The Supreme Court has held that High Courts cannot reappreciate evidence while exercising revisional powers and must confine themselves strictly to examining legality, correctness, or propriety of orders. 

The bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan  has observed that the initial burden lies on the landlord to establish that possession has been parted with in favor of a third party. However, once exclusive possession of a stranger is demonstrated, the burden shifts to the tenant to justify such possession. 

The bench noted that subletting arrangements are often clandestine and can be inferred from surrounding circumstances rather than direct evidence.

The dispute originated from eviction proceedings initiated by the legal heirs of late Sri M.V. Ramachandrasa, a long-term lessee of commercial premises in Bengaluru. The landlord had leased a shop to a partnership firm, M/s Mahendra Watch Company, under a registered lease deed in 1985. The lease expressly prohibited subletting or transfer of possession without prior written consent. However, the landlord later alleged that the original tenant had unlawfully parted with possession in favor of third parties who were not part of the original lease agreement.

The trial court, after evaluating oral and documentary evidence, concluded that the persons in actual occupation were strangers to the tenancy and that there had been unauthorized subletting. It allowed the eviction petition and directed the tenants to vacate the premises. However, the Karnataka High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 46 of the Karnataka Rent Act, reversed the trial court’s findings and set aside the eviction order.

Before the Supreme Court, the primary legal issue was whether the High Court had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by re-evaluating evidence and substituting its own factual findings. The Court examined settled jurisprudence, including precedents such as Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, and reiterated that revisional jurisdiction is supervisory in nature and not equivalent to appellate jurisdiction.

The Court emphasized that while revisional courts may interfere in cases of jurisdictional error, perversity, or manifest illegality, they cannot reassess evidence merely because another view is possible. It observed that the High Court had undertaken a fresh analysis of witness testimonies, partnership documents, and rent receipts—an exercise that effectively converted revisional jurisdiction into appellate review, which is impermissible in law. 

Applying these principles, the Supreme Court found that the trial court had recorded well-reasoned findings based on evidence, including inconsistencies in the tenant’s claim of partnership reconstitution and absence of documentary proof establishing lawful possession by the alleged partners. These findings were neither perverse nor illegal and therefore did not warrant interference.

The Court ultimately held that the High Court had transgressed the limits of its revisional jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence and substituting its own conclusions. Consequently, the impugned High Court judgment was set aside, and the trial court’s eviction order was restored.

Case Details

Case Title: Sri M.V. Ramachandrasa Versus M/S. Mahendra Watch Company

Citation: Jurishour-716-Sc-2026

Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 4353 Of 2026

Date: 10/04/2026

Read More: Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable in Internal Co-operative Election Matters: Supreme Court