In a significant ruling on the limits of revisional powers, the Supreme Court has set aside a Karnataka High Court order that had earlier protected tenants from eviction. The Court held that the High Court exceeded its authority by re-examining evidence like an appellate court.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a commercial property in Bengaluru’s Chickpet area. The original landlord, late Sri M.V. Ramachandrasa, had leased the premises to M/s Mahendra Watch Company under a registered lease agreement in 1985.
Years later, the landlord alleged that the original tenant had unlawfully transferred possession of the shop to third parties without consent. Based on this claim, eviction proceedings were initiated under the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.
The trial court, after reviewing evidence, found that individuals occupying the shop were not part of the original tenancy agreement. It concluded that there was unauthorized subletting and ordered eviction in 2017.
However, the High Court reversed this decision in 2023, ruling in favour of the tenants.
The Supreme Court closely examined whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the trial court’s findings.
“The revisional jurisdiction is limited,” the bench observed, adding that it “cannot be converted into an appellate jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence.”
The Court emphasized that a revisional court can only check for legal errors, procedural irregularities, or perversity in findings—not reassess facts entirely.
It noted that the trial court had carefully evaluated both oral and documentary evidence. The findings, including lack of proof of a valid partnership and absence of landlord consent for subletting, were based on material on record.
“The High Court transgressed the limits of its revisional jurisdiction by reassessing the evidence and substituting its own conclusions,” the judgment stated.
Read also:- Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Life Convict in Bihar Murder Case, Flags Misuse of Sentence Suspension
On the issue of subletting, the Court reiterated that while the initial burden lies on the landlord, once it is shown that a third party is in exclusive possession, the tenant must explain the nature of such possession.
A central question before the Court was whether a change in partnership within a tenant firm amounts to subletting.
The Court noted that mere claims of partnership are not enough. In this case, the alleged partners failed to produce reliable documents to establish their legal status in the firm.
It also found that the lease agreement clearly prohibited subletting without prior written consent, which was not obtained.
Read also:- Allahabad High Court Says Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Only Up To Suspected Amount, Not Entire Account
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court’s order was legally unsustainable. It restored the trial court’s eviction order.
The Court concluded that the findings of the trial court were valid and based on proper appreciation of evidence, and there was no justification for interference under revisional jurisdiction.
Case Details
- Case Title: Sri M.V. Ramachandrasa (Since Deceased) Represented by Legal Heirs vs M/s Mahendra Watch Company & Others
- Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 4353 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 25957 of 2023)
- Judge: Justice R. Mahadevan and Ahsanuddin Amanullah
- Decision Date: APRIL 10, 2026.
