Ramesh P. vs Chandrakantha V.

B.S. Patil, J.—This revision petition is filed under section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, challenging the order dated 20.06.2015 passed by the Small Causes Court, Bengaluru, directing ejectment of the revision petitioner from the suit schedule property.

The Defendant-Revision Petitioner has been directed to handover the vacant possession of the premises within one month from the date of the order. It is also ordered that liberty is reserved with regard to mesne profits to proceed as per Order XX Rule 12 of CPC.

The facts briefly stated would disclose that the plaintiff claims to be owner of the suit schedule property bearing No. J-115 carved out of Sy. Nos. 20 and 20/1 of Anjaneya Block, Sheshadripuram, Bengaluru, having purchased the same on 17.09.2012 as per registered sale deed. He has purchased from the power of attorney holder of the defendant-Nandakumar and his mother Chennamma. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff on a monthly rental of Rs. 4,500/-. As defendant failed to pay the rents with effect from 18.09.2012 upto 10.07.2013, the plaintiff terminated the tenancy by issuing legal notice dated 15.07.2013 which was served on the defendant on 20.07.2013. As the defendant failed to vacate the premises despite service of notice, a suit came to be instituted.

On service of summons, the defendant appeared and contested the claim, contending, inter alia, that the suit was not maintainable; that the suit property was not sold to any person by its owners. Indeed, it was a mortgage executed and the sale deed obtained was fraudulent one. He denied relationship of landlord and tenant. It was urged by him that himself and his mother Chennamma were absolute owners of the house property situated in Sheshadripuram which was part of the suit schedule property. The defendant further contended that having come to know about the fraudulent sale deed, got executed by the plaintiff, the power of attorney holder of the defendant has instituted OS No. 6432/2013 which has been pending before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru.

In support of the case of the plaintiff, he examined himself as PW. 1, Ex. P1 to Ex. P4 were produced and marked. It is relevant to note that the defendant did not step into the witness box. On the other hand, Sri M.N. Nandakumar, defendant in the connected small causes suit SC No. 997/2013 entered into the witness box as power of attorney holder of the present defendant/tenant and for himself as DW. 1 and deposed that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant because the plaintiff was not the owner of the property and it was he [special power of attorney holder Nandakumar] who was the absolute owner of the property. Ex. D1-certified copy of the order sheet and plaint in OS No. 6432/2013 and Ex. D2 � Special power of attorney were produced and marked.

The Trial Court, on appreciation of evidence on record, has found that relationship of landlord and tenant has been established in as much as in terms of section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, the purchaser of the premises would automatically step into the shoes of the landlord and there would be statutory attornment of tenancy. In addition, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff-landlord has terminated the tenancy of the defendant by issuing legal notice. The said legal notice has not been replied. The defendant cannot take advantage of the suit filed by Nandakumar in OS No. 6432/2013 to contend that the consideration of ejectment suit has to be deferred indefinitely pending final adjudication of the said suit. In the connected matter in CRP No. 447/2015, I have already held as under:

"7. In the background of this contention, I have examined the entire material on record, including findings recorded by the Court below.

It is clear from the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the Trial Court that Ex. P4 is lease deed said to have been executed by Nandakumar in favour of the plaintiff. This document has been admitted. The signature has also been admitted by the defendant and the same has been marked as Ex. P4[a]. Therefore, it is clear from these documents, that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant in respect of the suit premises.

The suit in OS No. 6432/2013 has been filed after small causes suit for ejectment was instituted and after the legal notice terminating the tenancy was issued and served on the defendant. Indeed, service of legal notice has not been denied by the defendant. In such circumstances, the Court below has rightly found that the registered sale deed executed by the defendant and his mother in favour of the plaintiff followed by the lease deed executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff which has been admitted, had to be relied upon to find out the existence of jural relationship of landlord and tenant.

The contention of the defendant is that the transaction comprised in the registered sale deed was not an out and out sale, but was a mortgage. This question has not been, rightly gone into by the Court below. As long as relationship of landlord and tenant has been established by producing lease deed and as long as there was no dispute with regard to execution of lease deed and signature found on the lease deed, the Court below was right and justified in passing the impugned order, directing ejectment of the tenant from the premises because the tenancy had been lawfully terminated in terms of the provisions contained in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. No illegality or perversity can be attributed to the findings recorded by the Trial Court warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this court".

Further, it has been made clear that if Nandakumar establishes his title over the suit schedule property in OS No. 6432/2013, then he shall be entitled for restitution and the plaintiff herein will be under an obligation for full restitution in favour of Nandakumar. The same reasons hold good even in this case. Hence, this revision petition is dismissed.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, reasonable time deserves to be granted to the defendant who is in occupation of the premises to vacate it.

Accordingly, eight months time from today is granted to the defendant to vacate the premises. The premises shall be vacated on or before 30.06.2016. The defendant shall continue to pay rents as agreed at the rate of Rs. 4,500/- per month. The amount deposited before this Court towards arrears of rent shall be paid to the plaintiff. The defendant shall not induct any third party into the premises.