A landlord may obtain eviction based on general title even without strict proof of tenancy; the burden of proof lies on the defendant for any contrary claim.

JUDGMENT :

K.S. HEMALEKHA, J.

1. The present Regular First Appeal is preferred by the plaintiff, assailing the correctness and legality of the judgment and decree dated 04.02.2023 passed in O.S.No.3997/2016, by the LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’ for short). By the impugned judgment and decree, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

Brief facts:

2. Suit is one for possession, recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.1,36,000/- for the period of 01.03.2014 to 15.04.2016 at the rate of Rs.6,500/- per month, direction to pay damages at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month for the unauthorized occupation from 16.04.2016 till the delivery of vacant possession, award costs and other consequential reliefs.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that, he is the absolute owner of the suit property. The defendant was inducted as a tenant on 01.03.2014 at a monthly rent of Rs.6,500/-. At inception of tenancy, the defendant has paid a sum of Rs.70,000/- by two cheques for a sum of Rs.35,000/- each as refundable security deposit, payable at the determination of the tenancy, without interest. Further, a lease agreement dated 01.03.2014 was prepared by the plaintiff on stamp paper and handed over to the defendant for signature. The defendant requested to retain the same to obtain her husband’s approval (who was residing at Hyderabad). Despite repeated request, the defendant failed to return the lease agreement. Nevertheless, the possession of the suit property was delivered and the defendant entered as a tenant under the plaintiff.

4. The defendant became a chronic defaulter in payment of rent. Till date, only Rs.20,000/- has been paid (credited on 04.09.2014 to the plaintiff's bank account). The defendant is in arrears of Rs.1,36,000/- from the inception of the tenancy upto March-2016. The plaintiff issued a quit notice calling upon the defendant to vacate premises on or before 30.04.2016 and to pay the arrears of rent. The defendant neither complied with the notice nor vacated the premises. Consequently, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages.

5. Defendant filed her written statement inter alia denying the plaint averments. The defendant admitted that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property. The defendant claims that she was inducted not as a tenant but as a licensee in possession under an agreement of sale executed on 01.03.2014.

6. As per her version, the total sale consideration was Rs.36,00,000/-, she asserts to have paid Rs.9,00,000/- as an advance payment at the time of execution of the sale agreement. The defendant alleges that the original sale deed was retained by the plaintiff under the pretext of securing additional witness signature and that the plaintiff allegedly handed over only a photocopy of the said agreement to the defendant. It is stated that the defendant on repeated requests by the plaintiff, has made additional payments of Rs.20,000/- on 04.09.2014 and Rs.18,100/- on 11.10.2014. But according to the defendant it is towards the sale consideration amount.

7. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1, marked documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. On the other hand, the defendant examined herself as DW.1, marked documents as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2.

8. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff primarily on the ground that there was no written document evidencing the landlord and tenant relationship. It held that the plaintiff failed to establish tenancy, as the alleged lease deed dated 01.03.2014 was not produced in evidence, and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled