Sri. L. Anantha vs Sri. Kantilal Pukhraj Jain
2023 Latest Caselaw 5357 Kant

                                             -1-
                                                     NC: 2023:KHC:27765
                                                         CRP No. 598 of 2022




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

                                          BEFORE
                     THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
                      CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 598 OF 2022 (SC)
                   BETWEEN:

                   SRI. L. ANANTHA
                   S/O. LATE LAKSHMANAPPA
                   ALIAS LAKSHMAIAH
                   AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
                   NO. 336/1, 7TH CROSS
                   KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR
                   LAKSHMIPURA, BENGALURU-560 019.            ...PETITIONER


                   (BY SRI. IRSHAD AHMED K., ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   SRI. KANTILAL PUKHRAJ JAIN
                   S/O. SRI. PUKHRAJ DHOKA
                   AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
Digitally signed   SHOP NO. 5, FIRST FLOOR
by
DHANALAKSHMI       PROPERTY NO. 934
MURTHY             SRI. PURANDARA BHAVANA
Location: High     DHARMARAYA SWAMY TEMPLE ROAD
Court of
Karnataka          BENGALURU-560 002.                         ...RESPONDENT

                   (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS HELD SUFFICIENT
                   V/O DATED: 14.06.2023)
                       THIS CRP FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE SMALL
                   CAUSES COURT ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
                   DATED 08.08.2022 PASSED IN SC.No.861/2021 ON THE FILE
                   OF THE XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE,
                   BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.
                               -2-
                                       NC: 2023:KHC:27765
                                             CRP No. 598 of 2022




     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                           ORDER

This revision petition is filed under Section 18 of

Small Causes Court Act by the petitioner/plaintiff

challenging the order dated 08.08.2022 passed by the 23rd

Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore in S.C.

No.861/2021, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff is

dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their ranking before the trial court.

3. The plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment contending

that he is the owner of the property. After service of

summons, defendant has not appeared. The trial court,

on the basis of the pleadings of the plaintiff has framed

the following issues:

"(1) Whether the plaintiff proved that, the defendant is a tenant under him in respect of the schedule shop premises?

NC: 2023:KHC:27765 CRP No. 598 of 2022

(2) Whether plaintiff proved that, he has terminated the tenancy between him and the defendant by a valid notice as required under law?

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought in the suit?

(4) What order or decree?"

4. After considering the oral and documentary

evidence, answered point Nos.1 to 3 in the negative and

dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed

this petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has

contended that the plaintiff has produced the property

register extract, rent taken receipt and bank statement to

prove that he is the owner of the property. His right

regarding the ownership has hot been disputed by the

tenant by filing any written statement. But the trial court

has erred in dismissing the suit.

6. Respondent served and unrepresented.

NC: 2023:KHC:27765 CRP No. 598 of 2022

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

perused the revision petition papers and the original

records.

8. The plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment and arrears

of rent. He has produced the register extract in respect of

the suit schedule property, tax paid receipt and bank

statement to show that he is the owner of the property.

Since the documents produced by the plaintiff is not

sufficient to prove that he is the owner of the property, the

trial court has dismissed the suit. Now, the learned

counsel for the plaintiff submitted that if this Court gives

one more opportunity, he will produce the sale deed and

other relevant documents to prove that he is the owner of

the property.

9. Under these circumstances, to give one more

opportunity, I am of the opinion that the matter requires

to be remitted back to the trial court to re-consider the

matter afresh. Accordingly, I pass the following order:

(i) The revision petition is allowed.

NC: 2023:KHC:27765 CRP No. 598 of 2022

(ii) The order dated 08.08.2022 passed by the

23rd Additional Small Causes Judge,

Bangalore in S.C. No.861/2021, is set aside.

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the trial court

to re-consider the matter afresh, in

accordance with law.

(iv) The parties are at liberty to produce

additional documents and adduce additional

evidence.

(v) The trial court is directed to dispose of the

suit as expeditiously as possible, in any

event, within six months from the date of

receipt of the certified copy of this order.

Sd/-

JUDGE

CM