Background
The appellant (legal heirs of late Sri M.V. Ramachandrasa) was the long-term lessee of properties at Uttaradhi Mutt Lane, Chickpet, Bengaluru, under a registered lease deed dated 02.02.1983 for 55 years with explicit right to sub-lease.
In 1985, the landlord sub-leased Shop No.1, Ground Floor, Maruthi Plaza, to M/s. Mahendra Watch Company (Respondent No.1), a partnership firm represented by its partner Rajesh Kumar (Respondent No.4), under a registered lease deed dated 22.02.1985 for 53 years. Clause 19 of the lease deed expressly prohibited sub-letting, assignment or parting with possession without the written consent of the landlord.
The landlord later discovered that the original tenant (Respondent No.1) and its signatory partner (Respondent No.4) were no longer in possession. The shop was being run exclusively by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Ashish M. Jain and Atul M. Jain), who were complete strangers to the original lease deed.
Eviction proceedings were filed under Sections 27(2)(b)(ii), 27(2)(d)(i)(ii) and 27(2)(p) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 alleging unauthorised sub-letting and violation of lease terms.
Trial Court Order (14.07.2017)
After detailed examination of oral and documentary evidence, the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru allowed the eviction petition. Key findings:
- Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were not partners of the original tenant firm.
- No valid partnership deed or proof of lawful induction was produced.
- The so-called reconstitution of the firm was unregistered and unsupported by evidence.
- Exclusive possession by third parties without landlord’s consent amounted to unlawful sub-letting. Eviction was ordered with three months’ time to vacate.
High Court in Revision (23.05.2023)
In House Rent Revision Petition No. 56 of 2017, the High Court reversed the trial court order and dismissed the eviction petition, essentially re-appreciating the entire evidence and accepting the respondents’ claim of partnership reconstitution.
Supreme Court’s Verdict – Key Holdings
Revisional Jurisdiction Under Section 46 of Karnataka Rent Act is Not Appellate Jurisdiction The Supreme Court held that the High Court grossly exceeded its limited revisional powers. Revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and confined to examining legality, correctness or propriety of the order. It does not permit re-appreciation of evidence or substitution of factual findings recorded by the trial court. The Court relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78 and earlier authorities like Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana (1993) 1 SCC 499.
“The High Court cannot act as a first or second court of appeal… Otherwise, the distinction between appellate and revisional jurisdiction will get obliterated.”
Burden of Proof in Sub-letting Cases The landlord successfully discharged the initial burden by proving:
- Exclusive possession of the premises by third parties (Respondent Nos. 2 & 3).
- Absence of the original tenant. This gave rise to a presumption of sub-letting, shifting the onus to the tenant to rebut it. The respondents failed to produce the original partnership deed, proof of retirement of original partners, or landlord’s consent. The Court reiterated principles from Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. S.B. Sardar Ranjit Singh, Mahendra Saree Emporium (II) v. G.V. Srinivasa Murthy and Ram Murti Devi v. Pushpa Devi.
Partnership Reconstitution Cannot Be Used as Camouflage for Sub-letting Mere change in constitution of a partnership firm does not confer tenancy rights on new partners unless the landlord consents. A firm is not a separate legal entity; occupation by new partners without consent amounts to unlawful parting with possession. The Court held that the respondents’ claim was a classic attempt to camouflage sub-letting through an unregistered reconstitution deed.
Final Order
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment dated 23.05.2023, and restored the trial court’s eviction order dated 14.07.2017. The respondents were directed to hand over vacant possession to the appellants.
Important Takeaways for Landlords, Tenants & Practitioners
- Revisional courts cannot re-weigh evidence — findings of fact by the trial court are final unless perverse.
- Sub-letting through partnership route is impermissible if new partners are strangers to the lease and there is no landlord consent.
- Mere rent receipts in the firm’s name do not prove lawful tenancy rights for new partners.
- Burden shifts once landlord proves exclusive possession by third parties.
- Lease clauses prohibiting sub-letting are strictly enforced.
Landmark Quote
“If the tenant is actively associated with the partnership business and retains the use and control over the tenancy premises… 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… the court is not estopped from tearing the veil of partnership.” — Parvinder Singh v. Renu Gautam (applied in this case)
Case: Sri M.V. Ramachandrasa (Deceased) Represented by Legal Heirs v. M/s. Mahendra Watch Company Represented by its Partners & Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 4353 of 2026 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 25957 of 2023]
Bench: Justice R. Mahadevan Judgment
Date: 10 April 2026
Lawcutor 