Revisional courts cannot re-appreciate evidence. Once a landlord proves a third party is in exclusive possession, the burden shifts to the tenant to prove the arrangement is a genuine partnership and not a cloak for unlawful sub-letting, failing which eviction is warranted.

Headnote:(A) Rent Control Act - Eviction - Unlawful sub-letting - Parting with possession - Revisional jurisdiction - Scope and ambit - Revisional court cannot act as a court of first appeal or re-appreciate evidence unless findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or suffer from manifest illegality - Revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and confined to examining legality, correctness, or propriety of the order. (Paras 7.1, 12.1, 12.3)

(B) Burden of Proof - Sub-letting - Initial onus lies on the landlord to establish that a third party is in exclusive possession of the premises - Once exclusive possession is established, the burden shifts to the tenant to explain the nature of such possession and prove that it is not a case of sub-letting. (Paras 13.1, 13.4, 13.5)

(C) Partnership - Cloak for sub-letting - Inducting a partner does not per se amount to sub-letting if the tenant retains legal possession and control - However, if the partnership is a device to conceal an impermissible transfer of possession, the court may lift the veil to determine the real nature of the transaction. (Paras 14.1, 14.2, 14.3)

Facts of the case:
An eviction petition was filed against a tenant firm on the grounds of unauthorized sub-letting and parting with possession in favour of third parties. The trial court allowed the petition, finding that the original tenant had ceased to be in possession and that the occupants were strangers to the tenancy. The High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, set aside the eviction order by re-appreciating the evidence. The legal heirs of the landlord challenged this decision before the Supreme Court.

Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence and substituting its own findings for those of the trial court. The landlord had successfully discharged the initial burden of proving exclusive possession by third parties, and the tenant failed to rebut the resulting presumption of sub-letting. The court concluded that the alleged reconstitution of the partnership was a mere cloak to conceal an unlawful transfer of possession.

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with findings of fact under revisional jurisdiction; (ii) Whether the burden of proving sub-letting was discharged; (iii) Whether the change in partnership constitution amounted to unlawful sub-letting.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional jurisdiction does not permit the re-appreciation of evidence. Once a landlord establishes that a third party is in exclusive possession, a presumption of sub-letting arises, shifting the burden to the tenant to prove the arrangement is a bona fide partnership. If the tenant fails to prove they retain legal control, the court may lift the veil of partnership to find the transaction is an unlawful sub-letting.

Result: Appeal allowed; the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the eviction order of the trial court is restored.

Judgement Key Points

How to determine the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 in a case involving alleged sub-letting?

What is the burden of proof for sub-letting in eviction proceedings under Sections 27(2)(b)(ii) and 27(2)(p) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999?

What are the principles for distinguishing genuine partnership from sub-letting when a tenant-individual retires and partners continue in possession?

Table of Content
1. eviction proceedings due to alleged unauthorized sub-letting. (Para 1 , 2)

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 Bengaluru, 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, Bengaluru, Digitally signed by in Signature Not Verified POOJA SHARMA Date: 202H6.04..10R.C. No. 63 of 2016. By the said order, the trial Court had allowed the Reason:

2 Hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”

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 appellant, 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 learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the High Court has clearly transgressed the well-settled limits of its revisional jurisdiction under Se

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 1641

Ahsanuddin Amanullah, R. Mahadevan, JJM.V. Ramachandrasa – AppellantVersusMahendra Watch Company – RespondentCIVIL APPEAL NO. 4353 OF 2026|SLP (C) NO. 25957 OF 2023

Revisional courts cannot re-appreciate evidence. Once a landlord proves a third party is in exclusive possession, the burden shifts to the tenant to prove the arrangement is a genuine partnership and not a cloak for unlawful sub-letting, failing which eviction is warranted.

How to determine the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 in a case involving alleged sub-letting?

What is the burden of proof for sub-letting in eviction proceedings under Sections 27(2)(b)(ii) and 27(2)(p) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999?

What are the principles for distinguishing genuine partnership from sub-letting when a tenant-individual retires and partners continue in possession?

Cases Referred (5)

Ahsanuddin Amanullah, R. Mahadevan, JJ
M.V. Ramachandrasa – Appellant
Versus
Mahendra Watch Company – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4353 OF 2026|SLP (C) NO. 25957 OF 2023