Tenants failed to provide sufficient evidence to contest ownership and tenancy claims, leading to dismissal of revision petitions.

ORDER :

V.SRISHANANDA, J.

1. Heard Sri. Vinayak V. Kulakarni, learned counsel for the revision petitioners in both the matters.

2. Defendants are the revision petitioners in SC No.15188/2019 and SC No.15189/2019. Respondents in both the matters filed the suit for ejectment on the ground that there is arrears of rent and by terminating the tenancy.

3. Both the matters were contested by the tenants. After full fledged trial, learned Trial Judge in paragraph No.17 of both the judgments, has held as under:

"17. It is also true that till this date defendants have not disputed the title of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property nor their jural relationship. If the version of the defendants are really true, they could have tender the lease deed alleged to has executed in the year 2019 or they could have given reply to the quit notice which is at Ex.P.4. Defendants have failed to establish their contention that lease agreement dated 25.07.2017 is created one. It is settled position of law that creation of the documents has to be specifically pleaded and shall be proved by tendering cogent and tantamount document. Defendants have utterly failed to establish their contention. There is not material on record to disbelieve the version of the plaintiffs and oral testimony of PW-2 and the allegation of the plaintiffs based on the evidence cannot brush aside and ignored. Hence with the aforesaid discussion based on the evidence placed on record, I am answering point No.1 and 2 in partly affirmative.

4. Thereafter, decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff and granted time of 30 days to vacate the premises and also to pay arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.1,21,000/- in both the cases and continue to pay rent of Rs.11,000/- towards the damages from the date of filing suit till realisation.

5. Validity of the said order is called in question in these two revision petitions on common grounds which are called out hereunder for any reference:

- That at the outset the plaint in O.S No 15188/2019 is not maintainable in law as the same is hit by the provisions of order 7 rule 11 (a) and (d) and also Order VII Rule 1 (e) of the code of civil procedure and therefore, the same is liable to be rejected in limine.

- That, a plain reading of the plaint discloses that the plaint is vexatious, meritless, perverse on the face of recorand does not disclose a clear right to sue. The averments made in the plaint are general in nature and does not disclose cause of action to file to suit.

- That, the foundation for the respondents to file the suit is on the basis of the Agreement purported to have been executed on 23.04.2024, in respect of the suit schedule premises, which is executed by the respondents in favour of the petitioner. The said Agreement which is a suit document, is not produced by the respondent in the suit, and therefore the suit is meritless and the plaint is liable to be rejected for non-disclosure of cause of action.

- That at paragraph 1 of the Quit Notice dated 18.05.2019, the respondents have stated as under: -

- “.. they are the absolute owners of the property at No.40, 6th Cross, 8th Main, Malleshwarm, Bengaluru- 560003. Portions of the said property bearing No. 40/2, 40/5, 40/6 which is hereinafter referred to as subject properties was let out to you and the last lease agreements executed between the parties was on 25.07.2017 for a tenure of further 11 months.

- That further at paragraph 4 of the plaint it is stated by the plaintiffs as under: -

- "… the lease agreement is an unregistered document which cannot confer any term beyond a period of 11 months the defendant is however as a te