The court affirmed the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship post the landlord's death, emphasizing automatic tenancy transfer to legal heirs and the implications of unpaid rent in ejectment suits.

ORDER :

V SRISHANANDA, J.

Heard Sri Harish N.R., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nitin Ramesh, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The defendant in S.C.No.137/2020 is the revision petitioner challenging the ejectment decree passed in the said suit.

3. The facts in brief, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition, are as under:

3(i) The respondent Smt. Bhuvaneshwari V., being the daughter of late B. Vijayakumar, filed an ejectment suit seeking ejectment of the revision petitioner/defendant from the following property, hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”.

"SCHEDULE PROPERTY

All that piece and parcel of Ground Floor portion of the immovable property bearing No. 9, formed out of converted land in Sy. No. 80/1 situated at Abbigere Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring to an extent of East to West: 30+31/2 feet and North to South: 40+39/2 feet in total 1204.78 sq.feet, and bounded on:-

3(ii) It is contented that the father of the plaintiff, namely B. Vijayakumar, had entered into a lease agreement with the revision petitioner on 16.03.2012 (Ex.P6). As per the said agreement, the revision petitioner was inducted as a tenant, on a monthly rent of Rs.6,000/- with enhancement in the rent of 5% every 11 months.

3(iii) It is contented that said B. Vijayakumar died on 13.11.2018 and thereafter, the revision petitioner stopped paying rents to the suit property and started claiming rights over the suit property as if she is the wife of B.Vijayakumar, after the death of first wife of B.Vijayakumar.

3(iv) A legal notice came to be issued vide Ex.P5. There is no compliance to the callings of the legal notice or any reply to the said legal notice. As such, the suit for ejectment came to be filed by the plaintiff.

3(v) The revision petitioner served with the summons of the suit, entered appearance and filed written statement denying the jural relationship of landlady and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant and resisted the suit claim.

3(vi) Learned trial Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, by the impugned order, allowed the suit and directed the respondent to vacate and hand over the suit premises within three months from the date of order i.e., from 30.03.2024.

3(vii) Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant has filed the present revision petition on following grounds:-

The Court below failed to appreciate the nature of the defense raised by the petitioner that the Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for ejectment and ought to have returned the plaint.

The Trial Court wholly erred in its jurisdiction holding that the petitioner herein has not produced the rent receipt, if the petitioner is tenant she would have been paid the rent to the father of the respondent. Since the petitioner is the wife and resided under the same Roof, there was no such circumstance of paying the rent.

The Trial Court wholly erred in appreciating evidence led by this petitioner, such as tax paid receipt, voter ID and judgment passed in the CC No.24187/2017.

Once a dispute is other than termination of tenancy, under no circumstances, Small Causes Court gets jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

The Trial Court has not considered the material evidence adduced in the case. In fact, the respondent has produced the only photocopy of the rent agreement, which Hon'ble Trial Court should not have considered the same. Further, the signature on the alleged rent agreement is forged one, same erred by the Hon'ble Tria