Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Karnataka Rent Act, 1999

10 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

K.N. ANANTHARAJA GUPTAversusSMT. D.V. USHA VIJAY KUMAR

2007 INSC 121130 November 2007

The respondent, a widow and co‑owner of a residential flat in Bangalore, filed an eviction petition under Section 27(2)(r) read with Section 31 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, claiming the premises were dilapidated and needed demolition and reconstruction for her and her children’s use. The Small Causes Court dismisse

M/S. MAHENDRA SAREE EMPORIUMversusG.V. SRINIVASA MURTHY

2004 INSC 48227 August 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord G.V. Srinivasa Murthy leased a non‑residential premises to Mahendra Saree Emporium, originally a sole proprietorship, which later converted into a partnership with the tenant's relatives. The landlord claimed unlawful sub‑letting under Section 21(1)(t) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 and obtained a

RAMINDER SINGH SETHIversusD. VIJAYARANGAM

2002 INSC 21117 April 2002Dismissed

The landlord filed an eviction suit under clause (a) of Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, alleging that the tenant was in arrears of rent. The tenant argued that the advance rent paid at the commencement of tenancy should be adjusted against the arrears, and that Section 18, which limits advance re

K. PUTTARAJUversusA. HANUMEGOWDA

2008 INSC 104015 September 2008Disposed off

The respondent, a senior citizen, filed an eviction suit under Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, claiming bonafide requirement for a shop to accommodate his handicapped son. After the trial evidence was recorded, he amended the petition to invoke Section 31, a special provision for widows, handicapped p

JOSEPH KANTHARAJ & ANR.versusATIHARUNNISA BEGUM S.

2010 INSC 3011 January 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, claiming ownership of a suit‑premises, filed eviction petitions under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 and the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. The first appellant contended that he was no longer a tenant after entering into an agreement of sale with the previous owner, Anthony Swamy, and that he was in po

SRI M.V. RAMACHANDRASA SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRSversusM/S MAHENDRA WATCH COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS & ORS.

2026 INSC 34810 April 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord, the legal heirs of the deceased Sri M.V. Ramachandrasa, sued M/s Mahendra Watch Company and its partners for unlawful sub‑letting of a shop premises in Bengaluru. The trial court held that the original tenant had part‑ed with legal possession to respondents No.2 and No.3, who were strangers to the lease,

MRS. ZAKIYA BEGUM & ORS.versusMRS. SHANAZ ALI & ORS.

2010 INSC 4889 August 2010Dismissed

The landlords, Mrs. Zakiya Begum and others, let a premises to the tenants, Mrs. Shanaz Ali and others, at a monthly rent of Rs. 4,000. The landlords filed an eviction suit under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, but while the suit was pending the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 came into force, repealing the 1961 Act. Th

HARBHAJAN SINGH ETCversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

2019 INSC 13154 December 2019Dismissed

The appellants, tenants of shops in a Gurudwara, challenged the Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1997 on the ground that it withdrew the protection afforded to them under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act, 1949 and violated Article 14. The Supreme Court held that the State

SULTAN MOHIYUDDIN AND ORS.versusBASHEER AHMED SHARIFF AND ORS.

2002 INSC 2603 May 2002Disposed off

The landlord appealed a High Court decision after eviction proceedings were started under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. While the case was pending, the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 came into force, which exempts non‑residential premises larger than 14 square metres from its provisions. The tenant argued that, becau

MAHENDRA SAREE EMPORIUMversusG.V. SRINIVASA MURTHY

2002 INSC 2521 May 2002Disposed off

The landlord filed eviction proceedings against the tenant under Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, and obtained a decree for possession. The tenant appealed to the Supreme Court under Article 136. While the appeal was pending, the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 came into force, repealing the 1961 Act. Secti

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search