The tenant cannot deny the landlord's title once the property is transferred under the Transfer of Property Act, as established by the court's findings.

JUDGMENT :

K.S. HEMALEKHA, J.

The present appeal is preferred by the defendant assailing the judgment and decree dated 28.06.2024 in O.S.No.8382/2015, on the file of the XLIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (‘trial Court’ for short). By the judgment and decree, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff seeking ejectment, possession and damages.

Plaint averments

2. The plaintiff asserted that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 21.05.2010 executed through his father, who had earlier acquired rights under an agreement of sale and GPA from late M. Narayanappa. That after his purchase, Katha was mutated in his name and he has been paying taxes. The defendant was inducted as a tenant in the suit schedule property on monthly rent of Rs.600/-, but after the termination of tenancy by a quit notice dated 19.06.2013, the defendant failed to vacate and continued in unauthorised occupation. Further that the defendant has even sublet the portions of the property and is collecting rents. The lease agreement relied upon by the defendant with the heirs of Narayanappa are collusive and fraudulent to defeat the plaintiff’s right. The plaintiff is entitled for vacant possession and damages for the use and occupation and a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from causing any third party rights.

Written statement averments:

3. The defendant denied the plaintiff's ownership and the jural relationship of landlord and tenant, contending that he was never a tenant under the plaintiff but has been lawfully inducted into the schedule property by the sons of M. Narayanappa under the registered lease agreement dated 01.09.1996 on a monthly rent of Rs.600/- with the security deposit of Rs.50,000/-. It is stated that the plaintiff's alleged sale deeds are concocted and have no binding force as Narayanappa's legal heirs were in possession and exercise rights of ownership by leasing the property. It is urged that in OS.No.6333/1997, the Civil Court had already recognized his tenancy and granted an injunction against the interference, which showed that the plaintiff's father was aware of and did not dispute this tenancy. The suit is not maintainable for ejectment but plaintiff ought to have sought for declaration and possession against Narayanappa's heirs and that the quit notice relied upon was not validly served, having been returned with a shara “insufficient address”, and therefore no tenancy stood terminated and that, in the absence of valid landlord-tenant relationship and proper termination of tenancy, the suit for ejectment is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.

4. The trial Court held that the plaintiff proved the ownership through registered sale deed and supporting documents at Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. That under Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (“TP Act” for short), transferee (plaintiff) steps into the shoes of the lessor and the tenant cannot deny the landlord's title as envisaged under Section 116 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872. That the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant is established. The lease was originally for 11 months and stood determined by efflux of time. The quit notice under Ex.P18 is deemed served under Section 27 of the GENERAL CLAUSES ACT , 1897, even though returned. Hence, tenancy stood terminated.

4.1. The Court held that the admitted rent of Rs.600/- per month from the date of suit until delivery of possession and the Court had jurisdiction as the property exceeded 14 square meters and by the judgment and decree, decreed the suit in part with costs and held that the plaintiff is entitled for vacant possession of the suit property and directed the defendant to hand over possession within 3 months, failing which the plaintiff may recover through law. It also directed the defendant