This revision petition is filed by the defendant under

Section 18 of the Small Cause Courts Act, 1964

challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2021

passed by

the

Small Causes

Court,

Bengaluru

in

S.C.No.608/2018, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for

ejectment is allowed.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to

as per their ranking before the trial court.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the absolute

owner of the property bearing Old No.85/47, New No.49

(northern portion), Khatha No.85, Hosakerehalli Village,

BSK III Stage, Bangalore – 85, measuring East to West

40 ft. and North to South 15 ft. It is the further case of

the plaintiff that he had purchased the same from one Sri

Rajashekar P., S/o.Prasannaiah under a registered sale

deed dated 02.08.2007. Since then, he is in peaceful

- 3 -

possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is his

case that the defendant was inducted as a tenant in a

portion of the premises at the first floor of the property

bearing Old No.85/47, New No.49 (northern portion),

khata No.85, Hosakerehalli Village, BSK III Stage,

Bengaluru measuring East to West 40 ft., North to South

15 ft., on a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/-. The tenancy had

taken effect from 01.04.2016 and would expire on

28.02.2017. After the sale of the property in favour of the

plaintiff his vendor caused attornment notice dated

03.08.2017, duly informing the sale of the property to the

defendant.

4. It is his further case that the defendant is a chronic

defaulter in the matter of payment of monthly rent. Since

the plaintiff required the schedule premises for his own

use and occupation, he requested the defendant to vacate

the premises. Since he refused to vacate, the plaintiff

issued a legal notice dated 13.03.2018 calling upon the

defendant to vacate the premises. Since the defendant

- 4 -

did not receive the legal notice, the plaintiff filed a suit for

ejectment.

5. On service of notice, defendant appeared through

his counsel and filed a written statement denying the

plaint averments. It is his specific contention that the

court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and he also denied

the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit schedule

premises. It is his further contention that the defendant is

a lessee under one Rajashekhar by lease agreement dated

10.04.2017 and he has paid the lease amount of

Rs.3,50,000/- to the said Rajashekhar. He also contended

that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between

him and the plaintiff. Hence, sought for dismissal of the

suit.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

trial court framed the following issues:

(i)

Whether the plaintiff proves the existence of

jural relationship between himself and the

defendant?

- 5 -

(ii)

Whether the plaintiff further proves that the

tenancy is legally terminated?

(iii)

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs

claimed?

(iv)

What order or decree?

7. To prove the case, plaintiff examined himself as

PW1 and marked documents as Exs. P1 to P6. The

defendant examined himself as DW1 and one more

witness, Suresh, as DW2 and marked documents as

Exs.D1, D2 and D2(a). On appreciation of oral and

documentary evidence the trial court answered issue Nos.

1 and 2 in the affirmative, issue No.3 partly in the

affirmative and decreed the suit directing the defendant to

quit and handover the vacant possession of the schedule

premises to the plaintiff within one month from the date of

the said order. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant is

before this court.

- 6 -

8.

The

learned

counsel

appearing

for

the

appellant/defendant has raised the following contentions:

(i) Firstly, there is no landlord and tenant relationship

between the plaintiff and the defendant and he denied that

the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule premises.

(ii) Secondly, the defendant is in the possession of

the prop