The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jural relationship between the parties and the possession of the property under the agreement of sale did not result in the determination of the tenancy, and the petitioner's failure to challenge the jurisdiction of the Trial Court at the earliest point in time was fatal to his case.

ORDER

1. This House Rent Revision Petition by the tenant is filed under Section 46 of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (henceforth referred as 'the Act'), challenging an Order dated 25.09.2019 passed by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') in HRC No.80/2018, by which the petitioner was ordered to be evicted from the petition premises for the bona fide use and occupation of the respondent.

2. A petition under Section 27(2)(r) of the Act was filed by the respondent herein contending that the petitioner herein was a tenant in respect of the commercial shop premises measuring East to West 12 feet and North to South 10 feet on a monthly rent of Rs. 3,000/- in terms of a lease agreement dated 01.06.2007. It was claimed that the petitioner had stopped paying the monthly rent from June 2013 by which time, the monthly rent was to be Rs. 6,000/- after enhancing it as per the agreement. The plaintiff had earlier filed a suit for ejectment in O.S.No.8619/2001 which was returned for proper presentation before the proper forum. The respondent claimed that the petitioner had entered to an agreement of sale dated 26.11.2012 to purchase the A schedule property, but failed to perform his part of the contract. The respondent, therefore, cancelled the agreement of sale and forfeited the advance sale consideration. The respondent alleged that the petitioner had carried out alteration in the B schedule property without her consent and without paying the monthly rent. The respondent claimed that she and her husband were senior citizens and therefore were in need of the suit property for their immediate need, use and occupation. Hence, they issued a notice dated 26.10.2018 calling upon the petitioner to quit and deliver vacant possession. Though the petitioner received it on 27.10.2018, he did not comply with the demand. Therefore, they sought for eviction of the petitioner.

3. The petitioner opposed the eviction petition and disputed the jural relationship of land lord and tenant. On the contrary, he claimed that he entered into the suit property as a tenant and later he entered into agreement of sale with the respondent to purchase the suit property and paid advance of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Therefore, he claimed that his status changed from being a tenant to an agreement holder in possession. Thus, he claimed that he was not a defaulter in the payment of rent. He also denied that the agreement of sale was cancelled. Further, he alleged that he had paid a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- for the purchase of the petition property. He also denied the bona fide need of the respondent and alleged that she had other properties where she could relocate. He claimed that he was always willing to perform his part of the contract and it was the respondent who was delaying.

4. Based on these rival contentions, the case was set down for trial.

5. The son of the respondent was examined as PW1, who marked documents as Exs.P1 to P10. The petitioner was not examined and he did not mark any documents.

6. The Trial Court after considering the evidence on record, held that the petitioner had admitted the tenancy. It also held that the respondent had proved her ownership of the suit property. It held that under the agreement of sale dated 26.08.2012 the possession of the property was to be delivered only after receipt of the remaining consideration. Therefore, it held that the jural relationship between the petitioner and respondent continued as landlady and tenant and there was no change of relationship. The Trial Court therefore, allowed the petition and directed the petitioner to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondent.

7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present revision petition is filed.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rate of rent was Rs. 6,000/- per month and therefore, the petition for eviction under provisions of the Rent Control Act was not maintainable. He also su