contended that respondent - tenant is also a chronic defaulter in payment of rent. It was also learnt by the petitioner - landlord that his father had filed eviction petition against the grandmother of the respondent by name Mysore Lingamma in HRC.No.1971/1980 in respect of a portion of the property, adjacent to the petition schedule property, where she admitted that the