JUDGMENT 1. This matter is listed for admission today. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 1/4/2022, passed in R.A.No.105/2019, on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Shivamogga. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of eviction against the defendant/appellant is that the defendant is a tenant under the plaintiff with respect to the suit schedule property measuring 25 x 40 feet comprising of Mangalore tiled house situated at 4th Cross, Marnamibailu (J.C.Nagar) Ward No.27, Shivamogga. The tenancy was a monthly tenancy for a rent of Rs.3, 650.00 which commenced from 20/2/2012. The defendant for about two years paid the said amount of rentals regularly and thereafter became irregular in making payment of rentals. Upon demand, the defendant used to make payment of arrears of rentals in installments and after all the adjustment, the defendant is in due of Rs.40, 150.00 as on 19/10/2015 for a period of 11 months. A notice was sent on 26/10/2015 calling upon the defendant to make payment of rentals and terminating the lease and also for damage at the rate of Rs.10, 000.00 per month. The said notice was returned undelivered. Therefore, it was again sent and second time it was delivered to the defendant. Therefore, after valid termination of notice, the defendant was liable to make due of arrears of rentals along with damages. However, he restricts his claim to the rentals at the rate of Rs.3, 650.00 up to filing of the suit which is calculated at Rs.58, 400.00. 4. It is contended that the defendant used to pay the rentals intentionally by cash and thereafter used to remit the amount to the bank account of the plaintiff. The suit schedule premises is a residential building which the defendant without consent of the plaintiff is using the front portion as malige by carrying electricity repair work and tailoring work. Therefore, the defendant without permission of the plaintiff converted the nature of use for which the building was lent. In June 2015, he illegally altered the structure by putting up a door, which would open from the hall of the house towards two feet passage on the eastern side wall of the house and thereby permanently altered the structure without permission of the plaintiff. In June 2015, he illegally altered the structure by putting up a door, which would open from the hall of the house towards two feet passage on the eastern side wall of the house and thereby permanently altered the structure without permission of the plaintiff. The suit schedule property was leased out to the defendant on the condition that he should vacate the premises as and when the plaintiff demands. The plaintiff had intention of putting up construction in the said property. However, within six months of the lease, the plaintiff fell seriously ill and thereafter he took more than one year to recover. Therefore, the intention of the plaintiff to put up commercial complex was delayed for some more period. Even though the plaintiff personally requested and demanded the defendant to vacate the property, the defendant dodged the matter on one or the other pretext. Of late the defendant defaulted in payment of rentals and also tried to gain time with tactics. Hence, the plaintiff prayed the Court to pass an order against him. 5. The defendant on service of notice, appeared and filed the written statement denying the plaint averments. It is contended that the premises belongs to one Ramappa and he took the same on lease for a period of four years on oral agreement by paying an advance amount of Rs.1, 00, 000.00 and agreed to pay rent of Rs.3, 650.00. While taking the building on lease it was in a dilapidated condition and it was agreed that the defendant has to repair the building and the expenditure incurred for the same is to be deducted in the rentals. The defendant has spent Rs.1, 50, 000.00 for substituting the roofs by sheets and necessary repairs and it was agreed to repay the entire amount of Rs.1, 50, 000.00 while vacating the premises. It is contended that the plaintiff is a total stranger to the building as well as the defendant and all other averments made in the plaint is denied. It is contended that Ramappa died due to old age and as the defendant was not aware of the legal heirs of his landlord, he continued to remit the rentals to the bank account as stated by the plaintiff. Recently the plaintiff came near the premises and threatened and demanded to vacate the premises immediately. It is contended that Ramappa died due to old age and as the defendant was not aware of the legal heirs of his landlord, he continued to remit the rentals to the bank account as stated by the plaintiff. Recently the plaintiff came near the premises and threatened and demanded to vacate the premises immediately. At no point of time the landlord of the defendant had attorned the tenancy in favour of the plaintiff. 6. The Trial Court after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. The plaintiff in support of his case he examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the document at Exs.P.1 to 8. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and no documents are produced. The Trial Court considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative and point No.4 in the negative and answered other issues as affirmative and directed the defendant to quit and vacate the premises and also directed to pay the arrears of rent of Rs.14, 600.00 and also to pay Rs.3, 650.00 per month as future mesne profits. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the defendant filed R.A.No.105/2019 and the First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo formulated the points whether the Trial Court has erred in concluding that there is a jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant, whether the Trial Court has erred in concluding that the plaintiff is having locus standi to file the suit, whether the Trial Court erred in concluding that the plaintiff has validly terminated the tenancy of the defendant and whether the impugned judgment and decree of the Trial Court requires to be interfered with. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record answered all the points as negative in coming to the conclusion that the Trial Court has not committed any error in passing the judgment or ordering eviction and directing the defendant to pay the arrears of rent and also to pay the future mesne profits. Hence, the second appeal is filed before this Court. 8. Hence, the second appeal is filed before this Court. 8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal is that both the Courts have committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the appellant is a tenant under the plaintiff and failed to take note of the fact that the plaintiff is not having any locus standi to file the suit and there is no any attornment of tenancy. The learned counsel would contend that the rents are paid only under the impression that it was the account belonging to landlord Ramappa, but he was not aware of that it was the bank account of the plaintiff. It is contended that there is no proper pleading as to whether the premises is used for commercial or residential purpose and when the jural relationship is not established, both the Courts have committed an error in directing him to quit and vacate the premises. The learned counsel would contend that this Court has to frame the substantial questions of law as to whether the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court is perverse, capricious and unreasonable in granting relief of eviction and directing him to pay the arrears of rent and future mesne profits, whether the Courts below have committed a serious error of law in holding that the respondent had locus standi to initiate the proceedings for eviction and whether both the Courts have committed a serious error of law in holding that the respondent entered into the shoes of Ramappa, the landlord, on the basis of payment of rentals to the respondent without attributing that he has paid such rents to the respondent as landlord to the premises. The learned counsel would contend that the very approach of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court is erroneous and hence this Court has to frame the substantial question of law. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also on perusal of the material available on record, the contention of the appellant/defendant before the Trial Court is that he was a tenant under one Ramappa and not tenant under the plaintiff. The said contention cannot be accepted for the reason that the appellant paid the rent to the account of the plaintiff. The said contention cannot be accepted for the reason that the appellant paid the rent to the account of the plaintiff. The contention taken by the appellant in the appeal is that he was under the impression that the account belongs to Ramappa and hence he paid the amount. The said contention cannot be accepted and the plaintiff also produced the certified copy of the Will executed by Ramappa in favour of the plaintiff and the appellant acknowledged the plaintiff as landlord and paid the rent. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the defendant was committing default in payment of rent and hence the plaintiff claimed an amount of Rs.58, 400.00 as arrears of rent and having considered the material comes to the conclusion that there is arrears of rent of Rs.14, 600.00, but the plaintiff restricted his claim to Rs.3, 650.00 per month and claimed damages of Rs.10, 000.00 which is demanded in the termination notice. The Trial Court having considered the material on record particularly in paragraph No.27 comes to the conclusion that the defendant has admitted that he is the tenant in the suit schedule property paying rent of Rs.3, 650.00 per month and he has admitted in the cross-examination that rate of rent is Rs.3, 650.00 per month and that he had paid the rent till he received notice from the plaintiff and also taken note of Ex.P.4. The defendant replied to the notice on 4/1/2016 and there is a valid termination of the tenancy by causing legal notice. All these materials were taken note of by both the Courts. 10. The First Appellate Court having considered the material on record and the grounds urged in the appeal memo answered all the points for consideration in the negative and in particular discussed both oral and documentary evidence in paragraph Nos.23 and 24 and also taken note of Sec. 116 of the Indian Evidence Act with regard to the estoppel of tenant. In paragraph No.26 taken note of the evidence given by P.W.1 and in detail discussed that the plaintiff has stepped into the shoes of the original owner and the same was within the knowledge of the defendant and the defendant also continued to pay the rent to the account of the plaintiff and hence the very contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. The First Appellate Court extracted the admission given by D.W.1 in the cross-examination and D.W.1 has claimed that he had spent an amount of Rs.1, 50, 000.00 for renovation, but he has not produced any documents and the same is also considered by the Trial Court. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have given anxious consideration to both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and given definite finding that there is an established jural relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and considering non-payment of rent, ordered for future mesne profits at the admitted rate of Rs.3, 650.00 per month and hence I do not find any error committed by both the Courts. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and frame the substantial question of law. 11. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed.