B.S. Patil, J.

1. These two revision petitions arise out of the judgment and decree passed by the Small Causes Court at Bengaluru in S.C. No. 1178/2013 and S.C. No. 1179/2013.

2. Parties to these two petitions are one and the same. Facts involved and the legal questions raised are also one and the same. In fact, though the Court below has passed separate judgments, reasons assigned and the conclusion reached are similar. In both the cases, 'A' schedule property is same. Lessor and Lessee are common. Even the sub-lessee to whom the lessee has sub-let is also common, but the shop premises that were sub-let are different in both the cases. They are described in 'B' schedule to the suit. In the above circumstances, both these cases are heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

3. Both the suits were filed by the landlord/lessor for ejectment of the tenant/lessee. The Court below has decreed the suits with costs directing defendant No. 2 -sub-tenant/sub-lessee to handover vacant possession of suit schedule T3' property in favour of the plaintiff within 30 days from the date of the order.

4. Briefly stated, facts leading to the case are that plaintiff- M/s. Rao Bahadur Gubbi Thotadappa Charitable Trust is a Charitable Trust as the name itself suggests. The suit schedule 'A' property is the property of the Trust. Defendant No. 1 was inducted as tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule 'A' premises situated at Belli Basavana Gudi Beedi, Mamulpet, Bengaluru; lease was created by a registered Lease Deed executed on 17.08.1987 for a period of 25 years and the same expired on 31.08.2012. Lessee - defendant No. 1 sublet T3' schedule property in favour of defendant No. 2. Even before the expiry of lease period, plaintiff called upon the lessee - defendant No. 1 and the sub-lessee - defendant No. 2 to vacate and handover possession of 'A' & T3' schedule properties on or before 31.08.2012. However, defendant No. 1 requested the plaintiff through letter dated 17.05.2012 to continue their tenancy; plaintiff replied through his advocate on 19.06.2012 rejecting the request and calling upon them to vacate on expiry of the lease period; despite the same, defendants did not vacate the premises. Therefore, contending that the occupation of the defendants from 01.09.2012 had become unauthorized occupation, a legal notice was issued on 15.02.2013 terminating the tenancy of the defendants and also calling upon them to vacate the premises. Despite receipt of notice, defendants did not vacate the same. Hence, the plaintiff instituted the two suits.

5. Defendant No. 2 alone filed written statement denying the contentions of the plaintiff. He urged that the suit itself was not maintainable; Lease Deed itself was void and illegal as all the Trustees did not jointly execute the Lease Deed and that the eviction petition could not have been filed by splitting the tenancy.

6. Based on the pleadings, the Court below framed the following points for consideration:

"i) Whether the plaintiff proved that the 1st defendant was a tenant in respect of 'A' schedule property and the 2nd defendant was a subtenant in the portion of 'A' schedule property under the plaintiff?

ii) Whether the plaintiff has terminated the tenancy as per law?"

7. Plaintiff examined the Chief Executive Officer of the Trust as P.W.1 and produced and marked Exs.P1 to P9. Defendant No. 2 examined himself as D.W.1. No documents were marked by him. The Court below has decreed the suit holding that admittedly plaintiff had leased the premises on rent to defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 1 in turn had sublet 'B' schedule property in favour of defendant No. 2; plaintiff had filed S.C. No. 995/2013 against defendant No. 1 separately which was pending; defendant No. 2 though examined himself as D.W.1 by filing affidavit did not subject himself for cross-examination. The Court below further found that ownership of the property by the plaintiff was not in dispute and the tenancy