This

appeal

by

the

unsuccessful

plaintiff

in

O.S.No.6457/2002 is directed against the impugned judgment

and decree dated 30.09.2006 passed by the XV Addl.City Civil

and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, whereby the said suit for

ejectment and other reliefs filed by the appellant – plaintiff

against the respondent – defendant in respect of the suit

schedule immovable property was dismissed by the trial court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for appellant and learned

counsel for the respondent and perused the material on

record.

3. The material on record discloses that the appellant –

plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit inter alia contending that

the respondent – defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff in

respect of the suit schedule property on a monthly rent of

Rs.800/- excluding water and electricity charges. It was

contended that the suit schedule property earlier belonged to

one K.Gangadhar, from whom the plaintiff purchased the

3

property vide registered sale deed dated 11.09.1998, pursuant

to which, the defendant despite having been informed to attorn

her tenancy and pay rents to the plaintiff, did not do so and

was due in a sum of Rs.28,800/- payable to the plaintiff as on

the date of the suit. Further, though the plaintiff got issued a

legal notice dated 05.07.2002 to the defendant calling upon

her to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit

premises to the plaintiff, the defendant did not comply with the

same and instead, got issued a false and untenable reply

dated 24.09.2002 and as such, plaintiff was constrained to

institute the aforesaid suit against the defendant.

4. The defendant contested the suit by filing her written

statement disputing and denying the claims and contentions of

the plaintiff. It is contended that the suit premises belonged to

one H.S.Anil Kumar, husband of the defendant and they had

started a school under the name and style M/s.Hemant

Education Society. It was also contended that the suit

premises was purchased by the said Anil Kumar in the name

of defendant’s brother-in-law, K.Gangadharan, alleged vendor

4

of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff colluded with the

jurisdictional police and forced Gangadharan to execute the

said sale deed dated 11.09.1998 relied upon by the plaintiff

within a period of 22 days from the date of demise of Anil

Kumar, who committed suicide. It is also contended that the

said Anil Kumar had executed a will on 21.12.1997 in favour of

the defendant’s minor son to the knowledge of the plaintiff and

his mother. It was further contended that there was no jural

relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and

defendant and various claims and contentions put forth by the

plaintiff were denied by the defendant. It was therefore

contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief in the

suit and that the same was liable to be dismissed.

5. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the trial court

framed the following issues:-

“ 1.

Whether the plaintiff is the landlord

of the premises wherein defendant is in

possession?

5

2.

Whether the defendant is a tenant

on a monthly rent of Rs.800/- apart from

electricity and water charges?

3.

Whether the defendant is in arrears

of rent from 1/9/1999 till 31/8/2002.

4.

Whether the termination of tenancy

is in accordance with law?

5.

Whether plaintiff is entitled to

possession?

6.

To what order and relief the parties

are entitled? “

6. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and Exs.P1

to P23 were marked on his behalf. The defendant examined

herself as DW-1 and Exs.D1 to D11 were marked.

7. After hearing the parties, the trial court answered the

aforesaid issue No.1 in favour of the appellant – plaintiff,

thereby coming to the conclusion that the appellant was the

owner and landlord of the suit schedule premises. However,

the trial court answered issue Nos. 2 to 6 against the appellant

– plaintiff and came to the conclusion that the appellant had

not proved the jural relationship of the landlord and tenant

6