Karnataka Rent Act| Rent Receipts Signed By Landlord Can Be Prima Facie Proof Of Landlord-Tenant Relationship: Supreme Court

The appellant approached the Apex Court challenging the impugned final judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court in a House Rent Revision Petition, setting aside the order of the Court of Small Causes at Bangalore (Rent Controller) directing the respondent to ‘quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession’ of the premises in question within 3 months.

The Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi noted, “On a conjoint reading of the Section 3(e) and Section 43, it becomes evident that whenever a dispute arises as to the jural relationship between the parties, the Court has to examine lease agreement or in its absence, receipts acknowledging payment of rent signed by the landlord as prima-facie proof of such relationship and proceed with the hearing of the case. In case the existence or genuineness of these documents are put to question, or where the lease is oral and the parties deny the relationship, or there are reasons for Court to suspect the genuineness of the documents of either lease or receipt or acknowledgment of payment of rent, the proceedings shall to be halted and the parties be referred to a competent civil Court.”

AOR Mahesh Thakur represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Anand Sanjay M Nuli represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The eviction proceeding was initiated under Section 271 (2)(a) (e)(g) and (o) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. This was resisted by disputing the jural relationship between the appellant and the respondent, as landlord and tenant, and also questioning the appellant's title to the property. The Rent Controller concluded that the landlord-tenant relationship had been established between the appellant and respondent and allowed the eviction petition, directing the respondent to vacate the suit property.

On a revision petition filed, the High Court allowed the same vide the impugned order and set aside the order of the Rent Controller, noting that no positive documentary evidence was brought to prove Sri Banappa was the appellant’s great-grandfather, however, failed to prove his lineage and ownership. Further, the signature on the counterfoils of rent receipts issued by the appellant was categorically denied by the son of the respondent, stating that those signatures were never put by him. Being aggrieved, the appellant-landlord filed the present appeal.

Reasoning

The Bench referred to Section 43 of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and explained that whenever there is a dispute with respect to the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship, it shall be lawful for the Court to accept the document of the lease and in the absence thereof, a receipt of acknowledgment of payment of rent purported to be signed by the landlord as prima-facie evidence of relationship and proceed to hear the case.

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noticed that as per the original rent receipts brought on the record, the appellant issued the rent receipt to the respondent for the rent collected qua the suit property in question for the period from February 01, 2013, to May 31, 2014. This prima facie indicated that he stood as the landlord for the purpose of Section 3(e) with respect to the property in question.

“When the initial burden as per mandate of Section 43 of the 1999 Act was discharged by the appellant-landlord by producing the rent receipts acknowledging the payment of rent by the respondent-tenant qua the suit property, the Court rightly proceeded with hearing of the case and adjudicated the matter on merits. The High Court in its own wisdom, misdirected itself in exercise of revisional jurisdiction in setting aside the order of the Rent Controller on the premise that jural relationship of landlord tenant does not exist between the parties because the appellant landlord wasn’t able to prove his lineage and relationship with Sri Banappa, who was purportedly the original owner of the suit property”, it mentioned.

The Bench was of the view that the High Court was heavily swayed by the fact that the son of the respondent denied his signature on the rent receipts, and this meant that the signatures were never put by him. Hence, no relationship ever existed. “The High Court in reaching a conclusion contrary to the Rent Controller, conducted a fact-finding exercise, which as per settled law ought to have been avoided in revisional jurisdiction”, it added.

As per the Bench, once the initial burden was discharged by the appellant producing the rent receipts issued by him, the Rent Controller was justified in proceeding with the hearing of the case. “The High Court, in revisional jurisdiction, ought to have appreciated the same in light of Section 43 of the 1999 Act before setting aside the order of Rent Controller, which, in our view, has not been duly considered”, the Bench held while allowing the appeal and restoring the order of the Trial Court.

Cause Title: H.S. Puttashankara v. Yashodamma (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1087)

Appearance

Appellant: AOR Mahesh Thakur, Advocates Ranvijay Singh Chandel, Narveer Yadav

Respondent: Senior Advocate Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Advocates Akhila Wali,Suraj Kaushik, Shiva Swaroop, M/S. Nuli & Nuli

Click here to read/download Judgment