JUDGMENT

J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant has preferred the instant appeal challenging the impugned final judgment dated 31.03.2021 passed by High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in House Rent Revision Petition No. 68 of 2017, whereby the High Court allowed the revision and set-aside the order dated 01.09.2017 passed by the Court of Small Causes at Bangalore (for brevity ‘Rent Controller’) directing respondent to ‘quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession’ of the premise in question within a period of three months from the date of order.

3. The eviction proceeding was initiated under Section 27¹[Protection of tenants against eviction](2)(a) (e)(g) and (o) of the KARNATAKA RENT ACT , 1999 (in short ‘Rent Act’) and was resisted by disputing the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellant and the respondent and also questioning the title of appellant on the property. The Rent Controller, after considering the available material concluded that the landlord-tenant relationship had been established between the appellant and respondent and allowed the eviction petition directing to vacate the suit property. The question of title was not looked into in detail considering the scope in eviction proceedings which is limited to look into landlord and tenant relationship. On revision petition filed, High Court allowed the same vide impugned order and set-aside the order of Rent Controller, noting that no positive documentary evidence has been brought to prove Sri Banappa was indeed his great grandfather, however, failed to prove his lineage and ownership. Further, the signature on the counter-foils of rent receipts issued by the appellant was categorically denied by the son of the respondent stating that those signatures were never put by him. Being aggrieved, the appellant-landlord filed the present appeal.

4. As the present dispute revolves around the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, however, our focus is on the facts relevant on the issue. The disputed property in question is property No. 7, 26th Cross, Cubon Pet, Bengaluru, 560002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’). Briefly outlined, the case of the appellant is that the respondent is tenant in the suit property, which originally belonged to his great grandfather namely Sri Banappa and devolved to his legal heirs namely H.S. Shankaranayarana and H.S. Sankappa. The said katha continued in the name of Sri Banappa and steps were being taken before the concerned authority for changing it in the name of appellant. The appellant became the owner of the suit property on the basis of the release deed dated 04.11.2015, which was executed in his favour by the H.S. Shankarnarayana and H.S. Sankappa. Admittedly, the mother of the respondent namely Mysore Lingamma was a tenant in the suit premises, which is reflected from the finding given by Rent Controller in HRC No. 1971/1980, i.e., eviction petition filed by appellant’s father H.S. Shankarnarayana against respondent’s mother Mysore Lingamma qua the same suit premises, wherein it was admitted by Mysore Lingamma that appellant’s father had been collecting rent from her. Therefore, the jural relationship of landlord-tenant existed between H.S. Shankarnayana and Mysore Lingamma. After her death, respondent being her daughter was substituted as her legal heir. Therefore, there is no dispute so far as jural relationship of landlord-tenant is concerned.

5. The respondent’s case in brief is that there exists no jural relationship between the parties. The suit property belongs to Ankalappa Mutt and Sri Banappa was one of the Trustees of the Mutt. The appellant has no title to th