Does production of rent receipts under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act constitute prima facie proof of landlord-tenant relationship, permitting eviction proceedings to continue despite title disputes?

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• Clarifies that rent receipts acknowledging payment, if produced and prima facie genuine, satisfy the initial burden under Section 43 and permit eviction proceedings to proceed.
• Holds that once Section 43’s threshold is met, the Rent Controller need not adjudicate title disputes; those must go to a civil court if genuineness is challenged.
• Restricts High Courts in revision from re-weighing factual evidence and conducting fresh fact-finding on jural relationship in eviction matters.
• Reinforces the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 43, helping lawyers frame eviction petitions and resist over-reaching revision challenges.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

1. Section 43(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act allows a court, upon dispute over landlord-tenant relationship, to accept a lease document or, in its absence, a rent receipt as prima facie evidence and proceed with eviction hearing.
2. Section 43(2) requires referral to a civil court only if the lease is oral and no receipt is produced, or if the court suspects the genuineness of lease/receipt.
3. Section 3(e) defines “landlord” broadly to include those entitled to receive rent on their own account or as trustees.
4. The appellant-landlord produced original rent receipts dated 20-07-2015 showing rent from 01-02-2013 to 31-05-2014, discharging the prima facie burden.
5. The High Court improperly used its revisional jurisdiction to reassess lineage and signature genuineness, exceeding its statutory remit.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner

• Produced rent receipts signed by the landlord to establish jural relationship under Section 43.
• Title disputes beyond Rent Controller’s remit; eviction petition correctly heard on merits.

Respondent

• Denies any landlord-tenant relationship; claims title lies with a religious mutt and appellant’s lineage is unproven.
• Challenges genuineness of rent-receipt signatures; argues appellant not true owner.

Factual Background

The appellant filed an eviction petition on 07-10-2016 under Sections 27(2)(a), (e), (g), (o) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, alleging that the respondent held over as tenant of property No. 7, 26th Cross, Cubbonpet, Bengaluru. The Rent Controller found a landlord-tenant relationship established by rent receipts and directed vacation of premises. On revision, the Karnataka High Court set aside that order, questioning the genuineness of appellant’s title and the receipts. The appellant challenged the High Court’s revisional order before the Supreme Court.

Statutory Analysis

• Section 43(1): Allows admission of a lease document or, absent a document, a rent receipt as prima facie proof of landlord-tenant relationship and mandates continuation of eviction proceedings.
• Section 43(2): Provides that if the lease is oral without a receipt, or if the court suspects forgery, proceedings must be stayed and parties referred to a civil court.
• Section 3(e): Defines “landlord” as any person entitled to receive rent, including trustees, ensuring rent-receipt recognises landlord status.

Alert Indicators

• 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Supreme Court reverses Karnataka High Court’s revisional interference, restoring Rent Controller’s order.
• ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms statutory scheme under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act for eviction proceedings.