The main legal point established in the judgment is that the denial of title by a tenant does not automatically terminate their tenancy, and the landlord is entitled to seek possession under the Karnataka Rent Control Act.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 17-12-1981 passed in O. S. No. 2576/1980 by the learned III Addl. City Civil judge, Bangalore City. The suit was originally filed in the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, bangalore City. On the establishment of the City civil Court, the suit came to be statutorily transferred to the Court of the City Civil Court, Bangalore City and was re-numbered as O. S. No. 2576/1980. The suit was filed on 30-3-1978 for declaration of title that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit Schedules 'a' and 'b' properties and for possession and mesne profits.

( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiffs was that the suit Schedule 'a' property was purchased by Chikka bandappa, grand-father of the plaintiffs under a registered sale deed dated 22-5-1922 and schedule 'b' property was granted to their uncle b. Ramaiah under a grant certificate dated 21-11-1964; that one Jyothinagarada Ramaiah was the tenant of the suit schedule premises described in Schedules 'a' and 'b' on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/-; that the defendants are the legal representatives of the said Jyothinagarada ramaiah; that the defendants have denied title of the plaintiffs by filing a suit O. S. No. 1045/1974 on 7-5-1974 and from that date they have lost their character of tenants and their position has become that of trespassers and as such they are liable to be evicted and are liable to pay past and future mesne profits.

( 3 ) THE 1st defendant resisted the suit by filinga written statement. The remaining defendants adopted the written statement of the 1st defendant. In the written statement filed by the 1st defendant, it was contended that neither the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs was the owner of the suit properties nor the suit properties were joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs and their predecessor-in-title were not in possession of the same. Jyothinagarada Ramaiah was in possession of the suit properties in his own right and he constructed a tiled house comprised in suit 'a' schedule property, that they the defendants have been in possession of the suit properties; that the suit properties were not purchased by the plaintiffs' grand-father Chikkabandappa under a registered sale deed dated 22-5-1922; that the suit properties are in continuous and undistmbed possession and enjoyment of the defendants and their deceased father for over 45 yers; that the suit properties were not obtained on lease by the father of defendants from the plaintiffs' father on a monthly rental of Rs. 25/- about 15 years back; that the defendants' father filed O. S. No. 1045/1974 when plaintiffs' father attempted to interfere with his possession and the said suit was decreed; that the plaintiffs are not entitled to mesne profits, either past or future. It was also alternatively contended that even if it were to be assumed that the plaintiffs had title to the suit schedule property by the sale deed, they were not in possession since the defendants and their father had been in possession for over 45 years; therefore, they have perfected their title to the suit property by adverse possession.

( 4 ) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties,the trial Court framed the following issues:1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule properties? 2. Are they further entitled to the relief of declaration and possession sought for? 3. Are the plaintiffs entitled to past and future mesne profits? 4. Do the defendants prove that they have perfected their title to the plaint schedule properties by the adverse possession? 5. Is the suit barred by limitation? 6. Is the valuation for the purpose of Court-fee correct?

( 5 ) WHAT order or decree?5. In support of their case, the plaintiffs have examined three witnesses on their behalf and produced as many as 21 documents marked as exhibits P-1 to P-21. The defendants on their behalf have examined three witn