ORDER : B.S. Patil, J. 1. These two revision petitions arise out of the judgment and decree dated 25-6-2015 passed by the Small Causes Court at Bengaluru in S.C. Nos. 2337 and 2338 of 2011. Parties to these two petitions are one and the same. Facts involved and the legal questions raised are also one and the same. In fact, though the Court below has passed separate judgments, reasons assigned and the conclusion reached are similar. In the above circumstances, both these cases are heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. Both the suits were filed by the plaintiff-M/s. Sri S.K. Manikyam Charitable Trust-respondent herein seeking a decree of ejectment against the defendant-petitioner herein in respect of Shop No. 4 (ground floor) and Shop No. 5 (first floor) respectively situated at 1st Main Road, N.R. Colony, Bengaluru. 3. Plaintiff contended that Sri S.K. Manikyam was the owner of the property. He bequeathed the suit property in favour of N.R. Shallamma, daughter of Cheluva Iyengar on 5-5-1989; after the death of S.K. Manikyam, N.R. Shallamma obtained probate and letter of Administration in the name of the Trust; during her lifetime, Shallamma handed over the entire property to S.K. Manikyam Charitable Trust and after her death, the President of the Trust instituted proceedings in P and SC No. 7 of 2004 and sought for letter of Administration; the VI Additional City Civil Court granted letter of Administration on 6-11-2004, thereafter, the Trust became the absolute owner of the property. 4. Defendant-petitioner herein was a tenant under S.K. Manikyam paying rental of Rs. 160/- per month. Thereafter, tenancy was continued under Shallamma. After the death of Shallamma, defendant did not pay any rent to the plaintiff-Trust though demanded. Therefore, the Trust requested the defendant to vacate the premises which was required for the use and occupation of the Trust. Notice was issued on 24-3-2005 to the defendant notifying the defendant that he was a chronic defaulter; another notice was issued on 29-10-2005 terminating the tenancy and seeking ejectment of the defendant from the premises; despite the same, defendant did not vacate the premises; hence, the plaintiff-Trust was constrained to file the suit for ejectment. 5. Notice was issued on 24-3-2005 to the defendant notifying the defendant that he was a chronic defaulter; another notice was issued on 29-10-2005 terminating the tenancy and seeking ejectment of the defendant from the premises; despite the same, defendant did not vacate the premises; hence, the plaintiff-Trust was constrained to file the suit for ejectment. 5. Defendant contested the claim contending inter alia that property no doubt belonged to S.K. Manikyam, but it was false that S.K. Manikyam bequeathed the property in favour of Shallamma, Shallamma obtained letter of Administration and subsequently, Shallamma created Sri S.K. Manikyam Charitable Trust and the Trust became the owner of the property. He contended that S.K. Manikyam received Rs. 1,00,000/- from the defendant and had agreed to continue the defendant as tenant. In support of the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff examined the President of the Trust as P.W. 1. Exs. P. 1 to P. 11 were produced and marked. In support of the case of the defendant, defendant examined himself as D.W. 1 and produced and marked Exs. D. 1 to D.9. 6. The Court below, on examination of the pleadings and evidence on record, has found that plaintiff was able to prove the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff-Trust and defendant-Sri Hari Murali Krishna. It was also found that there was valid termination of tenancy in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and thus, decree of ejectment has been passed directing the defendant to vacate the shop premises within 60 days from the date of the decree. 7. Sri Ramesh P. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the defendant-petitioner contends that the judgment and decree passed by the Court below suffer from illegality, inasmuch as plaintiff-Trust has failed to establish that it was the owner of the property and that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. It is his submission that along with the defendant, his wife was also recognised as tenant of the premises and that the alleged Will executed by the original owner S.K. Manikyam in favour of Shallamma had been disputed. 8. Evidence of P.W. 1 and D.W. 1 has been appreciated by the Court below. In the light of the respective pleadings, it has come to the conclusion that admittedly defendant was the tenant under S.K. Manikyam. 8. Evidence of P.W. 1 and D.W. 1 has been appreciated by the Court below. In the light of the respective pleadings, it has come to the conclusion that admittedly defendant was the tenant under S.K. Manikyam. He was admittedly paying rent to S.K. Manikyam; S.K. Manikyam has executed a Will in favour of Shallamma; the Will has been proved and a probate has been obtained by Shallamma; it was not open for the defendant to dispute the title of Shallamma because she obtained probate, in P and SC No. 19 of 1998, an order has been passed on 25-1-1999 wherein it has been disclosed that Shallamma during her lifetime along with the President and Vice-President of S.K. Manikyam Charitable Trust had sought for issuance of letter of Administration and the said petition had been allowed. 9. Therefore, after the death of Shallamma, S.K. Manikyam Charitable Trust had filed P and SC No. 7 of 2014 wherein they had sought for issuance of letter of Administration with regard to the suit property. The Court below has come to the conclusion that the orders passed in these petitions disclose that S.K. Manikyam Charitable Trust had become the owner of the suit property and therefore, as long as D.W. 1 admitted that he was the tenant of the suit property under its previous owner S.K. Manikyam, he cannot contend that he did not continue to be tenant under S.K. Manikyam Charitable Trust. 10. Attempt made by the defendant to deny the title of the Trust over the suit property has been repelled by the Court below referring to various orders passed in the probate proceedings. The Court below has also taken note of the fact that after the property became the Trust property, defendant stopped paying rent. This conduct has also been taken note of by the Court below while passing the decree. 11. Mere fact that wife of the defendant joined the defendant in managing the affairs of the shops which he had taken on rent could not make her a tenant in her independent capacity. The contention that wife was separately recognised as a tenant along with the defendant has not been established before the Court below. The rent receipts issued in her name cannot make her tenant in her individual capacity or as a joint tenant along with her husband. The contention that wife was separately recognised as a tenant along with the defendant has not been established before the Court below. The rent receipts issued in her name cannot make her tenant in her individual capacity or as a joint tenant along with her husband. In the absence of creation of fresh tenancy jointly in the name of the wife of the defendant, such a contention taken by the defendant is untenable in law and on the facts. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the Court below. 12. However, at this stage, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-defendant that there are two shop premises in the occupation of the defendant. Defendant is willing to immediately handover Shop bearing No. 5 situated in the first floor, which is the subject-matter of the proceedings in C.R.P. No. 415 of 2015, whereas in respect of Shop bearing No. 4, which is the subject-matter of the proceedings in C.R.P. No. 414 of 2015 being in the ground floor, revision petitioner requests for grant of sufficient time to vacate the same on condition that he shall pay enhanced rent. 13. Keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that petitioner has to be given eight months time from today to vacate and handover Shop No. 4 situated in the ground floor. Hence, petitioner is given eight months time from today to vacate Shop No. 4 situated in the ground floor. He shall voluntarily vacate and handover vacant possession of Shop No. 4 to the respondent-Trust on or before 21-4-2016 without seeking any further extension and without forcing the respondent to initiate execution proceedings. He shall pay monthly rent of Rs. 2,500/- without committing any default. He shall not induct any third party into the premises and shall file an affidavit undertaking incorporating the above terms and conditions within three weeks from today. Insofar as Shop No. 5 situated in the first floor, petitioner is given 15 days time from today to vacate and handover vacant possession to the respondent. Accordingly, these revision petitions are disposed of.