ORDER :

Jyothi Mulimani, J.

1. This is a petition from the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Raichur.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Trial Court.

3. The plaint averments are stated as under:

Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the house property bearing Mpl. No. 12-6-367 (old), 12-6-440 (new), situated at LBS Nagar, Raichur and that defendant is statutory tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. It is averred that defendant committed default in paying monthly rent from 01.04.2009 till the filing of the suit and he is in arrears of rent of Rs. 8,700/- for the period from 01.04.2009 to 30.06.2011, plaintiff has been regularly asking the defendant to pay the monthly rent and also arrears of rent, but in vain. Hence, plaintiff was constrained to issue legal notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. The notice was sent to the address as shown in the cause title on 06.07.2011 by registered post with acknowledgment due. It was returned with endorsement that the door of the suit house has been closed continuously for 7 days. Thereafter, the plaintiff sent one more notice on 22.07.2011 by pasting the copy of the legal notice on the wall of the suit house as required under Transfer of Property Act. Further, he also got published the legal notice in the Raichur Vani daily newspaper on 24.07.2011.

Contending that the cause of action arose on 01.04.2009 when the defendant committed default in the payment of monthly rent. Therefore, plaintiff was constrained to seek the aid of the Court seeking the relief of arrears of rent and possession of the suit house.

On service of summons, defendant entered appearance and filed the written statement. He denied the jural relationship of landlord and tenant. He has not paid the rents to the plaintiff at any point of time and that he is not in arrears of rents as alleged by the plaintiff. He contended that he is the absolute owner and in possession and enjoyment of the suit house property having purchased the same from one Narasanna S/o. Badenna for consideration of Rs. 99/- on 18.06.1981. It was also contended that since the date of purchase, he is in possession of the suit house. Among other grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following:

ISSUES

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant is a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-?

2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that defendant is in arrears of rent of Rs. 8,700/-?

3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

4. Whether the defendant proves that suit is not properly valued?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief?

6. What order or decree?

ADDITIONAL ISSUES:

1. Whether the defendant proves that he is the exclusive and independent owner of Plot No. 108/A, bearing Mpl. No. 12-6-367 (old), 12-6-440 (new) of LBS nagar, Raichur on the basis of unregistered sale deed dated: 18-6-1981?

2. Whether the defendant proves that he is in actual physical possession from 18-6-1981 till this day and his title become perfected by way of adverse possession?

To substantiate the claim, the Special Power of Attorney Holder/son of the plaintiff was examined as PW. 1 and got marked Exs. P1 to P11. On the other hand, defendant examined himself as DW. 1 and got marked Exs. D1 to D7.

On the trial of action, it was held that the plaintiff has failed to establish the jural relationship. Therefore, he is not entitled for arrears of rent and for recovery of possession. Accordingly, the suit came to be dismissed.

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the plaintiff has filed revision petition under Section 115 of CPC.

4. Sri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the order passed by the Trial Court suffers from serious error of jurisdiction and has caused substantial injustice to the revision petitioner. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set