The court affirmed that a tenant must vacate premises and establish rights after denying the landlord-tenant relationship, reinforcing the importance of valid tenancy evidence in ejectment suits.

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri Devaraj A.S., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Ramesha M.N., learned counsel for respondent.

2. Defendant in S.C.No.1765/2018 is the revision petitioner, challenging the decree of ejectment passed in the said small causes suit.

3. Operative portion of the order of the trial Court reads as under:

“The Suit of the Plaintiff is partly decreed with costs.

The defendant is hereby directed to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within two months from the date of this order.

Further the defendant is directed to pay arrears of rent of Rs.55,000/- and enhanced rent from July 2018 onwards and further directed to pay damages.

In the event of failure of the defendant to deliver the vacant possession of schedule property and paying arrears of rent the plaintiff is at liberty to get delivery of vacant possession of the schedule property and recover the arrears of rent and damages by due process of law.

Draw decree accordingly.”

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

4.1. Plaintiff filed suit in respect of immovable property, bearing number 50-48-49, BBMP Ward No. 163, Kathriguppa Municipal No.46 (old No.50-48), PID No.50-359-46, measuring east to west 50 feet, north to south 20 feet, in all measuring 5 square feet building (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’), contending that defendant is the tenant under the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs.5,500/- and there was a security deposit in a sum of Rs.50,000/-.

5. An oral rental agreement came into existence in this regard on 02.06.2016. The tenancy is 11 months tenancy, commencing from 02.06.2016 for a period of 11 months, i.e., upto May 2017.

6. It was also agreed that if the defendant continues to occupy the premises beyond the 11 months, he should be treated as an illegal occupation.

7. When plaintiff demanded monthly rent, at that juncture, defendant and his wife assaulted the plaintiff and his wife in the month of July 2017. Therefore, wife of the plaintiff lodged a complaint against the defendant and his wife and police after thorough investigation filed charge sheet against the defendant and his wife, which is pending before the Court in C.C.No.1294/2017.

8. When there was no compliance to the demand of rent, defendant told that the rents can be adjusted in the security deposit of Rs.50,000/-. Thereafter, legal notice came to be issued. The said notice was dated 17.07.2018, whereby the termination of tenancy has taken place and despite the same, defendant continued to occupy the premises and therefore, sought for decree of ejectment.

9. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant appeared before the Court and filed detailed written statement denying the plaint averments in toto and contented that suit is vexatious, frivolous and not maintainable. Defendant also denied the landlord and tenant relationship.

10. He further contented that there was no agreement to pay Rs.50,000/- as the security deposit and sum of Rs.5,500/- as monthly rent.

11. On the contrary, defendant contended that there was a lease agreement executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant on 15.07.2016, wherein he has agreed to allow the defendant to being in possession of the suit property for a period of three years on receipt of Rs.5,50,000/- by the wife of plaintiff which has been suppressed and a wrong suit came to be filed.

12. Defendant also contended that the fraud played by the plaintiff was complained to the police and police after thorough investigation has file