A tenant denying a landlord's ownership must vacate the property and pursue separate legal action to establish title, reinforcing the court's ruling that the ejectment suit was valid.

ORDER :

1. Heard Sri.Premnath T. N., learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri.Yeshu Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Defendant's revision petition challenging the validity of the order passed in S.C.No.1716/2017 on the file of Small Causes Court, Bengaluru (SCCH-17).

3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:

3.1. A suit came to be filed for the relief of ejectment against the revision petitioner by the respondent by contending that plaintiff is the owner of the ‘B’ schedule property comprising of shop in the ground floor bearing old No.73/17 and New No.17 situated at B. Oosman Khan Road, Bengaluru-560 002 measuring East to West 20 feet and North to South 30 feet (hereinafter referred to as the suit property).

3.2. Plaintiff contended that his father K.N.Devaraj was the owner and later on, plaintiff has become the owner of the suit property and defendant is a tenant in the said property and he failed to pay the rent and there is an arrears and therefore, sought for ejectment.

3.3. Suit was resisted by the defendant by filing detailed written statement by contending that he is not a tenant in the suit property and father of the plaintiff namely K.N.Devaraj was the absolute owner who had permitted the father of the defendant namely Syed Raheem @ Babu to occupy the portion of the property and to carry on scrap business and later on, there was an agreement to sell entered into by the father of the plaintiff with the defendant and in respect of the same, a suit is pending in O.S.No.8018/2013 seeking specific enforcement of the agreement to sell and therefore, suit needs to be rejected.

4. Learned Trial Judge after recording the evidence of the parties, considered the rival contentions of the parties and decreed the suit.

5. Operative portion of the suit reads as under:

“The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed in part, with cost.

The defendant shall vacate and handover the vacant possession of the plaint ‘B’ schedule premises in favour of the plaintiff, within two months from the date of decree. Failing which, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession, as per law.

There shall be a separate enquiry to determine the arrears of rent/mesne profit.

Draw decree accordingly.”

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

 The impugned Judgment and decree passed by the trial court is without jurisdiction, arbitrary in nature, erroneous and opposed to the facts decided wrongly, oral and documentary evidence and probabilities of the case. The court below erred in giving a reasoning about the created and concocted facts to attract the jurisdiction of the trial court, based on the alleged facts in the absence of proper documentary proof as required in the eye of law against the petitioner. The said reasoning is without jurisdiction, arbitrary, illegal, erroneous and unjustified. Thus the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be set-aside.

 The Hon'ble trial court failed to appreciate the facts and give the reasoning as to on what basis the respondent has proved that the petitioner is a tenant under him. Without any lota of evidence and substantial proof the trail court gave the finding in affirmative which is against to the judicious proceedings.Thus the impugned judgment and decree liable to be set-aside.

 The trial court failed to look in to the records in proper perspective, in para-8 of the impugned judgment the trial court has given a finding that the respondent