Aravind Kumar, J.

1. These two appeals have been admitted on 14.07.2014 to consider the following substantial questions of law:

"1. Whether the courts below are justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs even though the plaintiffs have failed to prove the relationship of the landlord and tenant? Whether the courts below erred in giving the finding on issue No. 1 especially when the defendant has seriously disputed the relationship?

2. Whether the courts below are justified in decreeing the suit in spite of the fact that the plaintiffs have not produced any piece of evidence to prove that they are the owners of the building in question?

3. Whether the courts below are justified in discarding the clear admission made by PW-1 that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the premises in question? Whether the trial court is justified in rejecting the counterclaim made by the defendant in spite of the fact that the plaintiffs miserably failed to prove the ownership?

ADDITIONAL SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW:

i) Whether Courts below were justified in decreeing the suit though schedule described in the plaint does not contain the boundaries?

OR

Whether plaint schedule is in conformity with Order VII Rule 3 CPC?"

2. Facts in brief which has led to filing of these two appeals are as under:

"Plaintiffs instituted a suit for ejectment against defendants contending inter alia that they are the landlords of commercial premises as described in the schedule to the plaint(for short 'Suit Schedule Properties') on a monthly rent of Rs.8,000/- and Rs.3,750/- respectively. It was contended that since suit schedule premises measures 4600 sq. ft. and 2300 sq. ft. respectively and the provisions of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 would not be applicable, plaintiffs had got issued legal notice terminating tenancy and calling upon the respective defendants to quit, vacate and hand over vacant possession of suit schedule premises which notice was duly served on the defendants and replied admitting entering into lease agreement with the plaintiff but contending that the plaintiffs had misrepresented with regard to the ownership of suit schedule premises and as such they are not entitled to initiate any proceedings against defendants. As such two suits came to be filed by the plaintiffs for directing the defendants to quit and hand over vacant possession of suit schedule premises and also to pay future mesne profits @ Rs.69,000/- and Rs.46,000/- per month from date of suit till date of actual delivery."

3. On service of suit summons defendants in both the suits appeared and filed their written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint except to the extent expressly admitted thereunder. It was also contended that defendants at the time of being inducted as tenants by the landlord, they had paid a sum of Rs.70,000/- as security deposit and same is liable to be refunded to the defendants at the time of vacating the premises. On these grounds they sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. Trial court after formulating the issues for its consideration and on evaluating the evidence tendered by parties decreed the suits in part and directed respective defendants to hand over vacant possession of the plaint schedule premises to the plaintiff within 30 days from the date of Judgment and decree. Defendants were also directed to pay mesne profits @ Rs.8,000/- from March 2010 in O.S.420/2010 and in O.S.421/2010 the defendant was directed to pay mesne profits @ Rs.3,750/- for the month of March 2010 and @ Rs.4,000/- per month from April 2010 till vacating and handing over vacant possession. Being aggrieved by these Judgment and decrees passed by the trial court the unsuccessful defendants filed two separate appeals in R.A.68/2011 and R.A.69/2011. Lower appellate court after securing the records from the trial court and after considering the arguments advanced by respective learned advocates appearing for the parties formulated the points for its consideration and test