R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a landlord's petition under Section 50 (1) of the Karnataka rent Control Act, 1961 ('the Act', for short ). The petitioner filed a petition under clauses (a), (h) and (j) of Section 21 (1) of the Act against the respondent herein in regard to the petition schedule premises, alleging that the respondent was in occupation of the petition premises as tenant under him, on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/ -. The petitioner also averred that the respondent was inducted as a tenant, by his father (H. Krishnamurthy); that subsequently he became the owner of the petition Schedule premises in pursuance of partition decree dated 14-10-1987 passed in O. S. No. 2030 of 1982 on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore; that for purposes of convenience, even after petitioner became the owner and landlord of the premises, his father continued to collect the rents, and that after the death of his father, the respondent was directed to pay the rents to the petitioner; and that the respondent has not paid the rents from February 1991. It is not necessary to refer to the pleadings relating to grounds of eviction under clauses (h) and (j) for the purpose of disposal of this petition.

( 2 ) THE respondent denied that she was in occupation of the petition schedule premises as a tenant. She alleged that petitioner's father krishnamurthy had mortgaged the petition schedule premises in her favour on 9-12-1984 for a sum of Rs. 10,000/-; that therefore the relationship between petitioner and respondent was that of mortgagor and mortgagee; that as she was in possession as a mortgagee, she was not liable to pay any rent, much less a rent of Rs. 150/- per month; and that, therefore, the eviction petition was not maintainable.

( 3 ) THE petitioner examined himself as P. W. 1 and the respondent examined herself as R. W. 1 and her son as R. W. 2. After considering the evidence, the Trial Court has rejected the eviction petition by its order dated 18-3-1998 holding that the petitioner had failed to prove the jural relationship of landlord and tenant.

( 4 ) THE Trial Court has based its decision on the following findings: (a) the petitioner had not produced any rental agreement executed by the respondent; (b) the petitioner had not produced any document to show that the rent was being paid to his father till 1989 by the respondent and thereafter to the petitioner; (c) that the respondent had produced a document styled as mortgage deed (Ex. R-4) in support of her contention that the property had been mortgaged in her favour by petitioner's father for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/-; (d) that though the petitioner denied the signature appearing in Ex. R-4 as being the signature of his father, the said signature appeared to be the signature of petitioner's father when compared to the admitted signature of petitioner's father found in a certified copy of a sketch attached to the final decree (Ex. P. 1) in the partition suit; (e) that though Ex. R-4 could not be treated as a valid mortgage as it was not registered, it could still be looked into for the purpose of ascertaining the intention and conduct of the parties and the nature of possession of respondent and Ex. R-4 could not be excluded from consideration while deciding the question of jural relationship; (f) that respondent could be either described as a person in possession of schedule premises under leave and licence or can be described as a person in possession of schedule premises under Ex. R-4 or can be described as a person in unlawful possession of schedule premises, but not a tenant; and (g) that it was for the petitioner, who had approached the court seeking eviction to clearly prove the jural relationship and that petitioner failed to prove that respondent was his tenant.

( 5 ) EX. R-4 dated 9-12-1984, which is the basis for the Trial Court to come to the conclusion that the relationship between the parties is not that of landlord and tenant, is executed on a stamp pape

Click Here to Read the rest of this document