ORDER : These two petitions are disposed of by a common order. 2. Heard the petitioners counsel and the respondents counsel. It is submitted by the counsel for parties that HRRP 36/2014 is the main petition, and the decision in HRRP 72/2014 will depend upon the decision in HRRP 36/2014. 3. In HRRP 36/2014 the petitioners claim to be landlords of the petition schedule premises and that the respondent their tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.500/. Tenancy was from 10th of every calendar month ending on 9th of succeeding calendar month. The petitioners stated that the respondent was earlier a tenant under their mother Akkamma who died on 10.9.2005. Thereafter, the respondent became a chronic defaulter in the matter of payment of rent and she fell due in a sum of Rs.42,500/- for the period from October 2005 to October 2012. The petitioners got issued a legal notice to the respondent on 7.11.2012 and demanded payment of rent. The respondent failed to pay the rent and therefore they initiated eviction proceedings. 4. The respondent appeared and filed statement of objections denying the relationship of tenant and landlord between her and the petitioners. She specifically contended that Akkamma was her grandmother. She had three daughters namely Munirathna @ Lakshmidevi, Leelabai and Vasanthi. Respondent is the daughter of Leelabai. Leelabai died when she was pregnant for the second child. After the death of Leela Bai, her father Muniswamy married her mother’s elder sister Munirathna @ Lakshmidevi, i.e., the first petitioner. This being the relationship, Akkamma, their grandmother, when she was alive had executed a Will in her favour bequeathing the entire property. Therefore, she contended that she became the absolute owner of the property. She also stated about filing O.S.9053/2007 in the City Civil Court, Bengaluru, against the petitioners for permanent injunction. In the said suit, the petitioners contended that respondent was not in possession. The Civil Court dismissed the suit holding that the respondent was not in possession. Now the petitioners have come up with an eviction petition on the ground that respondent is in possession of the very same property as a tenant. This shows that the petitioners have taken inconsistent stands. 5. Assessing the evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that the petitioners failed to establish the fact that respondent was their tenant and therefore dismissed the petition. Assailing the same, HRRP 36/2014 has been filed. This shows that the petitioners have taken inconsistent stands. 5. Assessing the evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that the petitioners failed to establish the fact that respondent was their tenant and therefore dismissed the petition. Assailing the same, HRRP 36/2014 has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the property belonged to Akkamma earlier. Katha stood in her name. There is a clear admission by the respondent in her suit O.S.9053/2007 that she was paying rent to Akkamma. After Akkamma died, the petitioners became the absolute owners of the property and that the respondent did not pay rent to them. Therefore, it is evident that the relationship of landlord and tenant has been established. There cannot be any dispute that the petitioners are the absolute owners of the petition schedule premises. The trial court has wrongly appreciated the evidence for coming to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist. Since the legal notice had been issued to respondent demanding arrears of rent, the respondent should have been ordered to be evicted. The trial court has lost sight to this crucial aspect of the matter. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent argues that the petitioners cannot deny the relationship between them and the respondent. Akkamma was none other than the grandmother of respondent. Since she was looking after her, she made a Will in the name of the respondent. The answer said to have been given by the respondent in O.S.9053/2007 was nothing but a stray sentence in cross-examination. Except this there are no documents to establish that the respondent was a tenant under the petitioners. The trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist. Even if the Will is ignored, the respondent being the daughter of Leela Bai, i.e, the sister of the petitioners succeeds to the properties left behind by Akkamma. She becomes a co-owner. This relationship of landlord and tenant does not get established. In this view, the judgment of the trial court is sustainable. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent it is to be stated that the blood relationship between the parties is not disputed. The petitioners being the daughters of Akkamma have sought eviction of their sister’s daughter from the petition schedule premises. In this view, the judgment of the trial court is sustainable. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent it is to be stated that the blood relationship between the parties is not disputed. The petitioners being the daughters of Akkamma have sought eviction of their sister’s daughter from the petition schedule premises. As rightly argued by the respondent’s counsel, the petitioners have not produced any document to show jural relationship of landlord and tenant. They only rely upon an answer said to have given by the respondent in O.S.9053/2007. Even if this answer is seen, it only establishes that the respondent might be a tenant under Akkamma and she might be paying rent to her. But, after her death, the respondent does not become the tenant under the petitioners automatically for the reason that she is the daughter of Leelabai, sister of the petitioners. Since Leelabai is no more, the respondent being her daughter becomes entitled to claim a share along with the petitioners. Thus, she becomes a coowner. The respondent has set up a Will said to have been executed by Akkamma. Once the respondent contended that she becomes the absolute owner on the basis of the Will, the trial court should have stopped all further proceedings according to section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act and required the parties to establish their claim. This was not resorted to. For this reason even if Will is ignored for time being it becomes a fact that respondent being the daughter of Leelabai is entitled to claim a share in the property along with the petitioners. Therefore, it is not possible to say that the respondent became the tenant under the petitioners after the death of Akkamma. This being the position, I do not find any error in appreciation of evidence by the trial court. It has rightly come to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant is not established. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. 9. In so far as HRRP 72/2014 is concerned, the petitioners namely, Munirathna and Vasanthi sought eviction of Manoj Kumar said to be a tenant in another portion of the petition schedule premises. The respondent herein contended that he was a tenant under Chandrakala, the respondent in HRRP 36/2014. Accordingly, it is dismissed. 9. In so far as HRRP 72/2014 is concerned, the petitioners namely, Munirathna and Vasanthi sought eviction of Manoj Kumar said to be a tenant in another portion of the petition schedule premises. The respondent herein contended that he was a tenant under Chandrakala, the respondent in HRRP 36/2014. Since it is held that jural relationship between Chandrakala and petitioners does not exist, the petitioners cannot seek eviction of Manoj Kumar and consequently this petition also fails and it is dismissed.