A tenant cannot contest a claimed ownership of a property without vacating it first, establishing a need for civil procedure to resolve ownership disputes.

ORDER :

1. Heard Sri N. Shankaranarayana Bhat, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri A. Ram Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The defendant in S.C.No.1679/2011 is the revision petitioner challenging the validity of the order passed by the learned trial Judge directing the revision petitioner/defendant to vacate and hand over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within four months.

3. Brief facts of the case for dispose of the present revision petition are as under:

3.1. A suit came to be filed by the plaintiff contending that she is the absolute owner of the following property bearing No.12, 14 A cross, Malleswaram, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’).

“All that piece and parcel of property No.12 (old No.737) situated at the corner of 11^th Main Road, 14 A Cross, Malleshwaram, Bangalore - 560 003, measuring East to West 35 feet and North to South 65 feet and bounded on the:

East by : Property belonging to M.A.Prema (No.13)

West by : 11^th Main Road

North by: House belonging to Mallikarjuna Rao/private property

South by: 14^th A cross road.”

4. It is her case that she inherited the suit property through her father and all revenue records are in the name of her father Late M.A.T. Iyengar.

5. Further contention of the plaintiff is that defendant is a tenant under the plaintiff for several years. Initially he was paying rent of Rs.150/- per month and as on the date of filing of the suit he was paying the rent of Rs.500/- per month. Plaintiff was desirous of visiting to Bengaluru and settle down in Bengaluru and with that intention, she requested the defendant to vacate the premises. But, defendant failed to vacate the premises. Therefore, legal notice was caused on 08.04.2009.

6. An untenable reply was sent by the defendant on 21.04.2009 and therefore, plaintiff left with no alternative had to file the suit for recovery of the possession of the property.

7. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant entered appearance and filed written statement contending that he is the owner of the suit property and during the lifetime of Sri Somasundaraiah, who is the father of defendant, purchased the immovable property bearing Municipal No.12, (old No.727), 14^th cross, (presently known as 14^th A cross). Therefore, defemdamt is staying in the suit property as of his own right and not as a tenant.

8. Based on the rival contentions, the matter was shut down for recording the evidence.

9. On behalf of plaintiff, her General Power of Attorney holder by name H.O. Sudarshan Rajagopal got examined as P.W.1 and placed on record the original General Power of Attorney, encumbrance certificate, office copy of the legal notice, registered post with acknowledgement due, reply notice issued by the defendant.

10. As against the evidence placed on record, defendant did not step into the witness box nor placed any documentary evidence.

11. Learned trial Judge taking note of the above factual aspects of the matter, heard the parties and decreed the suit.

12. Operative portion of the judgment reads as under:

“The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with cost against the defendant.

The defendant is hereby directed to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within four months from the date of this Judgment.

Failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to take steps as per law.

Draw the decree accordingly.”

13. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant has filed the present revision petition on the following grounds:

 The Lower Court acted without jurisdiction and with material irregularities in decreeing the suit of the Respondent under the provisions of Small Ca