Supreme Court of India
SRI M.V. RAMACHANDRASA SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRSversusM/S MAHENDRA WATCH COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS & ORS.
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 348
- Decided
- 10 April 2026
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in re‑appraising evidence, that the landlord had proved unlawful sub‑letting, and that the purported partnership re‑constitution was a sub‑letting device, warranting eviction.
Summary
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, and ordered eviction. The High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction under s.46 of the Karnataka Rent Act, re‑appraised the evidence and set aside the eviction order. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by re‑appreciating facts, that the landlord had discharged the burden of proving unlawful sub‑letting, and that the alleged partnership re‑constitution was a device to conceal unlawful sub‑letting. Consequently, the High Court's order was set aside and the trial court's eviction order restored, with the respondents given three months to vacate.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the trial court's findings of fact while exercising revisional jurisdiction under s.46 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.
- Whether the burden of proving unlawful sub‑letting lies on the landlord and whether that burden was duly discharged.
- Whether the alleged retirement of the original tenant‑partner and continuation of business by respondents Nos.2 and 3 amounts to a mere re‑constitution of partnership or to unlawful sub‑letting/assignment under s.27(2)(b)(ii) and s.27(2)(p) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.
Legislation cited
- Karnataka Rent Act, 1999s. 26, s. 27(2)(b)(ii), s. 27(2)(p), s. 46
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882s. 105
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction u/s.46 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999; of proving unlawful sub-letting lies upon the landlord, and if so, whether such burden was duly discharged in the present case; whether the alleged retirement of the original tenant-partner and continuation of business by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 constituted a mere reconstitution of partnership or
Subjects
Revisional jurisdictionUnlawful sub‑lettingBurden of proofPartnership re‑constitutionKarnataka Rent ActSection 46Section 27EvictionLift the veilLandlord‑tenant law
Judgment
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 508 : 2026 INSC 348
Sri M.V. Ramachandrasa Since Deceased
Represented by Legal Heirs
v.
M/s Mahendra Watch Company
Represented by its Partners & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 4353 of 2026)
10 April 2026
[Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the findings
of fact recorded by the trial Court while exercising its revisional
jurisdiction u/s.46 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999; whether the
burden of proving unlawful sub-letting lies upon the landlord, and if
so, whether such burden was duly discharged in the present case;
whether the alleged retirement of the original tenant-partner and
continuation of business by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 constituted
a mere reconstitution of partnership or amounts to unlawful
sub-letting / assignment u/ss.27(2)(b)(ii) and 27(2)(p) of the
Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.
Headnotes†
Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 – s.46 – Revisional jurisdiction
under – Exercise of – When not sustainable – Respondent
No.1-Company, a partnership firm was a tenant under the
appellant’s predecessor-landlord (since deceased) – However,
Respondent No.1 had unlawfully sublet the premises and
parted with possession in favour of third parties (Respondent
Nos.2 and 3) who were not parties to the lease agreement,
without the consent of the landlord – Eviction petition allowed
by trial Court inter alia holding that that Respondent Nos.2
and 3 in actual occupation of the premises were strangers to
the original tenancy and the tenant had unlawfully parted with
possession in their favour – High Court allowed the revision
petition filed by respondents – Whether the High Court was
justified in interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the
trial Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction u/s.46:
* Author
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 509
Sri M.V. Ramachandrasa Since Deceased Represented by Legal Heirs v.
M/s Mahendra Watch Company Represented by its Partners & Ors.
Held: No – Findings recorded by the trial Court were pure
findings of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence – No
perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error was demonstrated –
High Court transgressed the limits of its revisional jurisdiction by
reassessing the evidence and substituting its own conclusions –
Therefore, impugned interference u/s.46 is unsustainable in law
as it effectively converted revisional jurisdiction into appellate
jurisdiction – Impugned order set aside – Order of the trial Court
directing eviction of the respondents, restored. [Paras 12.8, 12.9]
Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 – Respondent No.1-Company,
a partnership firm was a tenant under the appellant’s
predecessor-landlord (since deceased) through its partner-
Respondent No.4 – However, Respondent No.1 unlawfully
sublet the premises and parted with possession in favour of
third parties (Respondent Nos.2 and 3) who were not parties
to the lease agreement, without the consent of the landlord –
Landlord filed eviction petition, allowed by trial Court – High
Court allowed the revision petition filed by respondents –
Whether the burden of proving unlawful sub-letting lies
upon the landlord, and if so, whether such burden was duly
discharged in the present case:
Held: The lease deed recognized only Respondent No.4 as the
tenant – Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were not parties to the lease
and therefore, cannot claim any independent tenancy rights – The
burden of proving unlawful subletting initially lay upon the landlord,
which was duly discharged by establishing exclusive possession
of third parties and absence of the original tenant – The burden
thereafter shifted to the respondents, who failed to rebut the
presumption by adducing cogent evidence – Consequently, unlawful
sub-letting stands proved. [Paras 13.6, 13.8]
Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 – ss.27(2)(b)(ii) and 27(2)(p) – Sub-
letting through the device of partnership – Respondents’ case
rested on an alleged reconstitution of the partnership firm –
Whether the alleged retirement of the original tenant-partner
and continuation of business by Respondent Nos.2 and 3
constituted a mere reconstitution of partnership or amounts to
unlawful sub-letting / assignment u/ss.27(2)(b)(ii) and 27(2)(p):
Held: Sub-letting requires parting with legal possession, i.e., transfer
of the right to exclusive possession – Mere induction or retirement
510 [2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
of partners does not amount to sub-letting so long as the tenant
retains control and legal possession – Courts are entitled to lift
the veil of partnership where it is used as a device to conceal an
impermissible transfer – Once exclusive possession of a third party
is established, the burden shifts to the tenant to prove that the
arrangement is bona fide – Thus, the determinative test is whether
the original tenant continues to retain legal possession and control
over the premises – Original tenant ceased to have any role in
the business or the premises and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are in
exclusive possession and control – Once such exclusive possession
by third parties is established, the burden shifts to the respondents
to prove that the arrangement is a genuine partnership and not a
device to conceal sub-letting – Respondents failed to discharge
this burden by producing any cogent or reliable evidence – They
failed to produce the original partnership deed, any duly proved
retirement deed, or any document evidencing continuity of the
original tenant firm – No material to show that Respondent Nos.2
and 3 were partners in the original tenant firm – Their induction
into possession is, therefore not traceable to the original tenancy
– Original tenant divested himself of legal possession, and
Respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are strangers to the tenancy, are
in exclusive occupation of the premises without the consent of
the landlord – The so-called reconstitution is nothing but a cloak
to conceal an unlawful transfer of possession, warranting lifting
of the veil – The arrangement cannot be regarded as a bona fide
reconstitution of partnership and amounts to unlawful sub-letting
/ assignment within the meaning of s.27(2)(b)(ii) – Further, the
continued occupation by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 without any
lawful right, attracts s.27(2)(p) also – Therefore, respondents are
liable to eviction – Impugned order set aside – Order of the trial
Court directing eviction of the respondents, restored. [Paras 14.3,
14.6, 14.7, 14.9, 14.10, 15]
Tenancy – Eviction proceedings on ground of sub-letting –
Burden of proof:
Held: Burden of proof lies upon the party asserting a fact – In
eviction proceedings founded on the ground of sub-letting, the
initial onus rests upon the landlord to establish that the tenant
has parted with possession of the tenanted premises in favour of
a third party without authority – The landlord discharges the initial
burden by establishing (i) exclusive possession of a third party,
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 511
Sri M.V. Ramachandrasa Since Deceased Represented by Legal Heirs v.
M/s Mahendra Watch Company Represented by its Partners & Ors.
and (ii) absence of the original tenant from possession – Upon
such proof, a presumption of sub-letting arises, and the onus
shifts to the tenant to demonstrate that such possession is lawful
and not in the nature of sub-tenancy – It is established that the
original tenant was no longer in possession, and Respondent
Nos.2 and 3 were in exclusive occupation of the premises – Thus,
the landlord successfully proved exclusive possession of third
parties thereby discharging the initial burden and giving rise to a
presumption of unlawful sub-letting – The burden, therefore, shifted
upon the respondents to rebut the said presumption – However,
the respondents failed to discharge this burden – No cogent or
reliable evidence was adduced to establish the existence of a valid
partnership, reconstitution deed, lawful induction, or consent of the
landlord to such arrangement – In the absence of such evidence,
the possession of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 remains unexplained
and unlawful. [Paras 13.1, 13.5-13.7]
Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 – s.46 – Revisional jurisdiction
under – Scope:
Held: Is narrowly circumscribed – It empowers the High Court to
examine the legality, correctness or propriety of an order however,
it does not confer appellate powers permitting re-appreciation of
evidence or substitution of factual findings. [Paras 12.1-12.3]
Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 – ss.46, 26 – High Court allowed the
revision petition preferred by Respondents and set aside the
eviction order – Respondents had inter alia placed reliance
upon rent receipts:
Held: High Court while exercising jurisdiction u/s.46, undertook
a fresh analysis of the evidence, including depositions of PW-1
and RW-1, partnership documents, and rent receipts, and arrived
at independent factual conclusions – Such an exercise clearly
amounts to reappreciation of evidence, which is impermissible
in revisional jurisdiction – The statutory scheme provides for an
appeal u/s.26 where the legislature has consciously created a
separate appellate remedy, the revisional jurisdiction cannot be
expanded so as to substitute or bypass the appellate mechanism –
Furthermore, mere fact that rent receipts may continue in the
name of the original tenant does not advance the respondents’
case, as it is legal possession and control and not the formality
of rent payment, which is determinative. [Paras 12.6, 12.7, 14.8]
512 [2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Case Law Cited
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Dilbahar Singh [2014]
14 SCR 1379 : (2014) 9 SCC 78 – followed.
S.R. Radhakrishnan v. Neelamegam [2003] Supp. 1 SCR 987 :
(2003) 10 SCC 705; Associated Hotels of India Ltd v. S.B. Sardar
Ranjit Singh [1968] SCR 548 : AIR 1968 SC 933; Jagan Nath (D)
through LRs v. Chander Bhan and Another [1988] Supp. 1 SCR
325 : (1988) 3 SCC 57; Mahendra Saree Emporium (II) v. G.V.
Srinivasa Murthy [2004] Supp. 3 SCR 931 : (2005) 1 SCC 481;
Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana and Others
[1992] Supp. 3 SCR 579 : (1993) 1 SCC 499; Thankamony Amma
and Others v. Omana Amma N. and Others [2019] 10 SCR 125 :
(2020) 19 SCC 254; Joginder Singh Sodhi v. Amar Kaur [2004]
Supp. 5 SCR 303 : (2005) 1 SCC 31; Ram Murti Devi v. Pushpa
Devi and Others [2017] 7 SCR 872 : (2017) 15 SCC 230; Amar
Nath Agarwalla v. Dhillon Transport Agency [2007] 3 SCR 442 :
(2007) 4 SCC 306; Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms) and Others v.
Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and Others [2009] 15 SCR 558 :
(2010) 1 SCC 217 – referred to.
List of Acts
Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.
List of Keywords
Revisional jurisdiction under Section 46 of the Karnataka Rent Act,
1999; Unlawful sub-letting; Unlawful sub-letting stands proved;
Eviction proceedings on ground of sub-letting; Onus in eviction
proceedings on ground of sub-letting; Original tenant no longer in
possession; Exclusive possession of third parties; Initial burden
discharged; Presumption of unlawful sub-letting; Onus shifted to
tenant; Sub-letting through partnership; Strangers to tenancy; In
exclusive occupation of premises without the consent of landlord;
Induction into possession not traceable to the original tenancy;
Reconstitution of partnership; Cloak to conceal unlawful transfer
of possession; Lifting of veil; Lifting of the veil warranted; Original
tenant divested of legal possession; Not a bona fide reconstitution
of partnership; Section 27(2)(b)(ii) of the Karnataka Rent Act,
1999; Section 27(2)(p) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999; Revisional
jurisdiction converted into appellate jurisdiction; Burden of proving
unlawful sub-letting; Tenant unlawfully parted with possession in
favour of a third party.
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 513
Sri M.V. Ramachandrasa Since Deceased Represented by Legal Heirs v.
M/s Mahendra Watch Company Represented by its Partners & Ors.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4353 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.05.2023 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in HRRP No. 56 of 2017.
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Devashish Bharuka, Sr. Adv., H.S. Somnath, Ms. Sarvshree,
Ms. Soumya Sandilaya, Ms. Yashaswi Agrawal.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Paras Jain, T. Harish Kumar, Shubham Kothari, Mrs. Aiyushi Daga,
Shubham P. Chopra.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
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 Bengaluru1
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, Bengaluru2 in H.R.C. No. 63 of 2016.
By the said order, the trial Court had allowed the 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
1 Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”
2 Hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”
514 [2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 appellant3 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
3 Hereinafter referred to “the landlord”
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 515
Sri M.V. Ramachandrasa Since Deceased Represented by Legal Heirs v.
M/s Mahendra Watch Company Represented by its Partners & Ors.
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 Section 46 of the Karnataka Rent
Act, 1999. The revisional power is supervisory in nature and does
not confer upon the High Court the status of a court of first appeal.
It was submitted that the High Court, instead of confining itself to
examining jurisdictional error, illegality, or perversity, has proceeded
to reappreciate the entire oral and documentary evidence and
substituted its own findings in place of those recorded by the trial
Court. Such an exercise is wholly impermissible in law.
7.1. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Dilbahar Singh4, wherein,
it was categorically held that revisional jurisdiction under rent
control statutes is limited and cannot be equated with appellate
jurisdiction. Interference is warranted only where findings are
perverse, based on no evidence, or suffer from manifest illegality.
7.2. It was submitted that the trial Court, upon a comprehensive
appreciation of the evidence on record, returned well-reasoned
findings of fact, and categorically held that Respondent Nos. 2
and 3 failed to establish their status as partners of the original
tenant firm namely M/s. Mahendra Watch Company. The
documentary evidence relied upon by the respondents was found
unreliable, and significantly, no partnership deed or credible
material was produced to substantiate the claim that Respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 were partners of the original tenant firm. These are
pure findings of fact and could not have been interfered with by
the High Court in the absence of perversity or patent illegality,
which is conspicuously absent in the present case.
7.3. It was further submitted that Clause 19 of the registered lease
deed dated 22.02.1985 (Ex. P4) expressly prohibits sub-letting
or transfer of the tenancy rights, including sale of the business,
4 (2014) 9 SCC 78
516 [2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
without prior written consent of the landlord. The respondents
have failed to produce any document evidencing such consent.
The material on record clearly establishes that persons presently
in occupation, namely Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have no lawful
nexus with the original tenancy. Their claim of deriving rights
through an alleged partnership is unsupported by any legally
admissible document.
7.4. It was submitted that the respondents’ case rests on an alleged
reconstitution of the partnership firm. However, the so-called
reconstitution deed is unregistered and legally untenable; no
original partnership deed was produced; there is no documentary
evidence to establish that Mohanlal, claimed to be the father of
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, was ever a partner; RW-1 (Mohanlal)
himself admitted that at the time of execution of the lease deed
in 1985, there were five partners, yet, only Respondent No. 4
signed the lease deed. As such, the trial Court rightly concluded
that the respondents failed to prove any valid induction into the
partnership with the consent of the landlord.
7.5. It was further submitted that the reliance placed by the
respondents on Ex. R2 series (rent receipts) is wholly misplaced.
The said receipts stand in the name of the original tenant firm
and do not confer any independent right upon Respondent Nos.
2 and 3. In this regard, reference was made to the decision
in S.R. Radhakrishnan v. Neelamegam5, wherein, this Court
held that mere payment of rent or continuance in possession
does not ipso facto confer the status of a tenant.
7.6. It was submitted that the appellants have clearly established
grounds for eviction under Sections 27(2)(b)(ii) and 27(2)(p)
of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 inasmuch as there has been
unauthorised sub-letting / transfer of possession; the terms of
the lease deed have been violated; and the respondents are in
unlawful occupation without any legal right or privity of contract.
7.7. It was submitted that the High Court, without adverting to
the above material aspects and settled principles of law, has
erroneously reversed the well-reasoned judgment of the trial
5 (2003) 10 SCC 705
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 517
Sri M.V. Ramachandrasa Since Deceased Represented by Legal Heirs v.
M/s Mahendra Watch Company Represented by its Partners & Ors.
Court and set aside the eviction order. Therefore, the impugned
judgment suffers from serious legal infirmity and warrants
interference by this court.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents at
the out, submitted that the present appeal is liable to be dismissed
in limine as the appellants have not approached this Court with
clean hands and have in fact, suppressed material particulars in the
list of dates and events. It was contended that the appellants have
failed to place true and correct facts and therefore are not entitled
to any relief much less the discretionary relief under Article 136 of
the Constitution of India.
8.1. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent firm,
represented by its partners, has been a lawful tenant in respect
of the suit shop since the year 1978, having acquired tenancy
rights upon payment of goodwill to the original owner, namely
Shrimad Jagadguru Madhav Acharya Moola Mahasamsthane,
Uttaradhi Math, Bengaluru. It was submitted that subsequently,
the landlord obtained a long-term lease of the larger property
under a registered lease deed dated 02.02.1983 for a period of
55 years, taking symbolic possession of tenanted portions and
physical possession of vacant portions. Upon such acquisition,
he proposed redevelopment of the property and assured all
existing tenants, including the respondent firm, that they would
be accommodated in the newly constructed complex, while also
offering temporary alternate accommodation.
8.2. It was submitted that acting upon such assurance, the tenants
vacated the old premises, following which the landlord
demolished the existing structure and constructed a new
shopping complex. Upon completion, the respondent firm
was allotted a shop measuring 95 sq.ft. in place of the earlier
164 sq.ft. and a registered lease deed dated 22.02.1985 was
executed for a period of 53 years, expiring on 22.02.2038. The
agreed rent was fixed at Rs. 275/- per month with a provision
for periodic enhancement. Since then, the respondent firm
has been in continuous possession and has been carrying on
business in the said premises without interruption.
8.3. The learned counsel emphasised that the lease deed confers
valuable and enduring rights upon the respondent firm, including
518 [2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
heritability, transferability among partners and their heirs,
and liberty to carry on business in partnership. It was further
submitted that the lease deed does not contain any forfeiture
clause attracting Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882, and therefore, the tenancy cannot be prematurely
terminated. It was contended that the respondent firm is entitled
to peaceful possession and enjoyment of the premises for the
entire duration of the lease, and the eviction proceedings initiated
during the subsistence of such lease are wholly misconceived
and not maintainable in law.
8.4. The learned counsel further submitted that the allegation of
subletting, which forms the foundation of the eviction petition,
is entirely baseless. It was contended that the respondent firm
has at no point sublet, assigned, or parted with possession of
the premises. The business has continuously been carried on
by the partners of the firm, and any change in the constitution of
the partnership does not amount to subletting. It was submitted
that a partnership firm is not a separate legal entity distinct
from its partners, and the firm name is merely a compendious
description of the partners who carry on the business.
8.5. Reliance was placed on the judgments of this Court in
Associated Hotels of India Ltd v. S.B. Sardar Ranjit Singh6,
Jagan Nath (D) through LRs v. Chander Bhan and another7,
and Mahendra Saree Emporium (II) v. G.V. Srinivasa Murthy8,
wherein it was held that subletting necessarily requires parting
with legal possession in favour of a third party and the mere use
of premises by others, including partners, does not constitute
subletting so long as the tenant retains legal possession. It
was submitted that in the present case, there is no evidence
whatsoever to show that any third party has been put in exclusive
possession of the premises.
8.6. The learned counsel further contended that the burden of proving
subletting squarely lies upon the landlord, which burden has
not been discharged in the present case. In the absence of any
6 AIR 1968 SC 933
7 (1988) 3 SCC 57
8 (2005) 1 SCC 481
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 519
Sri M.V. Ramachandrasa Since Deceased Represented by Legal Heirs v.
M/s Mahendra Watch Company Represented by its Partners & Ors.
material to establish exclusive possession by a third party for
consideration, no presumption of subletting can arise. It was
submitted that the High Court rightly appreciated the evidence
on record and applied the settled principles of law in setting
aside the eviction order.
8.7. It was also submitted that the partnership firm was reconstituted
on 01.07.2000, prior to the coming into force of the Karnataka
Rent Act, 1999, and that the continuing partners, including
Ashish M. Jain, have been carrying on business in the suit
premises before 31.12.2001. The appellants were fully aware
of the same, as rent was being regularly collected from the
respondent firm. It was contended that mere reconstitution of
a partnership firm or induction of partners does not amount to
assignment or subletting, particularly when the firm continues
to retain possession and control over the premises.
8.8. The learned counsel submitted that the eviction petition is
based on a wholly illusory cause of action and has been
filed by suppressing the existence of the registered lease
deed dated 22.02.1985. A meaningful reading of the petition
would demonstrate that the appellants have attempted to
mischaracterise the partners of the firm as sub-tenants, which is
impermissible in law. It was thus contended that the proceedings
are an abuse of the process of court and liable to be dismissed.
9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the
material available on record.
10. The admitted position is that the appellants are the legal heirs of the
deceased appellant, Sri M.V. Ramachandrasa, who himself acquired
leasehold rights in respect of the property bearing Nos. 22 to 33
under a lease deed dated 02.02.1983 executed by Uttaradi Math
represented by its Presiding Swamiji through its power of attorney,
for a period of 55 years with liberty to sub-let the properties. It is
not in dispute that after obtaining the said lease, the landlord leased
the premises to Respondent No. 1 represented by Respondent
No. 4, under a registered lease deed dated 22.02.1985 (Document
No. 3669/1985) for a period of 53 years. Clause 19 of the lease
deed expressly restricts subletting without prior written consent of
the landlord. Since the actual and original partner of Respondent
No. 1 firm was not in occupation and possession of the premises,
520 [2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the landlord preferred eviction petition before the trial Court. After
examining the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court allowed
the petition and directed the respondents to vacate and hand over
the possession of the premises within a period of three months.
However, the High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside
the eviction order. Therefore, the present appeal at the instance of
the appellants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased
appellant / landlord.
11. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues arise for
consideration in the present appeal:
(i) Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the
findings of fact recorded by the trial Court while exercising its
revisional jurisdiction under Section 46 of the Karnataka Rent
Act, 1999?
(ii) Whether the burden of proving unlawful sub-letting lies upon
the landlord, and if so, whether such burden has been duly
discharged in the present case?
(iii) Whether the alleged retirement of the original tenant – partner
and continuation of business by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
constitutes a mere reconstitution of partnership or amounts to
unlawful sub-letting / assignment under Sections 27(2)(b)(ii)
and 27(2)(p) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999?
Issue No. 1
12. Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the
findings of fact recorded by the trial Court while exercising its
revisional jurisdiction under Section 46 of the Karnataka Rent
Act, 1999?
12.1. At the outset, it must be noted that the scope of revisional
jurisdiction under Section 46 is well-settled and narrowly
circumscribed. The provision empowers the High Court to
examine the legality, correctness or propriety of an order;
however, it does not confer appellate powers permitting
reappreciation of evidence or substitution of factual findings.
For ease of reference, the said provision reads as under:
“46. Revision.- (1) The High Court may, at any time
call for and examine any order passed or proceeding
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 521
Sri M.V. Ramachandrasa Since Deceased Represented by Legal Heirs v.
M/s Mahendra Watch Company Represented by its Partners & Ors.
taken by the Court of Small Causes or the Court
of Civil Judge Senior Division referred to in items
(i) and (ii) of clause (c) of section 3 for the purpose
satisfying itself as to the legality or correctness
of such order or proceeding and may pass such
order in reference thereto as it thinks fit.
(2) The District Judge may at any time call for and
examine any order passed or proceeding taken by
the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division referred to in
item (iii) of clause (c) of section 3 for the purpose of
such order or proceeding and may pass such order
in reference thereto as he thinks fit.
(3) The costs incidental to all proceedings before
the High Court or the District Judge shall be in the
discretion of the High Court or the District Judge as
the case may be.
12.2. In Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana and
others9, this Court held that even where the statutory language
appears wide, the revisional court cannot act as a court of
appeal and undertake a fresh evaluation of evidence. It was
categorically observed that the High Court cannot reappreciate
oral and documentary evidence under the guise of examining
“propriety” as doing so would obliterate the distinction between
appellate and revisional jurisdiction. The following paragraphs
are pertinent:
“9. Notwithstanding the fact that Section 20 of the
Act conferring revisional jurisdiction of the High
Court is widely worded, such a jurisdiction cannot be
converted into an appellate jurisdiction. This Court
in Rai Chand Jain v. Chandra Kanta Khosla10 has
clearly pointed out the scope of such revisional
jurisdiction and has held that it cannot act as a
second court of appeal. Therefore, the impugned
order is liable to be set aside. Without prejudice to
9 (1993) 1 SCC 499
10 (1991) 1 SCC 422
522 [2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the above, it is submitted that this Court in Aundal
Ammal v. Sadasivan Pillai11 has held that no second
revision is permissible to the High Court either under
Section 115 of the Code or under Section 20 of the
Act. The District Court has exercised the revisional
jurisdiction. Hence, the remit order in C.R.P. No.
1719 of 1985 is void and is illegal. If that remit order
goes, what remains is only the revisional order of the
District Court, Kollam, confirming the appellate order
directing revision on the ground of bona fide need.
Hence, the impugned order calls for interference.”
“20. We are afraid this approach of the High Court
is wrong. Even the wider language of Section 20
of the Act cannot enable the High Court to act
as a first or a second court of appeal. Otherwise,
the distinction between appellate and revisional
jurisdiction will get obliterated. Hence, the High
Court was not right in re-appreciating the entire
evidence both oral or documentary in the light
of the Commissioner’s report (Exts. C-1 and C-2
mahazar). In our considered view, the High Court
had travelled far beyond the revisional jurisdiction.
Even by the presence of the word “propriety” it
cannot mean that there could be a re-appreciation of
evidence. Of course, the revisional court can come
to a different conclusion but not on a re-appreciation
of evidence; on the contrary, by confining itself to
legality, regularity and propriety of the order impugned
before it. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the
reasoning of the High Court with reference to the
exercise of revisional jurisdiction.”
12.3. The legal position stands conclusively settled by the Constitution
Bench of this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd
(supra), wherein it was held that revisional jurisdiction, though
wider than that under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code,
1908, remains qualitatively distinct from appellate jurisdiction.
11 (1987) 1 SCC 183 : AIR 1987 SC 203
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 523
Sri M.V. Ramachandrasa Since Deceased Represented by Legal Heirs v.
M/s Mahendra Watch Company Represented by its Partners & Ors.
The High Court cannot reassess or reanalyse evidence to
arrive at a different conclusion merely because another view
is possible. Interference with findings of fact is permissible
only when such findings are perverse, based on no evidence,
suffer from misreading of evidence, or result in a miscarriage
of justice. The following paragraphs are apposite:
“28. Before we consider the matter further to find
out the scope and extent of revisional jurisdiction
under the above three Rent Control Acts, a quick
observation about the “appellate jurisdiction” and
“revisional jurisdiction” is necessary. Conceptually,
revisional jurisdiction is a part of appellate
jurisdiction, but it is not vice versa. Both, appellate
jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction are creatures of
statutes. No party to the proceeding has an inherent
right of appeal or revision. An appeal is continuation
of suit or original proceeding, as the case may be.
The power of the appellate court is coextensive
with that of the trial court. Ordinarily, appellate
jurisdiction involves rehearing on facts and law but
such jurisdiction may be limited by the statute itself
that provides for the appellate jurisdiction. On the
other hand, revisional jurisdiction, though, is a part
of appellate jurisdiction but ordinarily it cannot be
equated with that of a full-fledged appeal. In other
words, revision is not continuation of suit or of original
proceeding. When the aid of Revisional Court is
invoked on the revisional side, it can interfere within
the permissible parameters provided in the statute.
It goes without saying that if a revision is provided
against an order passed by the Tribunal/appellate
authority, the decision of the Revisional Court is the
operative decision in law. In our view, as regards the
extent of appellate or revisional jurisdiction, much
would, however, depend on the language employed
by the statute conferring appellate jurisdiction and
revisional jurisdiction.”
“31. We are in full agreement with the view expressed
in Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works v. Rangaswamy
524 [2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Chettiar12 that where both expressions “appeal”
and “revision” are employed in a statute,
obviously, the expression “revision” is meant to
convey the idea of a much narrower jurisdiction
than that conveyed by the expression “appeal”.
The use of two expressions “appeal” and
“revision” when used in one statute conferring
appellate power and revisional power, we think, is
not without purpose and significance. Ordinarily,
appellate jurisdiction involves a rehearing while it
is not so in the case of revisional jurisdiction when
the same statute provides the remedy by way of
an “appeal” and so also of a “revision”. If that were
so, the revisional power would become coextensive
with that of the trial court or the subordinate tribunal
which is never the case. The classic statement in
Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate v. Vithalrao
Maruthirao Janagaval13 that revisional power under
the Rent Control Act may not be as narrow as the
revisional power under Section 115 of the Code but,
at the same time, it is not wide enough to make the
High Court a second court of first appeal, commends
to us and we approve the same. We are of the view
that in the garb of revisional jurisdiction under the
above three rent control statutes, the High Court is
not conferred a status of second court of first appeal
and the High Court should not enlarge the scope of
revisional jurisdiction to that extent.”
“33. Rai Chand Jain v. Chandra Kanta Khosla14
that follows Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander15, also
does not lay down that the High Court in exercise
of its power under the Rent Control Act may
reverse the findings of fact merely because on
reappreciation of the evidence it has a different
12 (1980) 4 SCC 259
13 (1975) 2 SCC 246
14 (1991) 1 SCC 422
15 (1988) 3 SCC 131
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 525
Sri M.V. Ramachandrasa Since Deceased Represented by Legal Heirs v.
M/s Mahendra Watch Company Represented by its Partners & Ors.
view on the findings of fact. The observations made
by this Court in Rai Chand Jain must also be read
in the context we have explained Ram Dass”
“36. The statement in M.S. Zahed v. K. Raghavan16
that under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control
Act, the High Court is entitled to reappreciate the
evidence with a view to find out whether the order
of Small Cause Court is legal and correct must be
understood in the light of the observations made
therein, namely, that revisional power cannot be
equated with the power of reconsideration of all
questions of fact as a court of first appeal.”
“43. We hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent
Control Acts entitles the High Court to interfere with
the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court/
first appellate authority because on reappreciation of
the evidence, its view is different from the court/
authority below. The consideration or examination
of the evidence by the High Court in revisional
jurisdiction under these Acts is confined to find
out that finding of facts recorded by the court/
authority below is according to law and does
not suffer from any error of law. A finding of fact
recorded by court/authority below, if perverse or
has been arrived at without consideration of the
material evidence or such finding is based on
no evidence or misreading of the evidence or
is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it
would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is
open to correction because it is not treated as
a finding according to law. In that event, the High
Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under
the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set
aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper.
The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself as to
the correctness or legality or propriety of any
16 (1999) 1 SCC 439
526 [2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
decision or order impugned before it as indicated
above. However, to satisfy itself to the regularity,
correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned
decision or the order, the High Court shall not
exercise its power as an appellate power to
reappreciate or reassess the evidence for coming
to a different finding on facts. Revisional power
is not and cannot be equated with the power of
reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court
of first appeal. Where the High Court is required to
be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it
may examine whether the order impugned before it
suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity.”
12.4. This principle has been consistently reiterated including in
Thankamony Amma and others v. Omana Amma N. and
others17, where this Court disapproved reappreciation of
evidence in exercise of revisional powers.
12.5. Applying the aforesaid principles, it is evident that the trial
Court upon a detailed appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence, recorded specific findings of fact. These included
material discrepancies in the respondents’ case inter alia
inconsistencies regarding the dates relating to purchase
and stamping of stamp paper, non-production of the original
partnership deed dated 01.03.2000, absence of proof of
retirement of the original partner, and lack of written consent
from the landlord for induction of alleged partners. These
findings were based on the evidence on record and were
neither shown to be perverse nor vitiated by any illegality or
procedural irregularity.
12.6. However, the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under
Section 46, undertook a fresh analysis of the evidence,
including depositions of PW-1 (M.R.Goverdhan) and RW-1
(Mohanlal), partnership documents, and rent receipts, and
arrived at independent factual conclusions. Such an exercise
clearly amounts to reappreciation of evidence, which is
impermissible in revisional jurisdiction.
17 (2020) 19 SCC 254
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 527
Sri M.V. Ramachandrasa Since Deceased Represented by Legal Heirs v.
M/s Mahendra Watch Company Represented by its Partners & Ors.
12.7. It is also significant that the statutory scheme provides for an
appeal under Section 26 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. Where
the legislature has consciously created a separate appellate
remedy, the revisional jurisdiction cannot be expanded so as
to substitute or bypass the appellate mechanism.
12.8. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the findings recorded by the trial Court were pure findings
of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence. No perversity,
illegality, or jurisdictional error has been demonstrated.
12.9. Accordingly, the High Court transgressed the limits of its
revisional jurisdiction by reassessing the evidence and
substituting its own conclusions. The impugned interference
under Section 46 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is therefore
unsustainable in law as it effectively converts revisional
jurisdiction into appellate jurisdiction.
Issue No. 2
13. Whether the burden of proving unlawful sub-letting lies upon
the landlord, and if so, whether such burden has been duly
discharged in the present case?
13.1. It is a settled principle of law that the burden of proof lies upon
the party asserting a fact. In eviction proceedings founded on
the ground of sub-letting, the initial onus rests upon the landlord
to establish that the tenant has parted with possession of the
tenanted premises in favour of a third party without authority.
13.2. The jurisprudence on this issue is well crystallized. In
Associated Hotels of India Ltd v. S.B. Sardar Ranjit Singh
(supra), this Court held that the landlord must first prove
parting with possession. However, recognizing the inherently
clandestine nature of sub-letting arrangements, courts have
evolved a rule of evidence that once exclusive possession of
a third party is established, the burden shifts to the tenant to
explain the nature of such possession.
13.3. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed in Joginder
Singh Sodhi v. Amar Kaur18, and further authoritatively
18 (2005) 1 SCC 31
528 [2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
expounded by a three Judge Bench in Mahendra Saree
Emporium (II) v. G.V. Srinivasa Murthy (supra), wherein it
was held that once a prima facie case of exclusive possession
by a stranger is made out, a presumption of sub-letting arises,
thereby shifting the onus onto the tenant.
13.4. In Ram Murti Devi v. Pushpa Devi and others 19, after
considering the earlier precedents, the Court reiterated that
direct evidence of sub-letting is seldom available, and the same
can be inferred from surrounding circumstances, particularly
where exclusive possession of a third party is established. The
relevant paragraphs are extracted below for better appreciation:
“17.……. This Court held in the above case that
transaction of sub-letting in their very nature
are clandestine arrangements between tenant
and sub-tenant and there cannot be any direct
evidence and even it is a matter of legitimate
inference. It was further held that burden of
proof of establishing fact although lies on the
landlord but it may shift according to the weight
of evidence adduced by the party during the trial.
18. In Kala v. Madho Parshad Vaidya20, again the
Court held that the onus of proof is on the landlord
and if he establishes the parting of with the possession
in favour of third party, the onus would shift to the
tenant to explain. In para 16 following has been
explained: (SCC p. 577)
“16. … The onus to prove sub-letting is on the landlord
and if he establishes parting of with the possession
in favour of a third party, the onus would shift to the
tenant to explain. In the instant case, however, the
landlord did not discharge the initial onus and although
it was not required, yet, the tenant explained how
Appellant 2 had the permissive possession of the
shop as its Manager.”
19 (2017) 15 SCC 230
20 (1998) 6 SCC 573
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 529
Sri M.V. Ramachandrasa Since Deceased Represented by Legal Heirs v.
M/s Mahendra Watch Company Represented by its Partners & Ors.
19. This Court in Joginder Singh Sodhi v. Amar
Kaur, had occasion to consider various aspects of
sub-letting. After noticing the various earlier judgments
of this Court, this Court reiterated the law in para 13
to para 17, which are to the following effect: (SCC
pp. 36-37)
“13. Regarding sub-letting, in our opinion, the
law is well settled. It is observed in the leading
case of Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. S.B.
Sardar Ranjit Singh that in a suit by the landlord
for eviction of tenant on the ground of sub-letting,
the landlord has to prove by leading evidence that
(i) a third party was found to be in exclusive
possession of the rented property, and (ii)
parting of possession thereof was for monetary
consideration.
14. The above principle was reiterated by this Court
from time to time. In Shama Prashant Raje v.
Ganpatrao21, the Court stated that on sub-letting,
there is no dispute with the proposition that the
two ingredients, namely, parting with possession
and monetary consideration therefore have to be
established.
…..
16. The contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant, however, is that even if it is assumed that
one of the ingredients of sub-letting was established,
the second ingredient, namely, parting of possession
with “monetary consideration” was not established.
The counsel urged that there is no evidence on record
that any amount was paid either in cash or in kind
by Respondent 2 to Respondent 1. In the absence
of such evidence sub-tenancy cannot be said to be
established and the landlady was not entitled to get
an order of eviction against the tenant.
21 (2000) 7 SCC 522
530 [2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
17. We are unable to appreciate the contention.
As observed by this Court in Bharat Sales Ltd.
v. LIC 22, sub-tenancy or sub-letting comes into
existence when the tenant gives up possession of the
tenanted accommodation, wholly or in part, and puts
another person in exclusive possession thereof. This
arrangement comes about obviously under a mutual
agreement or understanding between the tenant and
the person to whom the possession is so delivered.
In this process, the landlord is kept out of the
scene. Rather, the scene is enacted behind the
back of the landlord, concealing the overt acts
and transferring possession clandestinely to a
person who is an utter stranger to the landlord,
in the sense that the landlord had not let out the
premises to that person nor had he allowed or
consented to his entering into possession of that
person, instead of the tenant, which ultimately
reveals to the landlord that tenant to whom the
property was let out has put some other person
in possession of that property. In such a situation,
it would be difficult for the landlord to prove, by direct
evidence, the contract or agreement or understanding
between the tenant and the sub-tenant. It would
also be difficult for the landlord to prove, by direct
evidence, that the person to whom the property had
been sub-let had paid monetary consideration to the
tenant. Payment of rent, undoubtedly, is an essential
element of lease or sub-lease. It may be paid in cash
or in kind or may have been paid or promised to be
paid. It may have been paid in lump sum in advance
covering the period for which the premises is let out
or sub-let or it may have been paid or promised to be
paid periodically. Since payment of rent or monetary
consideration may have been made secretly, the
law does not require such payment to be proved
by affirmative evidence and the court is permitted
to draw its own inference upon the facts of the
22 (1998) 3 SCC 1
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 531
Sri M.V. Ramachandrasa Since Deceased Represented by Legal Heirs v.
M/s Mahendra Watch Company Represented by its Partners & Ors.
case proved at the trial, including the delivery of
exclusive possession to infer that the premises
were sub-let.”
(emphasis in original)
20. A three-Judge Bench in Mahendra Saree
Emporium (2) v. G.V. Srinivasa Murthy, had
occasion to consider the question of sub-letting (sub-
tenancy) and question of burden of proof. In para 16,
the Court had elaborated the concept of sub-letting
and laid down the following: (SCC pp. 490-91)
“16. ..........The onus to prove sub-letting is on the
landlord. If the landlord prima facie shows that
the occupant, who was in exclusive possession
of the premises, let out for valuable consideration,
it would then be for the tenant to rebut the
evidence.”
Thus, in the case of sub-letting, the onus lying on the
landlord would stand discharged by adducing prima
facie proof of the fact that the alleged sub-tenant
was in exclusive possession of the premises or, to
borrow the language of Section 105 of the Transfer
of Property Act, was holding right to enjoy such
property. A presumption of sub-letting may then be
raised and would amount to proof unless rebutted.”
21. From the pronouncements of this Court as noticed
above, following statement of law can be culled out:
21.1. In a suit by the landlord for eviction of the tenant
on the ground of sub-letting the landlord has to prove
by leading evidence that:
(a) A third party was found to be in exclusive
possession of the whole or part of rented property.
(b) Parting of possession thereof was for monetary
consideration.
21.2. The onus to prove sub-letting is on the landlord
and if he has established parting of possession in
532 [2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
favour of a third party either wholly or partly, the onus
would shift to the tenant to explain.
21.3. In the event, possession of the tenant wholly
or partly is proved and the particulars and the
instances of the transactions are found acceptable,
in particular facts and circumstances of the case, it is
not impermissible for the court to draw an inference
that the transaction was entered with monetary
consideration. It may not be possible always to give
direct evidence of monetary consideration since such
transaction of sub-letting are made between the tenant
and sub-tenant behind the back of the landlord.
22. In each case, the proof of sub-letting/sub-tenancy
thus, has to be established on the parameters of
law, as laid down in the above cases. Whether, in
particular facts and circumstances the landlord has
successfully discharged the burden of proving sub-
tenancy depends on pleading and evidence in each
case.”
13.5. Thus, the legal position that emerges is that the landlord
discharges the initial burden by establishing (i) exclusive
possession of a third party, and (ii) absence of the original
tenant from possession. Upon such proof, a presumption
of sub-letting arises, and the onus shifts to the tenant to
demonstrate that such possession is lawful and not in the
nature of sub-tenancy.
13.6. Applying the aforesaid principles, it is evident that the landlord
has successfully discharged the initial burden. The lease deed
recognizes only Respondent No. 4 as the tenant. Respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 are not parties to the lease and therefore,
cannot claim any independent tenancy rights. The material
on record clearly establishes that the original tenant is no
longer in possession, and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are in
exclusive occupation of the premises. This finding has been
categorically recorded by the trial Court. In such circumstances,
the landlord has successfully proved exclusive possession of
third parties thereby discharging the initial burden and giving
rise to a presumption of unlawful sub-letting.
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 533
Sri M.V. Ramachandrasa Since Deceased Represented by Legal Heirs v.
M/s Mahendra Watch Company Represented by its Partners & Ors.
13.7. The burden, therefore, shifted upon the respondents to rebut
the said presumption. However, the respondents have failed
to discharge this burden. No cogent or reliable evidence has
been adduced to establish the existence of a valid partnership,
reconstitution deed, lawful induction, or consent of the landlord
to such arrangement. In the absence of such evidence, the
possession of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 remains unexplained
and unlawful. As held in Joginder Singh Sodhi, direct proof
of monetary consideration is not indispensable and may be
legitimately inferred from the surrounding circumstances,
particularly where exclusive possession is established without
lawful explanation.
13.8. Accordingly, this Court holds that the burden of proving
unlawful sub-letting initially lay upon the landlord, which has
been duly discharged by establishing exclusive possession of
third parties and absence of the original tenant. The burden
thereafter shifted to the respondents, who have failed to rebut
the presumption by adducing cogent evidence. Consequently,
unlawful sub-letting stands proved.
Issue No. 3
14. Whether the alleged retirement of the original tenant – partner
and continuation of business by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
constitutes a mere reconstitution of partnership or amounts
to unlawful sub-letting / assignment under Sections 27(2)(b)(ii)
and 27(2)(p) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999?
14.1. The law governing sub-letting through the device of partnership
is well-settled and no longer res integra. In Amar Nath
Agarwalla v. Dhillon Transport Agency23, this Court reiterated
that a partnership firm is not a separate legal entity but
merely a compendious name for its partners, and that sub-
letting necessarily involves parting with legal possession. The
following paragraphs are pertinent:
“8. In Murlidhar v. Chuni Lal24 this Court had repelled
the contention that the old firm and the new firm being
23 (2007) 4 SCC 306
24 1969 Ren CR 563 : 1970 Ren CJ 922 (SC)
534 [2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
two different legal entities, the occupation of the shop
by the new firm was occupation by the legal entity
other than the original tenant and such occupation
proved sub-letting. Repelling the contention this
Court held:
“This contention is entirely without substance. A
firm, unless expressly provided for the purpose
of any statute which is not the case here, is not
a legal entity. The firm name is only a compendious
way of describing the partners of the firm. Therefore,
occupation by a firm is only occupation by its
partners. Here the firms have a common partner.
Hence the occupation has been by one of the
original tenants.”
9. In Mohammedkasam Haji Gulambhai v. Bakerali
Fatehali25 this Court observed: (SCC p. 618, para 13)
“There is absolute prohibition on the tenant
from sub-letting, assigning or transferring in
any other manner his interest in the tenanted
premises. There appears to be no way around
this subject of course if there is any contract to
the contrary between the landlord and the tenant.
In a partnership where the tenant is a partner,
he retains legal possession of the premises as
a partnership is a compendium of the names of
all the partners. In a partnership, the tenant does
not divest himself of his right in the premises.
On the question of sub-letting etc. the law is now
very explicit. There is prohibition in absolute
terms on the tenant from sub-letting, assignment
or disposition of his interest in the tenanted
premises.”
14.2. This position has been comprehensively analysed in Celina
Coelho Pereira (Ms) and others v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar
25 (1998) 7 SCC 608
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 535
Sri M.V. Ramachandrasa Since Deceased Represented by Legal Heirs v.
M/s Mahendra Watch Company Represented by its Partners & Ors.
Kholkar and others26, wherein the Court, after considering
earlier precedents, distilled the governing principles. The
following paragraphs are pertinent:
“17. In Helper Girdharbhai v. Saiyed Mohmad
Mirasaheb Kadri27 this Court held that in a case
where a tenant becomes a partner of a partnership
firm and allows the firm to carry on business in the
demised premises while he himself retains legal
possession thereof, the act of the tenant does not
amount to sub-letting. It was held that whether there
is genuine partnership or not must be judged in
the facts of each case in the light of the principles
applicable to partnership.
18. While dealing with the mischief contemplated
under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control
Act, 1958 providing for eviction on the ground of
sub-letting, this Court in Jagan Nath v. Chander
Bhan28 held: (SCC p. 61, para 6)
“6. The question for consideration is whether the
mischief contemplated under Section 14(1)(b) of
the Act has been committed as the tenant had
sub-let, assigned, or otherwise parted with the
possession of the whole or part of the premises
without obtaining the consent in writing of the
landlord. There is no dispute that there was
no consent in writing of the landlord in this
case. There is also no evidence that there has
been any sub-letting or assignment. The only
ground perhaps upon which the landlord was
seeking eviction was parting with possession.
It is well settled that parting with possession
meant giving possession to persons other than
those to whom possession had been given by
the lease and the parting with possession must
26 (2010) 1 SCC 217
27 (1987) 3 SCC 538
28 (1988) 3 SCC 57
536 [2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
have been by the tenant; user by other person
is not parting with possession so long as the
tenant retains the legal possession himself, or in
other words there must be vesting of possession
by the tenant in another person by divesting
himself not only of physical possession but
also of the right to possession. So long as the
tenant retains the right to possession there is
no parting with possession in terms of clause
(b) of Section 14(1) of the Act. Even though
the father had retired from the business and
the sons had been looking after the business,
in the facts of this case, it cannot be said that
the father had divested himself of the legal right
to be in possession. If the father has a right to
displace the possession of the occupants i.e.
his sons, it cannot be said that the tenant had
parted with possession.”
19. The question whether the tenant has assigned,
sub-let or otherwise parted with the possession
of the whole or any part of the premises without
the permission of the landlord within the meaning
of Section 13(1)(e) of the Rajasthan Premises
(Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 fell for
consideration in Gopal Saran v. Satyanarayana29.
This Court held: (SCC pp. 69-70, para 16)
“16. … Sub-letting means transfer of an
exclusive right to enjoy the property in favour
of the third party. In this connection, reference
may be made to the decision of this Court in
Shalimar Tar Products Ltd. v. H.C. Sharma30
where it was held that to constitute a sub-letting,
there must be a parting of legal possession
i.e. possession with the right to include and
also right to exclude others and whether
29 (1989) 3 SCC 56
30 (1988) 1 SCC 70
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 537
Sri M.V. Ramachandrasa Since Deceased Represented by Legal Heirs v.
M/s Mahendra Watch Company Represented by its Partners & Ors.
in a particular case there was sub-letting
was substantially a question of fact. In that
case, a reference was made at SCC p. 77,
para 16 of the Report to the treatise of Foa on
Landlord and Tenant, 6th Edn., at p. 323, for
the proposition that:
‘The mere act of letting other persons into
possession by the tenant, and permitting
them to use the premises for their own
purposes, is not so long as he retains the
legal possession himself, a breach of the
covenant.’
In para 17 of the Report, it was observed
that parting of the legal possession means
possession with the right to include and also
right to exclude others. In the last mentioned
case, the observations of the Madras High
Court in Gundalapalli Rangamannar Chetty v.
Desu Rangiah31 were approved by this Court in
which the legal position in Jackson v. Simons32
were relied upon. The Madras High Court had
also relied on a judgment of Scrutton, L.J.
in Chaplin v. Smith33 at p. 211 of the Report
where it was said:
‘He did not assign, nor did he under-let. He
was constantly on the premises himself and
kept the key of them. He did business of his
own as well as business of the company.
In my view he allowed the company to use
the premises while he himself remained in
possession of them.’
This position was also accepted in Vishwa
Nath v. Chaman Lal Khanna 34 wherein it
31 AIR 1954 Mad 182
32 (1923) 1 Ch 373 : 1922 All ER Rep 583
33 (1926) 1 KB 198 (CA)
34 AIR 1975 Del 117
538 [2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
was observed that parting with possession is
understood as parting with legal possession
by one in favour of the other by giving him
an exclusive possession to the ouster of
the grantor. If the grantor had retained legal
possession with him it was not a case of parting
with possession.”
The Court also reiterated that to prove sub-tenancy,
two ingredients have to be established, firstly, the
tenant must have exclusive right of possession or
interests in the premises or part of the premises in
question and secondly, the right must be in lieu of
payment of some compensation or rent.
20. In G.K. Bhatnagar v. Abdul Alim35 this Court
held as follows:(SCC p. 518, para 5)
“5. A conjoint reading of these provisions
shows that on and after 9-6-1952, sub-letting,
assigning or otherwise parting with the
possession of the whole or any part of the
tenancy premises, without obtaining the
consent in writing of the landlord, is not
permitted and if done, the same provides
a ground for eviction of the tenant by the
landlord. However, inducting a partner in his
business or profession by the tenant is permitted
so long as such partnership is genuine. If the
purpose of such partnership may ostensibly
be to carry on the business or profession in
partnership, but the real purpose be sub-letting
of the premises to such other person who is
inducted ostensibly as a partner, then the same
shall be deemed to be an act of sub-letting
attracting the applicability of clause (b) of sub-
section (1) of Section 14 of the Act.”
35 (2002) 9 SCC 516
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 539
Sri M.V. Ramachandrasa Since Deceased Represented by Legal Heirs v.
M/s Mahendra Watch Company Represented by its Partners & Ors.
21. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Parvinder
Singh v. Renu Gautam 36 commented upon the
device adopted by tenants many a time in creating
partnership as a camouflage to circumvent the
provisions of the Rent Control Act. The following
observations are worth noticing: (SCC pp. 799-800,
paras 8-9)
“8. The rent control legislations which extend
many a protection to the tenant, also provide
for grounds of eviction. One such ground, most
common in all the legislations, is sub-letting
or parting with possession of the tenancy
premises by the tenant. Rent control laws
usually protect the tenant so long as he
may himself use the premises but not his
transferee inducted into possession of the
premises, in breach of the contract or the
law, which act is often done with the object
of illegitimate profiteering or rack-renting.
To defeat the provisions of law, a device is at
times adopted by unscrupulous tenants and
sub-tenants of bringing into existence a deed
of partnership which gives the relationship of
tenant and sub-tenant an outward appearance
of partnership while in effect what has come
into existence is a sub-tenancy or parting with
possession camouflaged under the cloak of
partnership. Merely because a tenant has
entered into a partnership he cannot necessarily
be held to have sub-let the premises or parted
with possession thereof in favour of his partners.
If the tenant is actively associated with the
partnership business and retains the use
and control over the tenancy premises with
him, maybe along with the partners, the
tenant may not be said to have parted with
possession. However, if the user and control
36 (2004) 4 SCC 794
540 [2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
of the tenancy premises has been parted
with and deed of partnership has been drawn
up as an indirect method of collecting the
consideration for creation of sub-tenancy or
for providing a cloak or cover to conceal a
transaction not permitted by law, the court
is not estopped from tearing the veil of
partnership and finding out the real nature of
transaction entered into between the tenant
and the alleged sub-tenant.
9. A person having secured a lease of premises
for the purpose of his business may be in need
of capital or finance or someone to assist him in
his business and to achieve such like purpose he
may enter into partnership with strangers. Quite
often partnership is entered into between the
members of any family as a part of tax planning.
There is no stranger brought on the premises.
So long as the premises remain in occupation
of the tenant or in his control, a mere entering
into partnership may not provide a ground for
eviction by running into conflict with prohibition
against sub-letting or parting with possession.
This is a general statement of law which ought
to be read in the light of the lease agreement
and the law governing the tenancy. There are
cases wherein the tenant sub-lets the premises
or parts with possession in defiance of the terms
of lease or the rent control legislation and in order
to save himself from the peril of eviction brings
into existence, a deed of partnership between
him and his sub-lessee to act as a cloak on
the reality of the transaction. The existence of
deed of partnership between the tenant and
the alleged sub-tenant would not preclude
the landlord from bringing on record material
and circumstances, by adducing evidence or
by means of cross-examination, making out a
case of sub-letting or parting with possession
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 541
Sri M.V. Ramachandrasa Since Deceased Represented by Legal Heirs v.
M/s Mahendra Watch Company Represented by its Partners & Ors.
or interest in tenancy premises by the tenant in
favour of a third person. The rule as to exclusion
of oral by documentary evidence governs the
parties to the deed in writing. A stranger to the
document is not bound by the terms of the
document and is, therefore, not excluded from
demonstrating the untrue or collusive nature of
the document or the fraudulent or illegal purpose
for which it was brought into being. An enquiry
into reality of transaction is not excluded merely
by availability of writing reciting the transaction.”
22. In yet another decision, a three-Judge Bench of
this Court in Mahendra Saree Emporium (II) v. G.V.
Srinivasa Murthy considered earlier decisions, few of
which have been referred to above, while dealing with
a matter relating to sub-letting of the premises within
the meaning of Section 21(1)(f) of the Karnataka
Rent Control Act, 1961 and observed as follows:
(SCC pp. 490-92, para 16)
“16. The term ‘sub-let’ is not defined in the Act-
new or old. However, the definition of ‘lease’
can be adopted mutatis mutandis for defining
‘sub-lease’. What is ‘lease’ between the owner
of the property and his tenant becomes a sub-
lease when entered into between the tenant
and tenant of the tenant, the latter being
sub-tenant qua the owner landlord. A lease
of immovable property as defined in Section
105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is a
transfer of a right to enjoy such property made
for a certain time for consideration of a price
paid or promised. A transfer of a right to enjoy
such property to the exclusion of all others
during the term of the lease is sine qua non of
a lease. A sub-lease would imply parting with
by the tenant of the right to enjoy such property
in favour of his sub-tenant. Different types of
phraseology are employed by different State
Legislatures making provision for eviction on the
542 [2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
ground of sub-letting. Under Section 21(1)(f) of
the old Act, the phraseology employed is quite
wide. It embraces within its scope sub-letting
of the whole or part of the premises as also
assignment or transfer in any other manner of
the lessee’s interest in the tenancy premises.
The exact nature of transaction entered into
or arrangement or understanding arrived at
between the tenant and alleged sub-tenant
may not be in the knowledge of the landlord
and such a transaction being unlawful would
obviously be entered into in secrecy depriving
the owner landlord of the means of ascertaining
the facts about the same. However still, the rent
control legislation being protective for the tenant
and eviction being not permissible except on
the availability of ground therefor having been
made out to the satisfaction of the court or the
Controller, the burden of proving the availability
of the ground is cast on the landlord i.e. the one
who seeks eviction. In Krishnawati v. Hans
Raj37 reiterating the view taken in Associated
Hotels of India Ltd. v. S.B. Sardar Ranjit Singh
this Court so noted the settled law: (Hans Raj
case , SCC p. 293, para 6)
‘6. … [T]he onus to prove sub-letting is on the
landlord. If the landlord prima facie shows
that the occupant who was in exclusive
possession of the premises let out for
valuable consideration, it would then be for
the tenant to rebut the evidence.’
Thus, in the case of sub-letting, the onus lying on the
landlord would stand discharged by adducing prima
facie proof of the fact that the alleged sub-tenant
was in exclusive possession of the premises or, to
borrow the language of Section 105 of the Transfer of
37 (1974) 1 SCC 289
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 543
Sri M.V. Ramachandrasa Since Deceased Represented by Legal Heirs v.
M/s Mahendra Watch Company Represented by its Partners & Ors.
Property Act, was holding right to enjoy such property.
A presumption of sub-letting may then be raised and
would amount to proof unless rebutted. In the context
of the premises having been sub-let or possession
parted with by the tenant by adopting the device of
entering into partnership, it would suffice for us to
notice three decisions of this Court. Murlidhar v.
Chuni Lal is a case where a shop was let out to a firm
of the name of Chuni Lal Gherulal. The firm consisted
of three partners, namely, Chuni Lal, Gherulal and
Meghraj. This partnership closed and a new firm
by the name of Meghraj Bansidhar commenced
its business with partners Meghraj and Bansidhar.
The tenant firm was sought to be evicted on the
ground that the old firm and the new firm being
two different legal entities, the occupation of the
shop by the new firm amounted to sub-letting.
This Court discarded the contention as ‘entirely
without substance’ and held that a partnership
firm is not a legal entity; the firm name is only a
compendious way of describing the partners of
the firm. Therefore, occupation by a firm is only
occupation by its partners. The two firms, old and
new, had a common partner, namely, Meghraj, who
continued to be in possession and it was fallacious
to contend that earlier he was in possession in the
capacity of partner of the old firm and later as a partner
of the new firm. The landlord, in order to succeed, has
to prove it as a fact that there was a sub-letting by
his tenant to another firm. As the premises continued
to be in possession of one of the original tenants,
Meghraj, then by a mere change in the constitution of
the firm of which Meghraj continued to be a partner,
an inference as to sub-letting could not be drawn in
the absence of further evidence having been adduced
to establish sub-letting. In Helper Girdharbhai v.
Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri the tenant had
entered into a partnership and the firm was carrying
on business in the tenancy premises. This Court
held that if there was a partnership firm of which the
544 [2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
appellant was a partner as a tenant, the same would
not amount to sub-letting leading to forfeiture of the
tenancy; for there cannot be a sub-letting unless the
lessee parted with the legal possession. The mere fact
that another person is allowed to use the premises
while the lessee retains the legal possession is not
enough to create a sub-lease. Thus, the thrust is,
as laid down by this Court, on finding out who is in
legal possession of the premises. So long as the
legal possession remains with the tenant the mere
factum of the tenant having entered into partnership
for the purpose of carrying on the business in the
tenancy premises would not amount to sub-letting.
In Parvinder Singh v. Renu Gautam a three-Judge
Bench of this Court devised the test in these terms:
(SCC p. 799, para 8)
‘8. … If the tenant is actively associated with
the partnership business and retains the use
and control over the tenancy premises with him,
maybe along with the partners, the tenant may
not be said to have parted with possession.
However, if the user and control of the tenancy
premises has been parted with and deed of
partnership has been drawn up as an indirect
method of collecting the consideration for
creation of sub-tenancy or for providing a cloak
or cover to conceal a transaction not permitted
by law, the court is not estopped from tearing
the veil of partnership and finding out the real
nature of transaction entered into between the
tenant and the alleged sub-tenant.’ ”
23. In Vaishakhi Ram v. Sanjeev Kumar Bhatiani38,
one of us (Tarun Chatterjee, J.) in a case of sub-
letting under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent
Control Act, held: (SCC pp. 360 & 362, paras 15
& 21)
38 (2008) 14 SCC 356
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 545
Sri M.V. Ramachandrasa Since Deceased Represented by Legal Heirs v.
M/s Mahendra Watch Company Represented by its Partners & Ors.
“15. … A plain reading of this provision would
show that if a tenant has sub-let or assigned
or otherwise parted with the possession of
the whole or any part of the premises without
obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord,
he would be liable to be evicted from the said
premises. That is to say, the following ingredients
must be satisfied before an order of eviction can
be passed on the ground of sub-letting:
(1) the tenant has sub-let or assigned or parted
with the possession of the whole or any part of
the premises;
(2) such sub-letting or assigning or parting with
the possession has been done without obtaining
the consent in writing of the landlord.
…
21. It is well settled that the burden of proving
sub-letting is on the landlord but if the landlord
proves that the sub-tenant is in exclusive
possession of the suit premises, then the onus
is shifted to the tenant to prove that it was not
a case of sub-letting.”
24. In Nirmal Kanta v. Ashok Kumar39 this Court
held thus: (SCC p. 727, para 16)
“16. What constitutes sub-letting has
repeatedly fallen for the consideration of
this Court in various cases and it is now
well established that a sub-tenancy or a
sub-letting comes into existence when the
tenant inducts a third-party stranger to the
landlord into the tenanted accommodation
and parts with possession thereof wholly
or in part in favour of such third party and
puts him in exclusive possession thereof.
39 (2008) 7 SCC 722
546 [2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
The lessor and/or a landlord seeking eviction
of a lessee or tenant alleging creation of a
sub-tenancy has to prove such allegation by
producing proper evidence to that effect. Once
it is proved that the lessee and/or tenant has
parted with exclusive possession of the demised
premises for a monetary consideration, the
creation of a sub-tenancy and/or the allegation
of sub-letting stands established.”
25. The legal position that emerges from the aforesaid
decisions can be summarised thus:
(i) In order to prove mischief of sub-letting
as a ground for eviction under rent control
laws, two ingredients have to be established,
(one) parting with possession of tenancy or
part of it by the tenant in favour of a third
party with exclusive right of possession,
and (two) that such parting with possession
has been done without the consent of the
landlord and in lieu of compensation or rent.
(ii) Inducting a partner or partners in the
business or profession by a tenant by itself
does not amount to sub-letting. However, if
the purpose of such partnership is ostensible
and a deed of partnership is drawn to conceal
the real transaction of sub-letting, the court
may tear the veil of partnership to find out
the real nature of transaction entered into
by the tenant.
(iii) The existence of deed of partnership between
the tenant and alleged sub-tenant or ostensible
transaction in any other form would not preclude
the landlord from bringing on record material
and circumstances, by adducing evidence or
by means of cross-examination, making out a
case of sub-letting or parting with possession
in tenancy premises by the tenant in favour of
a third person.
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 547
Sri M.V. Ramachandrasa Since Deceased Represented by Legal Heirs v.
M/s Mahendra Watch Company Represented by its Partners & Ors.
(iv) If the tenant is actively associated with the
partnership business and retains the control
over the tenancy premises with him, may be
along with partners, the tenant may not be said
to have parted with possession.
(v) Initial burden of proving sub-letting is on
the landlord but once he is able to establish
that a third party is in exclusive possession
of the premises and that tenant has no legal
possession of the tenanted premises, the
onus shifts to the tenant to prove the nature
of occupation of such third party and that he
(tenant) continues to hold legal possession in
tenancy premises.
(vi) In other words, initial burden lying on the
landlord would stand discharged by adducing
prima facie proof of the fact that a party other
than the tenant was in exclusive possession
of the premises. A presumption of sub-letting
may then be raised and would amount to proof
unless rebutted.”
14.3. From the above decisions, the essence of the law is that:
(i) sub-letting requires parting with legal possession, i.e.,
transfer of the right to exclusive possession;
(ii) mere induction or retirement of partners does not amount
to sub-letting so long as the tenant retains control and
legal possession;
(iii) courts are entitled to lift the veil of partnership where
it is used as a device to conceal an impermissible
transfer; and
(iv) once exclusive possession of a third party is established,
the burden shifts to the tenant to prove that the
arrangement is bona fide.
Thus, the determinative test is whether the original tenant
continues to retain legal possession and control over the
premises.
548 [2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
14.4. It is not in dispute that Respondent No. 4 alone was the
original tenant under the lease. The material on record
indicates that he retired from the business around the year
2000. Significantly, no legally admissible evidence has been
produced to establish either the factum of such retirement
in accordance with law or that he continued to retain legal
possession or control thereafter.
14.5. The respondents have failed to produce the original partnership
deed, any duly proved retirement deed, or any document
evidencing continuity of the original tenant firm. The alleged
reconstitution deed (Ex. R3), apart from being unregistered,
has not been proved in accordance with law and is shrouded
in doubt. There is also no material to show that Respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 were partners in the original tenant firm. Their
induction into possession is, therefore not traceable to the
original tenancy.
14.6. On the contrary, the material on record, including the cross-
examination of RW-1, clearly demonstrates that the original
tenant has ceased to have any role in the business or the
premises, and that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are in exclusive
possession and control. This satisfies the test of parting with
possession, both in fact and in law, as explained in Jagan
Nath v. Chander Bhan.
14.7. Once such exclusive possession by third parties is established,
the burden shifts to the respondents to prove that the
arrangement is a genuine partnership and not a device to
conceal sub-letting. The respondents have failed to discharge
this burden by producing any cogent or reliable evidence.
14.8. The mere fact that rent receipts may continue in the name of
the original tenant does not advance the respondents’ case,
as it is legal possession and control and not the formality of
rent payment, which is determinative.
14.9. In the present case, the original tenant has clearly divested
himself of legal possession, and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3,
who are strangers to the tenancy, are in exclusive occupation
of the premises without the consent of the landlord. The
so-called reconstitution is nothing but a cloak to conceal an
unlawful transfer of possession, warranting lifting of the veil.
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 549
Sri M.V. Ramachandrasa Since Deceased Represented by Legal Heirs v.
M/s Mahendra Watch Company Represented by its Partners & Ors.
14.10. Accordingly, the arrangement cannot be regarded as a
bona fide reconstitution of partnership. It squarely amounts
to unlawful sub-letting / assignment within the meaning of
Section 27(2)(b)(ii) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. Further,
the continued occupation by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
without any lawful right, attracts Section 27(2)(p) of the Act.
The respondents are, therefore, liable to eviction.
15. For the reasons aforesaid, the Civil Appeal is allowed. The judgment
and order dated 23.05.2023 passed by the High Court in House
Rent Revision Petition No. 56 of 2017 is set aside and the order
dated 14.07.2017 passed by the trial Court in H.R.C. No. 63 of 2016
directing eviction of the respondents from the schedule premises
is restored. The respondents are granted three months’ time from
today to vacate and handover vacant possession of the premises
to the appellants. There shall be no order as to costs.
16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Revisional jurisdiction"Sign in to search