ORDER : This revision petition is filed by the tenant – petitioner challenging the order dated 10.07.2015 passed in HRC No.140/2010 by the XIII Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru (SCCH-15). The court below has allowed the petition filed by the respondent under Section 27(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. 2. The respondent filed the eviction petition on the ground that he is the absolute owner of the house property No.10, PID No.3-65-10 situated at 4th Cross, Ward No.37, Yeshwanthpura, Bengaluru measuring East to West 17.6 feet and North to South 45 feet i.e., the schedule property, having acquired the same under registered sale deed dated 25.3.2010. The petitioner was residing as a tenant under his vendors and was paying a monthly rent of Rs.500/-. After purchase, he had called the petitioner requesting her to pay rents to him regularly. Accordingly, she agreed and continued in possession of the schedule property. Now he requires the schedule property for his bona fide occupation and for construction of building therein. Despite granting time to the petitioner, she did not vacate the same. Hence he got issued legal notice. The petitioner neither replied nor complied the demand made in the notice. Hence he filed the eviction petition. 3. The petitioner – tenant entered appearance and contested the eviction petition. It is her contention that she is not the tenant under respondent. An agreement of sale was executed by one Prabhakar S/o Lakshmaiah in favour of Smt. Sanjeevamma, who is none other than mother of the respondent and Smt.Sanjeevamma was put in possession of the property under the agreement. On the death of Smt.Sanjeevamma on 31.1.2007 the petitioner, R Venkatesh, R Raju, Byramma and Annemma, children of Smt.Sanjeevamma, continued in joint possession of the property. Thus the petitioner denied the jural relationship and contended that petition is not maintainable. 4. The GPA holder of the respondent was examined as PW-1 and Ex.P1 to P4 were marked. The petitioner got herself examined as RW-1 and got marked 12 documents. The court below raised points for consideration relating to jural relationship, possession of the schedule property by the petitioner under the sale agreement as contended by her, bona fide requirement of the respondent and allowed the petition under Section 27(r) of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. Being aggrieved, the present petition is filed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. Being aggrieved, the present petition is filed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court below has erred in allowing the petition. The primary burden is on the respondent to prove the jural relationship. The non production of sale agreement by the petitioner cannot be a ground to disbelieve her case as to possession under the sale agreement. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order. 6. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the impugned order suffers from any irregularity or illegality so as to call for interference? My answer would be in the negative for the following reasons. 7. RW-1, the petitioner has admitted that originally the schedule property belonged to B.P. Prabhakar. She has also admitted that the respondent purchased the schedule property from legal representatives of B.P. Prabhakar. It is a fact that the petitioner has not taken any action on the basis of the sale agreement said to be executed in favour of her mother. It is the specific case of the respondent that after purchase of the schedule property by him, it was brought to the notice of the petitioner and petitioner continued in possession of the premises by paying rent. Of course, the petitioner has denied the said case, but in the absence of she taking any steps on the basis of the said sale agreement and respondent having purchased the schedule property from the legal representatives of Prabhakar, it is more probable to accept the case of the respondent rather than that of the petitioner. Therefore, the possession of the petitioner is that of a tenant and not otherwise as claimed by her. 8. The respondent on oath has submitted that she is in bona fide requirement of the petition schedule premises. The petitioner has not brought on record availability of alternative premises to the respondent also. Therefore, the bona fide requirement of the premises by the respondent also could not have been doubted. 9. In the circumstances, the court below has properly assessed the materials on record and has rightly allowed the eviction petition by the impugned order. The point raised for consideration is accordingly allowed. In the result, there is no merit in the revision petition and the revision petition is accordingly dismissed. 9. In the circumstances, the court below has properly assessed the materials on record and has rightly allowed the eviction petition by the impugned order. The point raised for consideration is accordingly allowed. In the result, there is no merit in the revision petition and the revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Since the main matter itself is disposed of, IA No.1/2017 for direction to deposit the rent is not considered, stands disposed of accordingly.