IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.677 OF 2024 (RES)

BETWEEN:

1. JAYALAKSHMI W/O S.R. FASALKAR AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT NEAR POLICE CHOWKI VINOBANAGAR SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.

2. VINODA G. KALAL W/O G.K. KALAL AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O HOSAMANE, 1^ST CROSS SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.

3. SUDHIR K., Digitally signed S/O R.K. KALYANKAR by DEVIKA M AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS Location: HIGH ACCOUNT OFFICER COURT OF IFFCO, CUNNINGHAM ROAD KARNATAKA BENGALURU–560 052.

4. MALATHI B. MATEKAR W/O BALAJI RAO AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/O VIDYANAGAR DAVANAGERE-577 005.

5. JIJA BAI @ SWETHA BHOJARAJ W/O BHOJARAJ AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/O SHARIFF MANZIL BIDKEKAR, GANGA SADAN SAVARDEM, GOA–416 109.

APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 5 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI. R.K. SIDDARAMANNA S/O R.K. KALYANKAR AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/O GANDHI BAZAR SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S.V. PRAKASH &

SRI. UMESH MOOLIMANI, ADVOCATES)

AND:

1. KATHYAYANI W/O LATE SHIVAKUAMR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

2. DEEPAK S/O LATE SHIVAKUAMR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS BOTH ARE R/O C/O. A.V.PUSHPAVATHI NO.139, ‘ASHWINI’, A.N.K.ROAD 4^TH CROSS, VENKATESHNAGARA SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.

…RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.01.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.136/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, C/C. II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.03.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.168/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL JUDGMENT

This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for the appellants.

2. This second appeal is filed against concurrent finding of the Trial Court.

3. The factual matrix of the case of plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that the property was let out to the defendants in the year 2011 and before filing the suit, notice was also issued, but no reply was given and defendants are also due for arrears of rent, but the plaintiffs restricted the prayer for recovery of arrears of rent for a period of 3 years. In order to substantiate that the defendants were tenants, nothing is placed on record. Hence, in paragraph No.12 of the judgment of the Trial Court, the Trial Court made an observation that the plaintiffs have not produced any single document to prove the relationship that plaintiffs and defendants are landlord and tenants. Though the plaintiffs have produced the copy of notice issued to the defendants which is marked as Ex.P6 terminating the tenancy, the signatures on Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 creates doubt in the mind of the Court and the same has not been proved by the plaintiffs by giving cogent evidence that the same is served to the defendants and also comes to the conclusion that unless the relationship of landlord and tenant is established, question of granting the judgment and decree does not arise and dismissed the suit.

4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.136/2020. The First Appellate Court also having considered the grounds which have been urged in the appeal, in detail discussed in paragraph Nos.17, 18 and 19 with regard to no document is placed before the Court to establish the fact that the respondents were tenants and even for sub-tenancy which they have pleaded not placed any document before the Trial Court. Even the First Appellate Court also having taken note of the signatures found on Exs.P7 and P8-postal acknowledgments, when notice was served on the defendants, found discrepancy in Exs.P7 and P8 and observed that the signatures are totally inconsistent and not tallies with each other. Further on perusal of postal acknowledgement which belongs to suit summons of defendants