The burden of proof regarding tenancy lies with the party asserting existence of that legal relationship, as per the Indian Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in O.S. 16617/2003 on the file of the Additional City Civil Judge (CH.20) has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment dated 31.10.2014 dismissing the said suit.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred with respect to their position in the suit throughout the discussion. The pleadings in a nutshell are as follows : -

The suit property is premises bearing No. 86/2, Wheelers Road, Cox Town, Bengaluru, as described in the plaint schedule. One Mr.Eshwar and Mr.Mukund are the owners of this premises. They leased this premises to the plaintiff who in turn leased it to the defendant. The defendant was chronic defaulter in paying the rents at the rate of Rs.11,000/- per month and fell in due of a sum of Rs.1,54,000/- from May 2002 to June 2003. After adjusting the arrears from the advance of the rent amount, the defendant was still found due in a sum of Rs.64,000/-. Therefore, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 9.7.2003 and demanded the vacant possession of the suit property from him. The defendant received this notice on 11.7.2003. On 1.8.2003 at about 7.00 PM, the original owners Mukund and Eshwar and other well wishers intervened and as a result, a compromise was arrived at. The defendant was given six months time to pay arrears of rent of Rs.64,000/- on or before February 2004 and the defendant agreed to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff on or before 31.10.2003. Thus, the defendant became a licencee after this compromise. On 17.10.2003 the plaintiff terminated the licence of the plaintiff by issuing a legal notice. On 1.11.2003 when the plaintiff wanted to take possession of the suit premises, the defendant and his supporters prevented her from taking possession of the suit premises and other articles given to the defendant by the plaintiff for the purpose of running a restaurant. The police also declined to interfere when she contacted them. Therefore, in these premises the plaintiff filed the suit seeking ejectment of the defendant from the suit premises and damages @ Rs.1,000/- per day, besides licence fee of Rs.22,000/-.

3. In the written statement, the defendant denies all the averments of the plaint and his specific contention is that on 4.2.1994 the defendant was inducted as sub-tenant by the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises and that the plaintiff promised to regularize the lease by getting the owners of the suit premises executing a lease agreement directly in his favour. Accordingly, in the month of May 2002, the plaintiff surrendered her leasehold rights over the suit premises to the owners. A fresh lease agreement came into existence between the owners and the defendant and that the latter started paying rents directly to the owners. Therefore, there does not exist relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant also contended that he was not due to pay any amount to the plaintiff towards rent. He denied that he obstructed the plaintiff from taking the suit premises. Another specific plea taken by the defendant is that plaintiff is a foreign national and therefore she is prevented from holding any rights over immovable property in accordance with the provisions of FEMA Act.

4. The trial court framed the following issues :-

“1. Does plaintiff prove the defendant is her tenant under the lease agreement dated 07/12/1998 in respect of plaint schedule premises?

2. Does plaintiff further prove the defendant is liable to pay arrears of license fee amounting to Rs.22,000/-?

3. Does plaintiff further prove the d