1. The order passed by the Small Causes Judge, Bangalore in HRC No. 386 of 2008 dismissing LA. No. 3 filed under Section 43 of the Kamataka Rent Act, 1999, dated 16-12-2009 is questioned in this revision petition by the respondent-tenant.

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranks in the Court below:

3. The petitioner instituted an eviction petition originally in S.C. No. 483 of 2007 and same came to be withdrawn. Subsequently, a suit for ejectment was filed in O.S. No. 7972 of 2007. The said suit also came to be withdrawn. Thereafter wards present HRC No. 386 of 2008 was filed under Section 27(2)(a) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for the sake of brevity) in respect of the premises bearing No. 23 (old No. 1) measuring East-West 30 x 9 ft.; North-South 21 x 3 ft.

4. On service of notice the respondent-tenant appeared before the Trial Court and filed objections to the said petition.

5. At the outset the respondent denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. It was contended before the Court below that property originally belonged to Sri Dhondale Maharaja Sa and on his demise it was succeeded to by his wife and daughter namely Smt. Dhondale Saraswathi Bai (wife) and Smt. Lakshmidevi (daughter). On the death of Smt. Lakshmidevi Intestate the said property devolved upon her three sons and eight daughters and thus claim of the petitioner on the basis of gift deed dated 8-9-2004 said to have been executed by Dhondale Saraswathi Bai in favour of petitioner does not confer any title on the petitioner and as such jural relationship of landlord and tenant came be denied. It was also contended that brother of petitioner i.e., K.P. Premananda had filed a suit O.S. No. 7411 of 2004 for partition in respect of entire property described in gift deed dated 8-9-2004 and as such there is a dispute regarding title to schedule premises and accordingly it was contended eviction petition was not maintainable. It was also contended at no point of time rents were paid by the respondent to the petitioner.

6. During the pendency of the proceedings an interlocutory application namely I.A. No.3 was filed by respondent under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 praying for stay of proceedings in HRC No. 386 of 2008 and to direct the petitioner to approach Competent Civil Court for declaration of his right. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application averments made in the statement of objections were reiterated. The said application was resisted by the petitioner by filing objection statement contending gift deed executed by his grandmother in his favour on 8-9-2004 is not challenged and there was no order or any decree passed against petitioner in respect of said gift deed and suit O.S. No. 7411 of 2004 said to have been filed by the brother of the petitioner for partition was by suppression of facts and on this ground amongst others petitioner sought for dismissal of the application.

7. On considering rival contentions Court below by its order dated 1612-2009 dismissed the interlocutory application 3 which is now questioned by the respondent in this revision petition.

8. I have heard Sri N.J. Ramesh, learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Sri Channabasaiah, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

9. Sri N.J. Ramesh would admit that issue regarding the execution of gift deed, no doubt cannot be resolved by the Small Causes Court but while considering issue regarding jural relationship, the Court of Small Causes or Rent Court can incidentally look into the same. He would also contend that Small Causes Court can go into title incidentally while considering the issue of existence of jural relationship of landlord and tenant or otherwise. He would submit that alleged gift deed executed by Dhondale Saraswathi Bai under gift deed dated 8-9-2004 in favour of Sri K.B. Krishna, the petitioner before Trial Court is void at the inception inasmuch as it is joint family prop