High Court Revision - The Legal Chamber

Proof of Tenancy: Supreme Court’s Key Ruling on Rent Receipts and Title Disputes

16Oct

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Proof of Tenancy: Supreme Court’s Key Ruling on Rent Receipts and Title Disputes

The Supreme Court held that In disputes over landlord-tenant relationships, the Supreme Court clarified that under the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, the production of rent receipts signed by the landlord constitutes prima facie evidence of the jural relationship. Once this initial burden is discharged, the Rent Controller is justified in proceeding with the eviction case without delving into title disputes, which are beyond its scope. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, H.S. Puttashankara, filed an eviction petition against the respondent, Yashodamma, under the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, concerning a property in Bengaluru. The appellant claimed to be the landlord, asserting that the property originally belonged to his great-grandfather and devolved to him through a release deed from other legal...

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Proprietor and His Business Are Not Separate Legal Entities

The Supreme Court held that a proprietorship concern is not a juristic person and a suit filed against the proprietor personally is maintainable. Order XXX Rule 10 of the CPC is merely enabling and does not bar a suit against the proprietor, who remains the real party in interest for all transactions conducted in the trade name. Facts Of The Case: The appellants, owners of a property, leased it to Aditya Motors, a sole proprietorship concern of respondent Pilla Durga Prasad, via a registered lease deed. After the lease expired, the lessee failed to vacate, prompting the appellants to file an eviction suit. The original suit named the lessee as defendant no.1 (Aditya Motors), along with the sub-lessee and its directors. During the proceedings, the appellants amended the plaint, substituti...

Supreme Court Rules : Res Judicata Can’t Be Decided at Plaint Stage

The Supreme Court held that the plea of res judicata cannot be adjudicated under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) as it requires an in-depth examination of pleadings, issues, and decisions from the previous suit, which is beyond the scope of a plaint rejection application. The Court emphasized that only the averments in the plaint must be considered, and defenses or external documents cannot be relied upon. The judgment clarified that issues like fraud, collusion, or jurisdictional defects in a prior decree must be examined during trial, not at the preliminary stage. The appeal was allowed, and the suit was restored for expeditious disposal. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Pandurangan, purchased a disputed property from Hussain Babu in 1998, who had earlier acquired ...