Karnataka High Court
Sri N Rajendran vs Sri N Ramesh Dead By Lrs on 29 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43406
CRP No. 2 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 2 OF 2022 (SC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. N. RAJENDRAN
DEAD BY LRS P1 TO P3
1. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI,
W/O LATE N. RAJENDRAN,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
2. SRI. ARUN PRASAD R
S/O LATE N. RAJENDRAN,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
3. SRI. VIJAY ANAND R
S/O LATE N. RAJENDRAN,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
PETITIONER NO.1 TO 3
ARE RESIDING AT NO.46/10
1ST MAIN, 2ND STAGE,
Digitally OKALIPURAM,
signed by BANGALORE-560021
SUMA
Location: 4. SRI. B.R. RAJKUMAR
HIGH
COURT OF S/O. LATE E. RAJENDRAN,
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.26,
GROUND FLOOR,
3RD CROSS, KASTURI NAGAR,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE-560023
5. SRI. K.S. SHANTHAMURTHI
S/O. LATE K. KANDASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.11,
SRI NANDANA NILAYA,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43406
CRP No. 2 of 2022
2ND CROSS, 3RD MAIN,
MARUTHI NAGAAR,
J P NAGAR 7TH PHASE,
BANGALORE-560078
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M.S.SHANKARAGULLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. N. RAMESH
DEAD BY LRS R1 TO R3
1. GEETHA K,
W/O LATE G. RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
2. SANTHOSH R
S/O LATE G. RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
3. AJAY
S/O LATE G. RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NO.15 (NEW NO.15/A)
1ST FLOOR, 2ND CROSS,
NAGENDRA GARDEN,
SRIRAMAPURAM,
BANGALORE-560021
ALSO AT:
NO.U/9, GROUND FLOOR,
2ND MAIN ROAD,
NAGENDRA GARDEN,
SRIRAMAPURAM,
BANGALORE-560021
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHAMED KHAN A., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1
TO 3)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE SMALL
CAUSES COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.11.2021
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:43406
CRP No. 2 of 2022
PASSED IN S.C.NO.15294/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL
SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, AND 24th ACMM., COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR
EJECTMENT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners have challenged the judgment dated
26.11.2021 passed by the V Additional Small Causes
Judge and XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Court of Small Causes Court, Mayohall, Bengaluru in
S.C.No.15294/2019, by which, the suit for ejectment was
dismissed.
2. The petitioners herein filed S.C.No.15294/2019
for ejectment of the respondent and for recovery of a sum
of Rs.70,000/- being the arrears of rent from April, 2019
to November, 2019 and for damages of a sum of
Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of filing the suit, till
the defendant vacated and delivered the vacant
possession of the schedule 'B' property and for an enquiry
regarding mesne profits.
NC: 2023:KHC:43406
3. The petitioners claimed that they were the joint
owners of the suit property having acquired it in terms of
three registered gift deeds dated 25.03.2019. They
contended that the donors were their respective spouses.
They also contended that schedule 'A' property was the
self-acquisition of Smt. Muthamma who bequeathed it in
favour of her three daughters and later expired on
26.08.2018. After her death, her three daughters became
the joint owners of schedule 'A' property, got their names
transferred in the records of Bruhat Bengaluru
Mahanagara Palike and were paying the tax. They
contended that the defendant was the son of Smt.
Muthamma and their brother-in-law. They claimed that
Smt. Muthamma had permitted the respondent to occupy
the portion of schedule 'A' property which was described
as schedule 'B' property in the suit. They alleged that the
respondent was aware of the Will executed by Smt.
Muthamma in favour of her daughters and that Smt.
Muthamma had directed the respondent to vacate and
handover possession of the schedule 'B' property to her
NC: 2023:KHC:43406
daughters. The petitioners contend that they requested
the respondent to quit and deliver the vacant possession
of schedule 'B' property, though he had agreed to do so,
but yet was delaying it, by one or the other reasons. They
contended that Smt. Muthamma had inducted the
respondent/defendant as a tenant in the schedule 'B'
property on a monthly rent of Rs.10,000/-, in addition to
payment of electricity and water charges. The petitioners
therefore caused a notice of termination of tenancy and
since the respondent failed to comply, they instituted a
suit in S.C.No.15294/2019 for ejectment of the
respondent.
4. The respondent entered appearance and filed
his written statement denying the validity of the gift deeds
executed in favour of the petitioners by their respective
spouses. He contended that schedule 'A' property was the
self-acquisition of his father, and his father had acquired
the said property in the name of his wife Smt. Muthamma.
He claimed that he and his brothers had all contributed for
NC: 2023:KHC:43406
the construction of the building over the said property. He
claimed that his father had executed a Will dated
15.08.1980 in favour of Smt. Muthamma to enjoy the
property, till her death and later on, bequeathed it in
favour of all his children in an equitable manner.
However, he alleged that his sisters had created a Will by
forging the signature of Smt.Muthamma and got the
Khatha transferred illegally without the consent of the
defendant and his other brothers. He claimed that he was
not a tenant in the schedule 'A' property and was not
inducted by Smt. Muthamma. He further contended that
there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between
him and Smt.Muthamma or between him and the
petitioners. He further claimed that he and his brothers
had filed a suit in O.S.No.4968/2019 for partition and
separate possession of 'A' schedule property and they also
sought for a declaration that the gift deeds dated
25.03.2019 executed in favour of the petitioners as not
binding upon them and the said suit was pending
consideration. Therefore, he claimed that notice of
NC: 2023:KHC:43406
termination of tenancy issued by the petitioners was
suitably replied and therefore, he contended that the
petitioners are not entitled to eject him from the suit
schedule 'A" property.
5. Based on these contentions, the Trial Court
framed the following points for consideration:
"1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the
defendant is the tenant under the
plaintiffs as on the date of the suit?
2. Whether the plaintiffs have issued
the proper quit notice as required
under Section 106 of TP Act?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for
relief as sought for?
4. What order or decree?"
6. The petitioner No.5 was examined as PW.1 and
he marked documents as Exs.P1 to P24. He also examined
two attesting witnesses as PWs.2 and 3. The
defendant/respondent did not enter the witness box and
did not adduce any evidence. Based on the oral and
NC: 2023:KHC:43406
documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that though
the petitioners had terminated the tenancy, but they failed
to prove that the respondent was a tenant under
Smt. Muthamma, later under them and therefore, there
was no established relationship of landlord and tenant.
Hence, the Trial Court dismissed the suit in terms of the
impugned judgment and order. Being aggrieved by the
same, this revision petition is filed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that
the respondent is none other than the brother-in-law of
the petitioners and that he was inducted into the suit
schedule 'A' property by Smt. Muthamma on a monthly
rent of Rs.10,000/- per month and after her death, the
petitioners being the present owners of the suit schedule
properties, had called upon the respondent to quit and
delivery vacant possession of the suit schedule property.
However, since he failed to do so, they terminated the
tenancy and initiated proceedings for ejectment. The
learned counsel for the petitioners contended that except
NC: 2023:KHC:43406
the oral evidence, there is no evidence to indicate that the
respondent was a tenant in the schedule premises. He
further contended that since the parties were closely
related, there was no document in writing to evidence the
lease. He contended that the respondent who claimed
that he was in possession of the property in his own right,
did not enter the witness box, did not establish any of his
defences claimed in the written statement. He therefore,
contended that the Trial Court committed an error in
dismissing the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioners
contended that the Small Causes Court is entitled to
adjudicate the suits for ejectment, when notice of
termination of tenancy is issued in respect of an
arrangement between the landlord and tenant, which is
evidenced by oral evidence or document in writing. He
therefore, contended that the Trial Court could not have
dismissed the suit, as the tenancy of the respondent is
terminated.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43406
8. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to
3 is absent and therefore, this Court did not have the
advantage of his submission.
9. I have considered the submissions of learned
counsel for the petitioners.
10. A suit for ejectment has to be filed before the
Court of Small Causes, in view of the exclusive jurisdiction
of the Small Causes Court as set out in Section 9 of the
Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, 1964. Under Section 8
of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, any suit for
ejectment of a tenant based on an agreement in writing or
oral, has to be considered by the Court of Small Causes.
When the petitioners filed the suit for ejectment of the
respondent, they rightly initiated proceedings before the
Small Causes Court. However, the question was whether
the petitioners were able to demonstrate that there was a
relationship of landlord and tenant, which was the bedrock
of jurisdiction of a Small Causes Court. If only when the
petitioners are able to demonstrate that there was a
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43406
relationship of the landlord and tenant, could the Small
Causes Court pass an order of ejectment of a tenant.
11. In the case on hand, the petitioners claimed
that they were the beneficiaries under gift deeds executed
by their respective spouses and that their respective
spouses were the beneficiaries under the Will executed by
their mother - Smt.Muthamma. They also contended that
the respondent was the son of Smt. Muthamma and he
was permitted to be in occupation of the suit 'A' property
on a monthly rent of Rs.10,000/-.
12. Per contra, the respondent contended to the
contrary and disputed the Will as well as the execution of
the gift deeds in favour of the petitioners. He did not
accept that he was a tenant in the schedule premises.
Therefore, it was incumbent upon the petitioners to
adduce sufficient evidence to establish the relationship of
landlord and tenant between them and the respondent.
Unfortunately, even on a thorough reading of the entire
evidence on record, it not disclose even a shred of
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43406
evidence to prove that the respondent was a tenant under
Smt. Muthamma or under the petitioners. On the contrary,
the evidence of PW.1 shows that the respondent was in
permissive possession of the suit property. He also
admitted that certain other proceedings were initiated by
the respondent in respect of the suit property, which were
pending consideration. Therefore, there is no material to
establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between
the petitioners and the respondent. The reliance placed by
the learned counsel for the petitioners on the judgment of
Full Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Wajid Vs.
A.S.Onkarappa - ILR 2011 KAR 229 would not help the
petitioners in any manner. On the contrary, it would
advance the case of the respondent, in as much as, the
Full Bench took note of the fact that the Small Causes
Court is only entitled to look into the question whether the
relationship of landlord and tenant exists and whether
there is lawful termination of tenancy. The Full Court also
took note of the fact that even a mere denial by the tenant
of the tenancy, would not be sufficient to oust the
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43406
jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court and it is upon the
landlord to establish the relationship.
13. In so far as the judgment relied upon by the
learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of Sri.
Siddharooda Swamy Math Trust Committee, Hubballi
Vs. Shankarsa and Others - 2023(4) KCCR 3430, that
was a case where the tenant filed an application for
rejection of the plaint on the ground that there was no
relationship of landlord and tenant. The coordinate bench
of this Court held that the relationship of landlord being a
question of fact, the same cannot be the basis to reject
the plaint itself on an application filed by the tenant.
However, in the present case, the evidence adduced by
the petitioners falls short and does not prove the
relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners
and the respondent.
14. In that view of the matter, there is no error
committed by the Trial Court in dismissing the suit.
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43406
15. Consequently, this petition lacks merit and is
dismissed.
16. It is always open for the petitioners to file
appropriate proceedings to establish their title and recover
possession in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HJ
