JUDGMENT 1. This revision is directed against the order passed in HRC No. 287 of 2009 on the file of the Small Causes Judge, Bangalore City allowing the petition under Section 27(2)(a) of the Rent Act and directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.71,390/- towards arrears of rent. 2. Heard Sri G.G. Shastry, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Rajashekar, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records made available. 3. The records reveal that the respondent – company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act presented the eviction petition under Section 27(2)(a) & (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking eviction of the petitioner on the assertive contention that it (petitioner before the trial court) is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. By virtue of a Deed of Sale dated 2.2.2008, the respondent – company purchased the property described in the schedule as evidenced by the Sale Deed produced as document 1, from D. Narayana Rao and his sons namely, Sri N. Srinivasa Rao, N. Nagaraj and Si N. Manjunath and thus acquired right, title and interest over the said property. In the year 1999, the respondent-company altered the ground floor residential house and made it a commercial shop facing 10th cross road on North and also altered the rear portion of the said property to accommodate office premises. It has constructed the first floor which has been used for the purpose of administrative office. 4. The petitioner is shown as a tenant of the vendors of respondent – company on a monthly rent occupying a shop measuring 8” x 10” described in the schedule to the plaint. It is alleged that the revision petitioner did not pay any advance to the vendors of the company but is occupying it as a tenant on payment of rent of Rs.2,500/- p.m. apart from the charges for consumption of electricity. It is further alleged that on 11.2.2008, the petitioner approached Smt.Vani Narayan, the Director of the company and agreed to pay rents due to the company from 2.2.2008 at Rs.2,500/- p.m. but failed to comply with the undertaking. Thus, it was alleged that he was a chronic defaulter in payment of rent and is liable to pay rent at Rs.2,500/- p.m. plus electricity consumption charges at Rs.237/- due on 26.4.2008 and Rs.500/- due on 14.6.2008. Thus, it was alleged that he was a chronic defaulter in payment of rent and is liable to pay rent at Rs.2,500/- p.m. plus electricity consumption charges at Rs.237/- due on 26.4.2008 and Rs.500/- due on 14.6.2008. They relied on documents 4 and 5 showing payment of amount by the revision petitioner. They referred to the issuance of statutory notice terminating tenancy before initiating proceedings. 5. The petitioner entered contest denying jural relationship of tenant and the landlord and denied authenticity of the two receipts produced and relied on by the respondent-company. Though the petitioner took up several defence in the statement of objection, for the purpose of deciding this revision, all that was canvassed need not be traversed. Therefore, based on the material proposition in the pleadings of the parties and the reasons assigned by the trial judge to allow the application, the following points would arise for consideration. (1) In an action under Section 27(2)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, can the trial court without recording its findings on the jural relationship between the parties proceed to pass a final order as envisaged under Clause (a) of Sub Section 2 without determining jural relationship or the amount as due? (2) Whether the impugned order of the trial court is sustainable as it records no finding on the jural relationship? 6. Sri Shastry, learned counsel would submit that in the instant case, as could be seen from the statement of objection, the petitioner had disputed the existence of jural relationship of landlord and tenant necessitating an enquiry and a finding about the jural relationship. To record such a finding, the trial court should have taken into consideration the lease agreement or rent receipt as primary evidence but the court cannot consider the disputed document to be a prima facie evidence. To support this contention, he refers to two rent receipts allegedly issued by the petitioner. He submits that those receipts are prior to 2008, whereas the respondent-landlord claims that they have purchased the property in the year 2008. It is also not under the signatures of parties of these proceedings. Therefore, they are not prima facie primary evidence to prove the jural relationship between the landlord and the tenant as referred to under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. 7. It is also not under the signatures of parties of these proceedings. Therefore, they are not prima facie primary evidence to prove the jural relationship between the landlord and the tenant as referred to under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. 7. The second aspect canvassed by him is, even if the court has determined the jural relationship, the procedure contemplated in Section 43 of the Rent Act should have been followed without which no determination of arrears of rent could have been done by the trial court. 8. Lastly, the learned counsel would submit that firstly there is no proof that the respondent-company has purchased the property in possession of the petitioner. It is only a shop of small dimension. Therefore, the whole issue has to be decided after a detailed enquiry and not by the summery proceedings as done by the trial court. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment. 10. Keeping in mind what is urged by both sides and on examination of records, it could be said that the respondent – company in this petition sought eviction of the petitioner on the ground that he is a tenant under the company. Such a proposition is based under Deed of Sale of the year 2008 produced as document No.1. Therefore, admittedly the respondent-company has purchased the property in the year 2008 and it was incumbent on it to establish that the premises in occupation of the revision petitioner is also covered under the transaction sale vide document No.1. The second aspect is that even after proving that they have acquired the property in occupation of the petitioner, they have to establish the existence of jural relationship of landlord and tenant. In that, an enquiry as contemplated under Section 43 was essential. Secondly, it could be noticed that what the landlord has done is that it filed an application as an interlocutory application under Section 27(2)(a) of the Rent Act without resorting to the relevant provisions of Section 45 of the Act. The learned trial judge missed noticing the fact that when a dispute is raised like in this case, the court was required to follow the procedure prescribed by Sub Rule 3 of Sub Section 2 of Section 45. The learned trial judge missed noticing the fact that when a dispute is raised like in this case, the court was required to follow the procedure prescribed by Sub Rule 3 of Sub Section 2 of Section 45. Clause (a) of Section 27(2) is available for passing an order of eviction on proving that the tenant is a chronic defaulter but when there is a dispute as to whether there is arrears of rent, or whether the persons against whom eviction is sought are tenants, then the court has to first apply Section 43 and then Section 45 of the Act. Both these provisions have been ignored by the trial judge. It must be noticed that no order of eviction is permissible without the person in occupation being given full opportunity as is envisaged under Section 42 of the Act. In the instant case, the learned trial judge accepts the application filed by the self styled landlord under Section 27(2)(a) of the Act and proceeds to pass an order without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 3 of Section 45 of the Act. It is further noticed that summarily the order is passed without there being preliminary order determining the rent and granting a month’s time to the tenant to pay the rents due into the court as is required. 11. In the circumstances, the order impugned suffers from legal and factual errors and consequently it can hardly be sustained. Hence, the revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded to the trial court to decide the case denovo on merits and if the landlord were to file any application under Section 45 of the Act, then to resort to the procedure prescribed under Section 45 of the Act and then determine the rent. 12. Thus the petition succeeds. It is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the trial court in terms of this order to be decided in accordance with law. The amount in deposit be refunded to the petitioner. In the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.