In this revision petition, respondent is questioning the correctness and legality of the order passed in HRC No. 184 of 2007, dated 10-112009 on the file of the XI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore.

2. The facts in nutshell are as follows:

Respondent herein initiated eviction proceedings against the tenant in HRC No. 184 of 2007 under Section 27(2)(a) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. It was contended in the eviction petition that they purchased the property bearing No. 72, assessment No. 133 K No. 710, Laggere Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli. Measuring East to West 30 North to South 50' wherein the petition schedule premises is situated under sale deed dated 19-6-2006 from one Sri Anthony Raj. Subsequent to the purchase khatha has also been transferred to their name and they have been paying taxes.

3. It was further contended subsequent to the purchase the respondent was informed about the purchase of the property and on the understanding that respondent has agreed to continue revision petitioner as a tenant of the schedule premises whereunder it was agreed that respondent-tenant would pay rent of Rs. 300/- per month within 15th of every month tenancy was continued. On account of the default committed in payment of rent it was alleged that a legal notice dated 23-12-2006 came to be issued terminating the tenancy and calling upon the tenant to pay the arrears of rent on account of non-compliance of the demand made in the notice and eviction proceedings as referred to supra was initiated.

4. On service of notice respondent-tenant appeared before Court below and filed statement of objections contending that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant and it was contended that petitioners were strangers and there was no brevity of contract and at no point of time she had paid any rents to the petitioners. She further contended that one Sri Muniraju who claims to be an agreement holder in respect of the property referred to above had filed a suit on the file of the City Civil Court in O.S. No. 8566 of 2006 for specific enforcement of agreement to sell and hence it was contended that there is serious dispute with regard to title of the property in question.

5. During the pendency of the proceedings an application under Section 43 came to be filed by the respondent-tenant seeking for stay of further proceedings in HRC No. 184 of 2007. In the said application respondent contended that Anthony Raj is the absolute owner of the property in question. The application came to be resisted by the petitioner-landlord by filing detailed statement of objections.

6. In support of their respective claims parties have tendered in their evidence before the Trial Court. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence on record the Court below framed the following points for its consideration:

(i) Whether the respondent proves that their exist dispute with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant?

(ii) What order?

7. On considering the pleadings, evidence on record and arguments advanced, the Court below by its order dated 10-11-2009 dismissed the application filed under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act. It is this order which has been questioned in the present revision petition.

8. I have heard Smt. Geethamala, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri KN. Puttegowda learned Counsel for respondents.

9. Smt. Geethamala, learned Counsel for the respondent-tenant would contend that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondents inasmuch as no agreement came to be entered into between the parties. At no point of time the respondent treated the petitioners as the landlord of the premises in question. She would contend that one Muniraju has admittedly filed a suit for specific performance of sale and the same is pending adjudication and hence there is a cloud on the title to the property in question. She would also submit that there is no written agreement between the par