ORDER : 1. Heard Sri.Premnath T. N., learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri.Yeshu Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Defendant's revision petition challenging the validity of the order passed in S.C.No.1716/2017 on the file of Small Causes Court, Bengaluru (SCCH-17). 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 3.1. A suit came to be filed for the relief of ejectment against the revision petitioner by the respondent by contending that plaintiff is the owner of the ‘B’ schedule property comprising of shop in the ground floor bearing old No.73/17 and New No.17 situated at B. Oosman Khan Road, Bengaluru-560 002 measuring East to West 20 feet and North to South 30 feet (hereinafter referred to as the suit property). 3.2. Plaintiff contended that his father K.N.Devaraj was the owner and later on, plaintiff has become the owner of the suit property and defendant is a tenant in the said property and he failed to pay the rent and there is an arrears and therefore, sought for ejectment. 3.3. Suit was resisted by the defendant by filing detailed written statement by contending that he is not a tenant in the suit property and father of the plaintiff namely K.N.Devaraj was the absolute owner who had permitted the father of the defendant namely Syed Raheem @ Babu to occupy the portion of the property and to carry on scrap business and later on, there was an agreement to sell entered into by the father of the plaintiff with the defendant and in respect of the same, a suit is pending in O.S.No.8018/2013 seeking specific enforcement of the agreement to sell and therefore, suit needs to be rejected. 4. Learned Trial Judge after recording the evidence of the parties, considered the rival contentions of the parties and decreed the suit. 5. Operative portion of the suit reads as under: “The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed in part, with cost. The defendant shall vacate and handover the vacant possession of the plaint ‘B’ schedule premises in favour of the plaintiff, within two months from the date of decree. Failing which, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession, as per law. There shall be a separate enquiry to determine the arrears of rent/mesne profit. Draw decree accordingly.” 6. The defendant shall vacate and handover the vacant possession of the plaint ‘B’ schedule premises in favour of the plaintiff, within two months from the date of decree. Failing which, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession, as per law. There shall be a separate enquiry to determine the arrears of rent/mesne profit. Draw decree accordingly.” 6. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant has filed the present revision petition on the following grounds: ? The impugned Judgment and decree passed by the trial court is without jurisdiction, arbitrary in nature, erroneous and opposed to the facts decided wrongly, oral and documentary evidence and probabilities of the case. The court below erred in giving a reasoning about the created and concocted facts to attract the jurisdiction of the trial court, based on the alleged facts in the absence of proper documentary proof as required in the eye of law against the petitioner. The said reasoning is without jurisdiction, arbitrary, illegal, erroneous and unjustified. Thus the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be set-aside. ? The Hon'ble trial court failed to appreciate the facts and give the reasoning as to on what basis the respondent has proved that the petitioner is a tenant under him. Without any lota of evidence and substantial proof the trail court gave the finding in affirmative which is against to the judicious proceedings.Thus the impugned judgment and decree liable to be set-aside. ? The trial court failed to look in to the records in proper perspective, in para-8 of the impugned judgment the trial court has given a finding that the respondent had filed an application to get impleaded himself in O.S. No.8018/2013 filed by the petitioner. Infact the respondent did not file any such application. Further the fact that the petitioner in the temporary injunction application, did not plead that he is in possession of the schedule 'B' property based on the lease agreement, the said finding is an imaginary finding of the court below. Without prejudice to the contention of the petitioner once the agreement of sale is executed the land lord losses the legal concept/nature of relationship. This itself categorically indicates the trial court wrongly appreciated the facts without application of mind and proceeded to pass the judgment and decree erroneously which is liable to be set-aside. ? Without prejudice to the contention of the petitioner once the agreement of sale is executed the land lord losses the legal concept/nature of relationship. This itself categorically indicates the trial court wrongly appreciated the facts without application of mind and proceeded to pass the judgment and decree erroneously which is liable to be set-aside. ? The trial court has committed an error in giving a finding that the petitioner in the written statement as well as examination in chief has taken a defence the respondent father K.N. Devaraj was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property which was let out to the defendant' father on rent to run a scrap business, is a wrong finding of the pleading and fact, in correct finding and appreciation by the court meant to render a justice judiciously and not illegally. The petitioner never pleaded that the schedule property was let out on rent to run the business to the father of petitioner on the other had due to known acquaintance father of the petitioner during his life time permitted and thereafter the petitioner till executing the agreement of sale. Thus the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be set-aside. ? The trial court again erred in appreciating the facts, in para 10 of the judgment. The fact that the father of the petitioner was in possession of the schedule 'B' property for which the father of the respondent did not take any action during the life time of the father of the petitioner and thereafter during his life time against the petitioner. This Itself justifies that the petitioner after the death of petitioner father he continued in the premises. The father of the respondent sold portion of the adjacent premises to another person, at that time to the cordiality and trustworthiness K. N. Devaraj the father of the respondent agreed to sell the schedule 'B' Property for a total sale consideration of Rs 7,50,000/- and periodically received part sale consideration of Rs 3,95,000/- during his life time and put/continued the petitioner in possession of the schedule 'B' property. Thus the trial court erred in properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and arrived at incorrect conclusion without application of mind. Hence the interference of this Hon'ble Court is very much significant to appreciate true fact, consequently set aside the impugned judgment and decree. ? Thus the trial court erred in properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and arrived at incorrect conclusion without application of mind. Hence the interference of this Hon'ble Court is very much significant to appreciate true fact, consequently set aside the impugned judgment and decree. ? The trial court in para 11 of the impugned judgment erroneously came to the conclusion that the Ex.D1 being the electricity bill in the name petitioner in respect of schedule 'B' property. It is the settled law, rules and usage that the electricity equipment will be registered in the name of the land owner. But in the instant case as the Ex.D1 the electricity equipment is registered in the name of the petitioner. The court below did not give any finding as to why and under what circumstances the electricity equipment is registered in the name of the petitioner, accordingly the electricity bill is issued in the name of the petitioner. Thus without assigning any reasons stating that Ex.D1 will not come to the aid of the petitioner in any manner is unsustainable and without application of mind. ? The trial court further erred in passing the impugned judgment without going through the records and application of mind, further lost sight of the citation produced by the petitioner while considering the application filed for rejection of the plaint and passing of the order dated 03.12.2018. Though the citation was brought to the notice of the trial court below at the time of argumants which categorically establish that once any agreement of sale is executed between the parties the jural relationship will not exist in addition to the continuous possession. But in the instant case even the jural relationship did not existed at any given point of time. In the absence of respondent failing to prove the jural relationship between the petitioner and respondent. The finding given in para-12 of the impugned judgment is malignant by throwing the law of the land out of the windows. The trial court failed to give any finding or reasoning as to why the father of the respondent during his life time and thereafter after his death till 2017 the respondent did not take any action so far the schedule 'B' property is concerned. Thus the trial court without any justification and legal perspective illegal throwing the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court passed the judgment. Thus the trial court without any justification and legal perspective illegal throwing the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court passed the judgment. ? The trail court failed to appreciate the fact and law in para-13 of the impugned judgment by referring to the cross examination of DW-1, in accordance to the statutory law the trial court has to give a finding on the jural relationship of tenant and land lord to attract the jurisdiction of the court to try the matter not regarding the ownership of the property. The petitioner continued in the possession of the property after the death of his father, thereafter when the agreement of sale is executed by K.N. Devaraj and the petitioner further continued is possession of the schedule 'B' property under a statutory law not as tenant but he was permitted by the father of the respondent. Once the petitioner further continued in possession of the schedule 'B' property in furtherance of the agreement of sale the question of land lord and tenant relationship will not arise. Thus the impugned judgment call for the interference of this Hon'ble Court in exercising the revision jurisdiction which would very much justify in rendering justice to the petitioner. ? The trial court erred in considering the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble apex court refereed in the impugned judgment. Though the citation indicates of proving the jural relationship between the parties in an eviction suit the trial court failed to give any finding on the jural relationship in the absence of any iota of evidence failed to produce by the respondent, furthermore the trial court failed to appreciate the categorically admission made by the respondent (Pw-1) in the cross examination that he does not have any document to show that the petitioner is a tenant contrary to which the court below has given unjustifiable finding. ? The trail court further erred in appreciating the fact on presumption, the respondent concocted a story about the rent of Rs 1500/- paid to three shop i.e., the schedule 'B' property by the petitioner as the said property being situated in heart of the city. The respondent failed to produce any such documents either during the life time of his father or thereafter for having paid or received the rent. The respondent failed to produce any such documents either during the life time of his father or thereafter for having paid or received the rent. In failure of proving the relationship by producing any document as required in the evidence act the suit for eviction is not maintainable and the trial court will not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In fact the respondent concocted the story of tenant and land lord relationship to circumvent the statutory law and to escape from filing a suit for possession by paying a requisite court fee and in correctly without any justification came to the conclusion that the sale agreement executed by the father of the respondent in favour of the petitioner is not acceptable. Thus trial court failed to appreciate these aspect, the ratio laid down by the apex court and relied by the trial court would not apply to the present facts and circumstances of the case. Thus to uphold the majesty of law and to budge the illegality of the respondent and the illegality and correctness in the impugned judgment the interference of this Hon'ble Court is significant, consequently the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be set-aside. ? The trial court erred in giving the finding contrary to the letter and spirit of the provision referred in the impugned judgment and contrary to the definition enunciated in the statutory law. Further contending that the petitioner has admitted in the evidence and cross examination that occasionally he used to pay certain amount to K.N.Devaraju and the same was accepted by him this evidence goes to show that the defendant has paid rent to the plaintiff's father. It is unknown and contrary to the definition enunciated in law, whether as to on what basis and under which provision of law the trial court relied on to come to the conclusion that some amount paid occasionally amounts to rent, when the rent is not determined as required under the law. It is unknown and contrary to the definition enunciated in law, whether as to on what basis and under which provision of law the trial court relied on to come to the conclusion that some amount paid occasionally amounts to rent, when the rent is not determined as required under the law. For example any amount paid to a land owner whether it will become sale consideration and later the person paying the amount can claim that he is an agreement holder of the property in the absence of any substantial document to prove the land lord and tenant relationship which is contrary to the provisions of the law invoked by the trial court, in the absence of relationship lease cannot be deemed from year to year. The court lost sight in coming to such erroneous conclusion and finding unknown and contrary to law. Thus the impugned judgment and decree order is liable to be set-aside. ? The trial court perversely came to the conclusion as stated in para - 15 to 18 of the impugned judgment. In view of the grounds urged herein above the trail court failed to look in to the pleadings and documentary and oral evidence produced by the petitioner and respondent and without any justification came to the illegally conclusion that the petitioner is a tenant under the respondent which amounts to illegality and denying justice to the petitioner. Considering the concocted story and appreciating the respondent who did not approach with clean hands before the Hon'ble Court, consequently the facts of the petitioner case unjustifiably ignored by the trial court. Thus in the case of the petitioner, exercising of power in a manner which suffer from material irregularity amenable to correction by this revision court as the material pleading are disregarded, there is a conscious violation of the rule of law. ? The trial court failed to consider the argument and the citations produced by the petitioner earlier in the proceedings regarding the maintainability of the suit relevant to the case, but on the other hand without jurisdiction arbitrarily the trial court has considered the citations which are different from the facts and circumstances of the case which clearly establish that the impugned judgment is one sided and judiciously not appreciable. On this ground alone the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. ? On this ground alone the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. ? The court below has failed by giving a reason unknown to law that the respondent has established the case based on the acceptable evidence which is against to the principles of evidence Act. The lower court not having considered the legal value of evidential aspect has prejudiced the case of the petitioner and is thus unilateral, unsustainable and untenable. The Judgment and decree of the lower court passed against the petitioner is absolutely vitiated calling for interference by this Hon'ble Court in revision. The observation contained in reasoning is absolutely erroneous, unjust and opposed to the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that when there is a suit pending in O.S.No.8018/2013 seeking specific enforcement of the contract of agreement to sell entered into by the father of the plaintiff with the defendant, question of landlord and tenant relationship would not arise at all in the case on hand. Therefore, very suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable. 8. He would further contend that even though plaintiff has stated that he has got the receipts for having paid the rents, he has not produced the rent receipts before Trial Court which exposes the hollowness in the claim of the plaintiff. 9. He would further contend that electricity bill in respect of the suit property is standing in the name of the defendant which shows that the defendant is not the tenant but he is the agreement holder. 10. He has specifically contented that there is no iota of evidence placed on record by the plaintiff to show that the defendant is a tenant in the suit property. Under such circumstances, suit for ejectment is impermissible. 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel for respondent invites the attention of this Court to the earlier proceedings which is marked as an exhibit before the Trial Court as Ex.P.13 which is application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC and affidavit in support of the said application. 12. He invites the attention to paragraph No.3 of the said affidavit wherein the defendant has admitted that he is a lessee of the suit premises. 13. 12. He invites the attention to paragraph No.3 of the said affidavit wherein the defendant has admitted that he is a lessee of the suit premises. 13. Therefore, question of defendant contending that there is no landlord and tenant relationship cannot be countenanced in law having regard to the scope of the suit and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 14. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 15. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that at an undisputed point of time, the defendant has sworn on oath about the relationship between him and the plaintiff. 16. Said paragraph No.3 in the affidavit in support of the application marked at Ex.P.13 is extracted hereunder for ready reference: “I submit that, I have filed the above suit praying the relief of specific performance of contract and injunctive relief pending till the defendant execute the sale deed in may faovur in respect of schedule ‘B’ property. The defendant had decided to dispose of the three shops situated at the ground floor of the property bearing No.73 situated at B. Oosman Khan Road, Bengaluru-560 002 which was in possession as a lessee and offered to sell the said three shops to me. I agreed to purchase the property offered to sell by the defendant.” Thus, the first contention of the revision petitioner that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the parties cannot be countenanced in law. 17. Insofar as rent receipts are concerned, it is the landlord who has received the rent and therefore, receipts will be with the tenant and not with the landlord. Therefore, such a contention cannot be countenanced in law. Insofar as the agreement to sell is concerned it is disputed seriously by plaintiff. 18. Insofar as electricity bill is concerned, paying of electricity bill or the name of the petitioner in the electricity bill would not confer the title on the defendant. More so, when the defendant himself has now approached the Civil Court for seeking specific enforcement of the alleged agreement to sell entered into by the father of the plaintiff with the defendant. 19. More so, when the defendant himself has now approached the Civil Court for seeking specific enforcement of the alleged agreement to sell entered into by the father of the plaintiff with the defendant. 19. Therefore, whenever a tenant denies the ownership of the landlord, it is settled principles of law that the tenant must vacate the premises forthwith and thereafter, he must establish his title in the suit property and then re-enter into the property by resorting to Section 144 of CPC. 20. As such, decreeing of the suit by the Trial Court is just and proper which requires no interference in this revision petition. 21. Hence, following: ORDER i. Revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. ii. Time is granted till 30.11.2025 to vacate and handover the premises.