JUDGMENT :

Counsel for respondent/defendant absent. The matter is listed for final hearing and of the year 2012 and the same is taken up for final disposal after hearing the learned counsel for appellant.

2. Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19-03-2012 passed in O.S.No.2482/2007 by the learned XLIV Additional City Civil and Session Judge, Bangalore, wherein the suit of the plaintiff came to be dismissed with costs. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff has come in appeal.

3. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, the parties herein are referred to in accordance with their rankings as held by them before the trial court.

4. The suit was filed on 26.3.2007 for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits.

5. It is stated that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property i.e. premises bearing No.49, New No.102, situated at Domlur Civil Area, Old Division No.51, BMP New Division No.102, Bangalroe-71, measuring East to West 19 feet and North to South 32.5 feet with 5 square Mangalore tiled roof house and the defendant is a tenant in occupation of the same on a monthly rental of Rs.3,500/-. It is also stated that defendant is a chronic defaulter in payment of rent and as on the date of filing of the suit, he is in arrears of huge amount of Rs.1,12,000/-. Legal notice was issued on 21.1.2007 but the same is of no use. The plaintiff without any alternative filed the suit for ejectment.

6. Defendant appeared and filed the written statement denying the jural relationship. According to the defendant there was no agreement nor the plaintiff is the owner of the schedule property nor the defendant is a tenant of the schedule property who has agreed to pay the rent. It is contended that defendant is the real owner in possession of the schedule property. The suit schedule property was acquired by the defendant’s father and subsequently fallen to defendant’s share. Defendant borrowed hand loan from plaintiff, who took several signatures on blank papers. It is further contended that defendant has not executed any sale agreement and sale deed in favour of plaintiff. Defendant prays to dismiss the suit with costs. Learned trial judge, considering the aspects of termination of tenancy, existence of relationship of landlord and tenant, default in payment of arrears of rent, raised the issues and found them against the plaintiff on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence produced on both sides and dismissed the suit with costs. The same is challenged by the plaintiff in this appeal.

7. Learned counsel Sri. M.N. Bhat, for plaintiff/appellant would submit that plaintiff has filed documents as per Exs.P1 to P19 and out of which, Ex.P1 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 1.4.2004; Ex.P2 is the lease agreement dated 6.12.2002, Ex.P3 is the katha certificate, Ex.P11 is the sale deed dated 29.12.2004, Ex.P12 is the plan for construction and Ex.P16 is the General Power of Attorney dated 6.12.2002 and Ex.P18 is the agreement of sale dated 6.12.2002.

8. Learned counsel would further submit that defendant never placed documents contradicting the claim of the plaintiff. However, he is examined as DW1.

9. After hearing the learned counsel for plaintiff/ appellant, I have perused the documents. The following points are crystal clear:

According to the plaintiff, the previous owner of the schedule property is none other than the defendant S.A.Subramanyam. However in the plaint he states that plaintiff was the owner and defendant was inducted as a tenant in the schedule property. It is also claimed that defendant executed power of Attorney on 6.12.2002 in favour of Kanta Devi wife of Surendra Kumar Jain. The said Surendra Kumar Jain is none other than the plaintiff in the case. The substance of the power of attorney stated to have been sworn before the Notary public at Bangalore is, defendant S.A. Subramanyam is stated to be owner of the schedule property due to various reasons he is unable to look