The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit was maintainable under the Indian Trusts Act, as the defendant failed to prove the absence of a jural relationship between the parties and failed to reply to legal notices demanding arrears of rent. The defendant also failed to prove ownership of the property and was in possession of the property.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1051/2000 dtd. 9/8/2005 on the file of XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore City.

2. The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Trial Court to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiff is a trust duly constituted and registered under the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act and was founded for religious, charitable and educational purposes and objectives. The defendant is a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the portion of the premises situated at Sree Gundlu Muneswara Swamy Temple Premises, Hosur Road, Bangalore-29 morefully described in the plaint schedule, on a monthly rent of Rs.800.00. The tenancy month is from 1st to end of each English Calender month and defendant has been running an auto service station under the name and style of "M/s. Universal Auto Services".

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant is a chronic defaulter and most irregular in payment of rents from his inception and has paid the rent only till the end of 31/12/1996 and has committed default in payment of rent that has accrued from 1/1/1997 onwards. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the arrears of rent from 1/1/1997 to 31/1/2000 amounts to Rs.29,600.00 at the rate of Rs.800.00 per month. The plaintiff also got issued a legal notice to the defendant demanding arrears of rent on 17/7/1998. Despite service of notice, the defendant failed to pay either the rent or given any reply to the said notice. Thereafter, the plaintiff has got issued a notice to the defendant dtd. 5/1/2000 terminating the tenancy and demanding him to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit property on or before 31/1/2000. The defendant managed to send back the notice sent to him by Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due and evaded to receive the notice. However, a copy of the notice was also sent to him by the plaintiff under Certificate of Posting and the same has been duly served upon him. The defendant has failed to vacate the premises or to reply to the notice and hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file this suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and for damages. It is contended that the schedule property will fetch more than Rs.10,000.00 per month as rent.

5. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant appeared and filed written statement. In the written statement, he has contended that, he is not a tenant of the plaintiff and that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the plaintiff and himself and the plaintiff is not at all the owner of the suit schedule premises. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable. However, he has admitted that, he is the proprietor of M/s. Universal Auto Services and contend that no arrears of rent is payable. It is also his contention that, after receiving the notice dtd. 17/7/1998, he had approached the plaintiff questioning the authority of the plaintiff to issue the said notice and Sri A.B. Surya claiming to be the Secretary of the plaintiff told him to ignore the notice stating that the same has been issued under misconception. Believing his representation, he did not bother to reply to the notice.

6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court has framed the following issues:

"1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the landlord of the premises wherein defendant is in possession?

2) If the plaintiff is the landlord, whether he proves the defendant is a tenant?

3) If so whether the termination is as per law?

4) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is in arrears of rent of Rs.29,600.00?

5) Whether the plaintiff proves he is entitled to premises?

6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession?"

7. The plaintiff, in order to substantiate the claim made in the plaint, examined one witness as P.W.1 and another witness Sri A.S. Seshappa as P.W.2 and got marked the documents