IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 204 OF 2020 (SC)

BETWEEN:

MR. ALATAF AHMED AGE 59 YEARS, S/O A R RAZACK HAVING SHOP AT NO.5A NO.64/2, FIRST FLOOR, OLD KASAI ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 002 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARATH S GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

NAZNIN TAJ AGED 69 YEARS, W/O DR IMTIAZ ALI TAJ R/AT C/O NO.376, K.P.T.C.L. LAYOUT KASAVANAHALLI SARJAPURA ROAD CROSS, Digitally signed BENGALURU - 560 035 by PRASHANTH N V …RESPONDENT Location: H igh (BY SRI. MEHTER .M. AZZAM, ADVOCATE)

Court of Karnataka THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF CPC 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.03.2020 PASSED IN SC.NO.15085/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE I/C V ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND XXIV ACMM, BENGALURU DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.

THIS CRP, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner being the defendant in SC.No.15085/2019 on the file of the learned V Additional Judge, Small Causes Court and XXIV ACMM, Bengaluru, is impugning the judgment dated 12.03.2020 decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff and directing the petitioner/defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property within two months and to pay the arrears of rent.

2. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.

3. Facts of the case in brief are that, the plaintiff filed S.C.No.15085/2019 against the defendant seeking his ejectment and for vacant possession of the premises in question. It is the contention of the plaintiff that, initially her mother was the owner of the premises, and after her death, she succeeded to the property and became the owner. The defendant was inducted as tenant in respect of the schedule property, which is a commercial shop premises, on a monthly rent of Rs.400/-. The defendant was a chronic defaulter, and the plaintiff issued the legal notice determining the tenancy and calling upon him to surrender the vacant possession. But the defendant has not adhered to the legal notice and hence, the suit came to be filed.

4. The defendant has appeared before the Trial Court and filed his written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff. It is contended that the defendant is not the tenant under the plaintiff. There is no lease agreement and there is no jural relationship of owner and tenant. Hence, he contended that the Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is further contended that the father of the defendant had paid Rs.1,50,000/- on 04.09.1996 to the mother of the plaintiff and he has paid Rs.1,00,000/- each on 07.06.1999 and again on 05.05.2002. Therefore, it is contended that the defendant's father was in permissive occupation of the premises. Only on payment of Rs.3,50,000/- referred to above, the defendant is ready to hand over the possession of the premises.

5. On the basis of these pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following points for consideration.

POINTS "(i) Whether the plaintiff proves that there is a jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff proves that the tenancy of the defendant was terminated with respect of the suit schedule premises?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim the relief as sought for?

(iv) What order or decree?"

6. The plaintiff got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. The defendant got examined himself as DW.1. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration all these materials on record came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved the jural relationship and decreed the suit as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant is before this Court.

7. Heard Sri. Sharath S. Gowda, the learned counsel for petitioner and Sri. Mehter M. Azzam, the learned counsel for respondent. Perused the materials