SRI M.V. RAMACHANDRASA SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS versus M/S MAHENDRA WATCH COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS & ORS.

Citation: [2026] 4 S.C.R. 508 · Decided: 10-04-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[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 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.