Revision petition dismissed by High Court bench which held evidence did not establish landlord-tenant relationship required for Small Causes Court subject matter jurisdiction, adjudicating ejectment suit basis tenancy termination notice.
Petitioners seek to establish title and recover possession through separate proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
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
Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
PETITIONER NO.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT NO.46/10 1ST MAIN, 2ND STAGE, OKALIPURAM, BANGALORE-560021
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
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
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.
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 CRP No. 2 of 2022
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 CRP No. 2 of 2022
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.
NC: 2023:KHC:43406 CRP No. 2 of 2022
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 CRP No. 2 of 2022
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.
framed the following points for consideration:
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?"
NC: 2023:KHC:43406 CRP No. 2 of 2022
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.
NC: 2023:KHC:43406 CRP No. 2 of 2022
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.
NC: 2023:KHC:43406 CRP No. 2 of 2022
3 is absent and therefore, this Court did not have the advantage of his submission.
NC: 2023:KHC:43406 CRP No. 2 of 2022
relationship of the landlord and tenant, could the Small
Causes Court pass an order of ejectment of a tenant.
NC: 2023:KHC:43406 CRP No. 2 of 2022
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
NC: 2023:KHC:43406 CRP No. 2 of 2022
jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court and it is upon the landlord to establish the relationship.
NC: 2023:KHC:43406 CRP No. 2 of 2022
dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
HJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners succeeded in proving the existence of a landlord and tenant relationship to estublish jurisdiction under the Small Causes Court.
Whether the absence of documentary evidence regarding lease between family members is fatal to the maintainability of the ejectment suit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Abdul Wajid Vs. A.S. OnkarappaExplained¶89
Abdul Wajid Vs. A.S.Onkarappa - ILR 2011 KAR 229 · Who else cites this
Sri. Siddharooda Swamy Math Trust Committee, Hubballi Vs. Shankarsa and OthersDistinguished¶93
Sri. Siddharooda Swamy Math Trust Committee, Hubballi Vs. Shankarsa and Others - 2023(4) KCCR 3430
3 provisions across 2 enactments
SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI AND OTHERS
SRI. N. RAMESH
R. NATARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
