Point of Law: It is settled law that, if no document evidencing fact of tenancy is given and if it is an oral tenancy, same has to be considered on merits.

ORDER :

This revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court in H.R.C.No.16/2008 dated 01.10.2013 allowing the petition filed under Section 27(2), (a) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 directing the petitioner herein to quit and vacate the premises within one month from the date of the order and also directed to pay Rs.41,000/-computing the rent at the rate of Rs.1,000/-per month from 17.07.2007 to 17.11.2007 and the rents accrued thereafter within one month from the date of the order. The revision petitioner has also challenged the order of dismissal passed by the Rent Revision Court in R.R.No.69/2013 dated 30.09.2015 confirming the order of the Trial Court granting 90 days time to vacate the premises from the date of the said order.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the respondent-landlord before the Trial Court is that he had purchased the petition schedule premises from previous owner Smt. Rani Balu G. At the time of purchase, the respondent therein was residing in the petition schedule premises as tenant. After purchase, the vendor of the petitioner issued the letter of attornement dated 09.12.2004 and since then, the respondent is continuing as a tenant of the schedule premises under the petitioner. The tenancy is oral tenancy and the rate of rent is Rs.1,000/-per month. The petitioner issued the legal notice dated 23.11.2007 calling upon the respondent to pay the arrears of rent, the respondent not paid the rents. The petitioner is a retired railway employee and he required the schedule premises for his bonafide use and occupation. The petitioner wants to accommodate his son, who is married and unemployed.

3. In pursuance of the petition, the respondent appeared before the Court and filed the written statement denying all the averments made in the eviction petition and contend that, Smt. Rani Balu G. borrowed a sum of Rs.1,40,000/-by agreeing to mortgage the schedule premises to the respondent and put the respondent in possession of the schedule premises and she also executed the mortgage agreement dated 22.03.2003 in favour of the respondent. Subsequent to that, Smt. Rani Balu G., by agreeing to sell the schedule premises for Rs.5,60,000/-, received Rs.2,75,000/-as part consideration. In this regard, public notice is also issued and the petitioner knowing all these aspects, filed this petition. It is also contended that the respondent filed the suit in O.S.No.174/2008 for specific performance of the contract.

4. Having taken note of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court allowed the petitioner to prove his case and hence, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and examined one witness as P.W.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P7. The Court, by order dated 16.01.2013 allowed the petition and the respondent challenged the said order by filing Rent Revision No.10/2003 and the Court was pleased to allow the revision petition and remanded the matter with a direction to dispose of the same in accordance with law by giving an opportunity to the respondent to cross-examine the petitioner and permit him to lead evidence. Accordingly, after remand, the petitioner was subjected for further cross-examination. The respondent got examined himself as R.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.R1 to R9.

5. The Trial Court, having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, answered the points for consideration as affirmative, in coming to the conclusion that there exists jural relationship and the petitioner also proved the fact that schedule premises is required for his bonafide use and occupation and also comes to the conclusion that the respondent is in arrears of rent and not paid the rent, inspite of legal notice being issued and allowed the petition filed under Section 27(2), (a) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. The same was challenged before the Rent Revision Court which is numbered as R.R.No.69/2013 and the Rent Revision Court, on appreciation of both