Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961

48 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

SRI KEMPAIAHversusLINGAIAH AND ORS.

2001 INSC 54731 October 2001Dismissed

The landlord, Sri Kempaiah, filed an eviction petition under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, claiming a reasonable and bonafide requirement for the premises and alleging arrears of rent. The trial court allowed eviction on the basis of bonafide requirement but rejected the landlord’s claim of arrears because he c

N.R. NARAYAN SWAMYversusB. FRANCIS JAGAN

2001 INSC 32631 July 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a landlord, initially filed an eviction suit under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 on the ground of bona fide requirement, which he later withdrew after the tenant promised to vacate. When the tenant died and his son continued occupying the premises, the landlord filed a second eviction suit on the

D.S. PARVATHAMMAversusA. SRINIVASAN

2003 INSC 19831 March 2003Dismissed

The appellant, D.S. Parvathamma, claimed that an agreement to purchase the suit premises made in 1970 had placed her in possession as a prospective vendor and sought protection of that possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The respondent, A. Srinivasan, a subsequent bona‑fide transferee wh

JOHN MATHAI ABRRAHAMversusM/S. BRITISH PHYSICAL LAB. INDIA LTD.

2001 INSC 54230 October 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, John Mathai Abraham, owned a fractional undivided share in a large building in Bangalore and sought eviction of the respondent, British Physical Lab India Ltd, under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, claiming a bona fide need for personal residence and professional use. The Rent C

RAGHURAM RAO AND ORS.versusERIC P. MATHIAS AND ORS.

2002 INSC 5830 January 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a permanent mulgeni lease of about 40 cents of land granted in 1903 with an express clause prohibiting the lessee from alienating the whole leasehold property, but without any clause restricting partial alienation. After the lessee's death, the leasehold was partitioned among heirs and portions were

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.versusDILBAHAR SINGH

2014 INSC 99727 August 2014Reference answered

The Supreme Court examined the scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 and the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The issue was whether the High Court could re‑apprecia

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

M/S. K. GANESH SHETversusSRI A.K. JAYARAMA SHEKA AND ORS.

2004 INSC 48327 August 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord sought eviction of a tenant and his sub‑tenants under Section 21(1)(f) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, alleging illegal sub‑letting without consent. The District Judge upheld the illegal sub‑letting and ordered eviction, but the High Court, relying on A.S. Sulochana's case, refused eviction on the

LAXMIDAS BAPUDASS DARBAR AND ANR.versusSMT. RUDRAVVA ORS.

2001 INSC 39627 August 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, owners of a 99‑year lease of non‑agricultural land, sought eviction of the lessees under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, claiming a bona‑fide requirement for their own business. The trial court allowed the petition, but the district court held the lease to be perpetual and dismissed

SHYAMARAJU HEGDEversusU. VENKATESHA BHAT & ORS.

1987 INSC 26725 September 1987Appeal(s) allowed

Shyamaraju Hegde appealed to the Supreme Court against a Karnataka High Court order dismissing his revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 50(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. The High Court had relied on its own Full Bench decision in M.M. Yaragatti v. Vasant, which hel

GANTUSA H. BADDI (DEAD) BY LRS.versusMEERABAI G. PAI AND ORS.

2000 INSC 23224 April 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord sought eviction of the deceased tenant Gantusa H. Badri's premises under Sections 21(1)(a), (h) and (p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, alleging arrears and that the tenant had acquired an alternative suitable building through a partnership firm. The Munsiff dismissed the eviction, but the revisio

P.S. PAREED KAKA AND ORS.versusSHAFEE AHMED SAHEB

2004 INSC 20223 March 2004Dismissed

The landlord filed eviction petitions under Sections 21(h) and 21(j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, seeking possession of premises for his own residence and for demolition and reconstruction. The trial court dismissed the petitions, finding the landlord had not proved the building was dilapidated. The Karnata

KAVERIPATNAM SUBBARAYA SETTY ANNAIAH SETTY CHARITIES TRUSTversusS.K. VISWANATHA SETTY

2004 INSC 40022 July 2004Dismissed

The Kaveripatnam Subbaraya Setty Annaiah Setty Charities Trust (appellant) owned a shop that it let to S.K. Viswanatha Setty (respondent) from 1950. In 1969 the trust demolished the old building and completed a new one in 1975; the respondent vacated the old shop and later sought to be re‑let in the new building, offer

KANDASWAMYversusBD. OF MANAGEMENT, H.S.I. SAID MOSQUE

2001 INSC 16722 March 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The Board of Management of H.S.I. Said Mosque (landlord) sought to evict tenant Kandaswamy from a vacant plot in Bangalore under Section 21(1)(i) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, claiming the land was needed for a new building. The trial court initially granted eviction, but the Karnataka High Court set aside t

E. PARASHURAMAN (D) BY LRS.versusV. DORAISWAMY (D) BY LRS.

2005 INSC 57618 November 2005Dismissed

The dispute concerned a building owned by the Bangalore Mahanagar Palike that had been leased to Dhanpal and later sold to Doraiswamy through a court‑executed sale deed. Doraiswamy, acting as landlord, filed an eviction suit under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 on the ground of bona‑fide personal need; he died an

SIDDALINGAMMA AND ANR.versusMAMTHA SHENOY

2001 INSC 52118 October 2001Leave Granted & Allowed

The landlady (appellant No.1) sought eviction of her tenant under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, initially on the ground that her husband required treatment in Bangalore. During the pendency of the suit the husband died, and the landlady amended the petition under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC t

M/S. M. SUBBARAO AND SONSversusYASHODAMMA AND ORS

2002 INSC 39417 September 2002Dismissed

The tenants (Mis. M. Subbarao & Sons) were ordered to vacate non‑residential premises under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. The Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1999 came into force on 31‑12‑2001, repealing the 1961 Act and containing a savings provision (Section 70). The tenants argued that, because the new Act did n

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

VENKATESH THIMMAIAH GURJALKARversusS.S. HAWALDAR

1997 INSC 69515 October 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant continued to operate a hair‑cutting shop that had been let to his father in 1940, a non‑residential premises, after his father's death in 1974. The landlord filed a petition for eviction under Section 21 read with Section 51(2) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, asserting that the appellant was not

S.B. ABDUL AZEEZ (BY LRS.)versusM. MANIYAPPA SETTY & ANR.

1988 INSC 32114 October 1988Dismissed

The appellant, a tenant, occupied a shop premises. The respondents, partners, obtained a usufructuary mortgage over the same premises from the landlord and invoked Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 to evict the tenant, claiming bona‑fide need for their business. The appellant contended that the m

ABDUL KHUDDUSversusH.M. CHANDIRAMANI (DEAD) THR LRS. & ORS.

2021 INSC 47414 September 2021Appeal(s) allowed

Abdul Khuddus, a statutory tenant under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, was evicted when the Bangalore City Corporation demolished the dilapidated building under Section 322 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act. The tenant filed suits for injunction, possession and damages, which the High Court allowed, holding

M.V. SHANKAR BHAI AND ANR.versusCLAUDE PINTO (SINCE DECEASED) BY LRS. AND ORS.

2003 INSC 9114 February 2003Dismissed

The testator Claude Pinto executed a will appointing his son as executor to sell a property and distribute the proceeds, while also allowing the legatees to seek partition. The executor entered into a sale agreement with the tenant, M.V. Shankar Bhoi, which contained a clause that the sale was "subject to ratification

R. KAPILNATH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusKRISHNA

2002 INSC 53613 December 2002Dismissed

The tenant (R. Kapilnath, deceased, through LRs) occupied a house owned by a temple and paid rent to the temple's pujari, Krishna, who filed an eviction suit under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. The Munsif Court granted eviction under clause (p) of Section 21(1) but not clause (h); the decision was upheld by the

G. SRIDHARAMURTIversusHINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR.

1995 INSC 56913 September 1995Dismissed

The landlord leased premises to Esso Company in 1969. When Esso merged into Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd (HPC) in 1974, the landlord filed an eviction suit under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 alleging sub‑letting. The lower courts dismissed the suit, holding that under the Esso (Acquisition of Undertaking

P.R. DESHPANDEversusMARUTI BALARAM HAIBATTI

1998 INSC 29811 August 1998Dismissed

The tenant, P.R. Deshpande, filed a revision petition under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, but failed to deposit the arrears of rent required by Section 29(1) at the time of filing. The Karnataka High Court dismissed the revision petition for this deficiency, gave the tenant six weeks to vacate the

B.P. ACHALA ANANDversusS. APPI REDDY AND ANR.

2005 INSC 7311 February 2005Dismissed

The case concerned an eviction suit filed by a landlord under the Karnataka Rent Control Act against a tenant, H.S. Anand, who had deserted his wife, B.P. Achala Anand, leaving her in the tenanted matrimonial home. The wife sought to be impleaded and to contest the eviction, arguing that she retained a right to residen

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

BHOOLCHAND AND ANR.versusKAY PEE CEE INVESTMENTS AND ANR.

1990 INSC 31610 October 1990Dismissed

The original lessor let two shops and an adjoining house to Bhoolchand Chandiram in 1943 with an option to sub‑let. The tenant sub‑let one shop to Arts Palace in 1946 and later, on 1 April 1948, to Super Dry Cleaners. After the original lessor’s share was sold to Kay Pee Cee Investments in 1974, the new landlord sought

JOGINDER PALversusNAVAL KISHORE BEHAL

2002 INSC 28010 May 2002Dismissed

The landlord, Joginder Pal, filed an eviction petition under Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, claiming the premises were needed for the office of his chartered‑accountant son. The tenant, Naval Kishore Behal, occupied the premises for non‑residential purposes and contested the e

H. SESHADRIversusK.R. NATARAJAN AND ANR.

2003 INSC 22710 April 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, H. Seshadri, was a shop tenant in a residential building whose residential tenant (respondent No.2) was evicted by a decree. During the execution of that decree, Seshadri was also evicted. He filed an application under Order XXI Rules 99 and 100 of the CPC claiming an independent right to the shop. The S

ABBOBAKER AND ANR.versusMAHALAKSHMI TRADING CO.

1998 INSC 7810 February 1998Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord filed an eviction petition which was disposed of by a compromise decree allowing the tenant to occupy the reconstructed premises at a rent "25% less of the prevailing fair rent in the area." After reconstruction the tenant took possession by executing the decree without invoking Section 27 of the Karnataka

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

K. SRINIVASA RAOversusK.M. NARASIMHAIAH GOPAL KRISHNA

1989 INSC 499 February 1989Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a tenant of a shop in a building owned by Respondent No. 1, was evicted under Section 21(1)(j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, which allows demolition and reconstruction. The eviction petition stated that the tenant could occupy a corresponding shop in the new building, and the tenant gave notic

SHASHI KAPILAversusR.P.ASHWIN

2001 INSC 5678 November 2001Disposed off

The landlord sought eviction of a long‑term tenant under Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, claiming bona‑fide need for occupation and rent arrears. The tenant argued that the landlord had entered into a sale agreement with a partnership firm of which the tenant was a partner, invoking Section 53‑A of the

C.N. RUDRAMURTHY ETC.versusK. BARKATULLA KHAN AND ORS. ETC.

1998 INSC 3878 October 1998Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord (appellant) filed an eviction suit against the original tenant for non‑payment of rent and alleged sub‑letting. The trial court decreed eviction, but the Karnataka High Court set aside the decree, holding that Section 31 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 was invalid per Padmanabha Rao and directing t

KUSUM DEVIversusMOHAN LAL (DEAD) BY LRS

2009 INSC 4638 April 2009Appeal(s) allowed

Kusum Devi, the landlady, filed a suit for eviction of tenant Mohan Lal under sections 12(1)(e) and 12(1)(g) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, claiming a bona‑fide need for residential occupation and for repairs because the premises were unsafe. The trial court and the first appellate court granted

SARGUNAM (D) BY LR.versusCHIDAMBARAM AND ANR.

2004 INSC 5867 October 2004Dismissed

The plaintiff, Chidambaram, entered into a sale agreement on 14‑June‑1979 to purchase a premises, but the vendor failed to deliver title. While the suit for specific performance was pending, the vendor purportedly sold the same property to Sargunam on 29‑Nov‑1979, allegedly under a prior agreement dated 15‑Apr‑1978. Th

PRASHANT RAMACHANDRA DESHPANDEversusMARUTI BALARAM HAIBATTI

1995 INSC 2577 April 1995

The appellant, a tenant, had his revision petition dismissed by the Karnataka High Court for failing to comply with Section 29(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, and gave an undertaking to vacate the premises within six months. He subsequently filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136 of the Const

G. GIRIYAPPA AND ORS.versusANANTHARAI L. PAREKH AND ORS.

1994 INSC 1467 April 1994Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord (appellants) leased land to a tenant (respondent No.1) who was permitted to construct a building and sub‑let portions. After the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 came into force, the tenant inducted sub‑tenants. The landlord sought eviction under Section 21(1) of the Act. The trial court ordered eviction o

P. VEERAPPAversusM.A. MOHAMMED AMANULLA

1995 INSC 8294 December 1995Dismissed

The appellant, a long‑time tenant, entered into a 1959 agreement with the landlord to purchase the premises and later compromised a suit for specific performance, agreeing to pay a higher consideration and arrears of rent. He failed to pay the consideration within the stipulated time, causing the agreement to lapse. Th

P.V. PAPANNA AND ORS.versusK. PADMANABHAIAH

1994 INSC 474 February 1994Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord obtained a decree of possession against the tenant under Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, on the ground of bona‑fide personal requirement to start a business. The landlord died before the tenant vacated, and his heirs sought to execute the decree. The tenant argued that the decree bec

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

B. G. KUMARVELU AND ANR.versusK.R. KANAKARATHNAM CHETTY AND ORS.

1996 INSC 123 January 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute arose over the lease of the Opera House, a cinema building in Bangalore, which included fittings, furniture and some machinery but excluded projectors, amplifiers, screen and speakers. After a series of lease deeds spanning from 1944 to the 1970s, the respondents sought eviction of the appellants, arguing t

K. RAGHUNATHversusCHANDRASEKHAR AND ANR.

2004 INSC 6881 December 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord evicted the tenant under Sections 22(1)(h) and 22(1)(p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, and the Small Causes Court ordered eviction on 4 February 2000. The tenant filed a revision petition under Section 50(1) on 6 April 2000, having sent the arrears of rent by money order on 11 April 2000. The Kar

M.S. ZAHEDversusK. RAGHAVAN

1998 INSC 4511 December 1998Disposed off

The landlord M.S. Zayed sued tenant K. Raghavan for possession of a portion of a house under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, claiming a reasonable and bona‑fide need for the premises. The trial court found the landlord's need genuine and granted possession, but the Karnataka High Court, on revision

ABDUL SATTARversusKHUTEJABI AND ORS.

2003 INSC 2731 May 2003Dismissed

The landlord Abdul Sattar sought eviction of the heirs of his former tenant Mohammed Gouse under clause (p) of Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, alleging that one heir had been allotted a house by the Housing Board. The house was allotted in 1984 to the son, Mohammed Ismail, while the original tena

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