A tenancy must be established through credible evidence; mere possession is insufficient to affirm a landlord-tenant relationship.

ORDER :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

Heard Sri Janardhana G and Sri M.D. Raghunath for the parties.

2. Unsuccessful landlord in the Eviction Petition in HRC No.10010/2015 is the Revision Petitioner.

3. The facts in the nutshell for the disposal of the present petition are as under:

A petition under Section 27(2)(r) of the KARNATAKA RENT ACT , 1999, came to be filed alleging that the father of the respondent had entered into a rental agreement with Smt.Sarfunnissa on 20.04.2005, who is the original owner of the ground floor of the premises bearing No.52/3, 8th Main, 7^th Cross, now 9^th Cross, Vasanth Nagar, Bengaluru. Description of the property is more fully described in the schedule hereunder and hereinafter referred to as petition schedule property:

“SCHEDULE

All that part and parcel of the Residential Premises of Ground Floor bearing No.52/3, old No.117, situated at 8^th Main Road, 7^th Cross, Now 9^th Cross, Vasanthnagar, Bengaluru, measuring in all 640 sq.ft., and bounded on the:

East by : Road ”

West by: Property belonging to Laloo Sab

North by: Property belonging to Ali Sab

South by: Private property (earlier portion of the same property No.52/3, now bearing independent number)”

4. It is further contended that the monthly rental was Rs.2,000/- and there was an advance amount of Rs.25,000/-. The petitioner had purchased the said property from Smt.Sarfunissa under Sale Deed dated 14.07.2013 and thereafter, the petitioner brought the fact of the sale and the respondents continued to occupy the premises after the death of their father and there is an automatic attornment of tenancy. The petitioner requested the respondents to pay the monthly rent for the petition premises and despite elapsing of two years, the respondents failed to pay any rent to the petitioner and there is no sufficient reason for them to withhold the rent and sought for eviction of the respondents.

5. It is also contended that the petition premises is required for the bonafide use and occupation of the petitioner and at present he is residing in second floor of the petition property along with his brother which is sufficient for both petitioner and his brother and he wanted to continue there and petitioner wanted to occupy the petition premises.

6. The petitioner requested the respondents to vacate and hand over the premises, but they failed to do so. Even though the respondents promised to vacate, they failed to vacate the premises.

7. Therefore, there was a legal notice issued on 24.03.2015 to the respondents. Despite service of notice, respondents did not vacate the premises and therefore, the petition was laid for eviction of the respondents from the petition premises.

8. After service of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their respective counsel and filed detailed statement of objection. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 did not appear before the Trial Court and therefore, they were placed ex parte.

9. In the objections statement, there is a denial of landlord and tenant relationship. They further contended that they were not tenants at any given point of time, much less on payment of monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- and payment of advance of Rs.25,000/-.

10. The learned Trial Judge thereafter, recorded the evidence of the petitioner wherein, the petitioner got examined himself as PW.1 and placed on record six documents vide Exs.P1 to P6 comprising of original registered Sale Deed, encumbrance certificate, office copy of the legal notice, postal receipt, postal acknowledgment and letter of Rent Agreement.

11. As against the evidence placed on record, first respondent examined himself as RW.1 and Wajid Pasha - respondent No.4 as RW.2.