ORDER : 1. Heard Sri N. Shankaranarayana Bhat, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri A. Ram Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The defendant in S.C.No.1679/2011 is the revision petitioner challenging the validity of the order passed by the learned trial Judge directing the revision petitioner/defendant to vacate and hand over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within four months. 3. Brief facts of the case for dispose of the present revision petition are as under: 3.1. A suit came to be filed by the plaintiff contending that she is the absolute owner of the following property bearing No.12, 14 A cross, Malleswaram, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’). “All that piece and parcel of property No.12 (old No.737) situated at the corner of 11 th Main Road, 14 A Cross, Malleshwaram, Bangalore - 560 003, measuring East to West 35 feet and North to South 65 feet and bounded on the: East by : Property belonging to M.A.Prema (No.13) West by : 11 th Main Road North by: House belonging to Mallikarjuna Rao/private property South by: 14 th A cross road.” 4. It is her case that she inherited the suit property through her father and all revenue records are in the name of her father Late M.A.T. Iyengar. 5. Further contention of the plaintiff is that defendant is a tenant under the plaintiff for several years. Initially he was paying rent of Rs.150/- per month and as on the date of filing of the suit he was paying the rent of Rs.500/- per month. Plaintiff was desirous of visiting to Bengaluru and settle down in Bengaluru and with that intention, she requested the defendant to vacate the premises. But, defendant failed to vacate the premises. Therefore, legal notice was caused on 08.04.2009. 6. An untenable reply was sent by the defendant on 21.04.2009 and therefore, plaintiff left with no alternative had to file the suit for recovery of the possession of the property. 7. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant entered appearance and filed written statement contending that he is the owner of the suit property and during the lifetime of Sri Somasundaraiah, who is the father of defendant, purchased the immovable property bearing Municipal No.12, (old No.727), 14 th cross, (presently known as 14 th A cross). 7. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant entered appearance and filed written statement contending that he is the owner of the suit property and during the lifetime of Sri Somasundaraiah, who is the father of defendant, purchased the immovable property bearing Municipal No.12, (old No.727), 14 th cross, (presently known as 14 th A cross). Therefore, defemdamt is staying in the suit property as of his own right and not as a tenant. 8. Based on the rival contentions, the matter was shut down for recording the evidence. 9. On behalf of plaintiff, her General Power of Attorney holder by name H.O. Sudarshan Rajagopal got examined as P.W.1 and placed on record the original General Power of Attorney, encumbrance certificate, office copy of the legal notice, registered post with acknowledgement due, reply notice issued by the defendant. 10. As against the evidence placed on record, defendant did not step into the witness box nor placed any documentary evidence. 11. Learned trial Judge taking note of the above factual aspects of the matter, heard the parties and decreed the suit. 12. Operative portion of the judgment reads as under: “The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with cost against the defendant. The defendant is hereby directed to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within four months from the date of this Judgment. Failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to take steps as per law. Draw the decree accordingly.” 13. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant has filed the present revision petition on the following grounds: ? The Lower Court acted without jurisdiction and with material irregularities in decreeing the suit of the Respondent under the provisions of Small Causes Act. Hence the same is liable to be set aside. ? The Court below further erred in law in not noticing and considering that when the Respondent claims to be the landlord and seeks eviction of his tenant from the residential premises for which rent is stated to be Rs.500/- , the landlord will have to invoke the provisions of Rent Control Act and other provisions cannot be invoked on account of the bar contained in the said Act. Hence the judgment and decree for eviction of the Petitioner is without the authority of law so also without jurisdiction. ? Hence the judgment and decree for eviction of the Petitioner is without the authority of law so also without jurisdiction. ? The Lower Appellate Court further erred in law in not noticing that the eviction petition filed by the Respondent was not maintainable. Hence it is evident that the Trial Court acted with material irregularity in allowing the suit of the Respondent. ? The Lower Court further seriously erred in not formulating the correct legal points that arises out of the pleadings regarding the title of the respondent. Hence the judgment is not legally sustainable. ? It is submitted that to the claim of the Respondent, the Petitioner substantially pleaded in his written statement that he is the absolute owner and also explained how he acquired title to the property. When that being so, the Court below without verifying as to whether the Respondent-Plaintiff has title or right over the plaint schedule property, acted beyond jurisdiction in granting a decree. ? It is submitted that the Respondent-Plaintiff had not placed before the Trial Court any document to show and establish her right over the plaint schedule property. The Respondent has produced six documents and none of the documents would reveal the right of the Respondent over the suit schedule property and on this count alone the Trial Court should have dismissed the suit, particularly having regard to the pleadings. ? The Court below further erred in law in not noticing that the witness examined as PW1 had no authority to give evidence on behalf of the Plaintiff. It is relevant to mention here that the suit was filed by one Pushpa Osuri represented by her power of attorney holder Smt.M.A Prema (Prema Gopal). However the only witness examined as PW1 was one H.O. Sudarshan Rajagopal. Hence it is not known on what authority the said witness was examined for the Plaintiff. This irregularity and illegality has vitiated the judgment of the Court below. ? The Court below seriously erred in law in not noticing that unless and until the person claiming ownership right over the plaint schedule property, place before the Hon'ble Court documents to establish such claim, the Court below would gets no legal authority to presume that the person who has instituted the suit had title to the property particularly when said claim was denied by the defendant in his written statement. It is relevant to mention here that all the relevant documents such as khatha, tax paid receipt and title deeds stands in the name of the Petitioner/Defendant. However on account of the difficulties and problems faced by the Petitioner, he could not place his title documents before the Trial Court. ? It is submitted that even in the absence of any evidence from the side of the Defendant, Court need not and cannot grant a decree in favour of the Plaintiff unless and until the Plaintiff establishes her case. In the instant case, the Plaintiff has utterly failed to establish her case of ownership and her case of tenancy. Therefore the order of eviction passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. The Court below merely referred to the exhibits without appreciating how the documents produced by the Plaintiff-Respondent would support her case ? The Court below, as is clear from the judgment, by referring to the Defendant-Petitioner is having failed to lead evidence proceeded to decree the suit stating that the documentary evidence adduced by the Plaintiff remain unchallenged. It is further submitted that there is nothing to challenge in the documents produced by the Plaintiff which fact the Court below has failed to take note of while rendering the judgment.” 14. Sri Shankaranarayana Bhat, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that when there is a dispute as to the landlord and tenant relationship, the trial Court ought not have proceeded with the suit and should have relegated the parties to the Civil Court. 15. He would also contend that the defendant has stated in his written statement as to how he is owner of the property. Under such circumstances, the Small Causes Court does not get the jurisdiction to decide the matter further. 16. He points out that there is no material evidence placed on record to the effect that there exists a landlord and tenant relationship and thus, sought for allowing the revision petition. 17. He also contended that the suit for ejectment is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Karnataka Rent Act and an eviction petition should have been filed under the Karnataka Rent Act. Therefore, the impugned judgment is non est and sought for allowing the revision petition. 18. 17. He also contended that the suit for ejectment is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Karnataka Rent Act and an eviction petition should have been filed under the Karnataka Rent Act. Therefore, the impugned judgment is non est and sought for allowing the revision petition. 18. Per contra, Sri A. Ram Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff supports the impugned order. 19. He would further contend that if the tenant is the owner of the property, he must vacate the premises and establish his ownership rights over the suit property and should get back into the suit property. Therefore, revision petition needs to be dismissed. 20. In reply, Sri Shankaranarayana Bhat, learned counsel would contend that the full bench judgment of this Court in the case of Abdul Wajid vs. A.S. Onkarappa, ILR 2011 KAR 229, has clearly held that jurisdiction of the small Causes court to take cognizance of the suit for ejectment is ousted in view of the Karnataka Rent Act, especially when there is a dispute as to the landlord and tenant relationship and sought for allowing the revision. 21. Having heard the arguments of both sides this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 22. On such perusal of the material on record it is crystal clear that there is a definite plea taken by the defendant that he is the owner of the suit property. But, to establish such a plea there is no material evidence placed by the defendant before the trial Court. 23. Assuming that Somasundaraiah being the father of the defendant has purchased the suit property from the father of the plaintiff and defendant resided in the said property as the owner, he has to file a suit and establish his right, title and interest over the suit property and get back into the suit property by filing an application under Section 144 of Code of Civil Procedure. 24. Admittedly, the boundaries and the subject matter of the sale deed, which is now placed before the Court as additional documents, vide I.A.No.1/2017 by defendant would not tally with the boundaries mentioned in the plaint. 25. 24. Admittedly, the boundaries and the subject matter of the sale deed, which is now placed before the Court as additional documents, vide I.A.No.1/2017 by defendant would not tally with the boundaries mentioned in the plaint. 25. It is contented in the written statement that the boundaries have changed so also the main road number has changed and other details have also changed and therefore, the property that is purchased by the defendant is the suit property cannot be countenanced in the absence of any material evidence placed before the Court. 26. Further, defendant for the reasons best known to him, did not step into the witness box to establish these aspects of the matter. 27. When there is a specific statement on oath by the plaintiff that defendant is a tenant and in the absence of any other material on record, learned trial Judge was thus justified in ordering for ejectment of the defendant from the suit property. 28. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that whenever the defendant questions the title of the landlord, he must first vacate the premises and establish right, title and interest over the suit property and should get back into the suit property by resorting to Section 144 of Code of Civil Procedure. 29. In this regard, gainfully this Court places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jyothi Sharma vs. Vishnu Goyal and another in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 29500/2024 disposed of on 11.09.2025, para No. 12 of the said order is culled out hereunder for ready reference: “It was vehemently argued by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-tenant that since ownership was not established and there were concurrent findings of three courts it cannot be interfered with by this Court. We are conscious that there are three concurrent findings against the plaintiff, but though set aside, the findings as coming out from the judgment in the first appeal, at the first instance, brings forth a divergent opinion, which is also based on the evidence led at the trial. The setting aside of the said order in first appeal was only on consent of the parties, for a remand, to enable a fresh consideration. The setting aside of the said order in first appeal was only on consent of the parties, for a remand, to enable a fresh consideration. We hasten to observe that we are not, for a moment, restoring the order of the first appellate court at the first instance, which has been set aside by the High Court. However, having looked at the same, we find it to have dealt with the issue in the same manner as we have dealt with it.” 30. Thus, viewed from any angle, the grounds urged in the revision petition are hardly sufficient to interfere with the order of the trial Court. 31. Accordingly, the following: ORDER: (i) Revision petition is dismissed. (ii) Time is extended till end of December 2025 for vacating and handover the premises to the respondent.