ORDER : V SRISHANANDA, J. Heard Sri Harish N.R., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nitin Ramesh, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The defendant in S.C.No.137/2020 is the revision petitioner challenging the ejectment decree passed in the said suit. 3. The facts in brief, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition, are as under: 3(i) The respondent Smt. Bhuvaneshwari V., being the daughter of late B. Vijayakumar, filed an ejectment suit seeking ejectment of the revision petitioner/defendant from the following property, hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”. "SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of Ground Floor portion of the immovable property bearing No. 9, formed out of converted land in Sy. No. 80/1 situated at Abbigere Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring to an extent of East to West: 30+31/2 feet and North to South: 40+39/2 feet in total 1204.78 sq.feet, and bounded on:- Direction Adjacency East Private property West Site No. 10 North Road South Private property 3(ii) It is contented that the father of the plaintiff, namely B. Vijayakumar, had entered into a lease agreement with the revision petitioner on 16.03.2012 (Ex.P6). As per the said agreement, the revision petitioner was inducted as a tenant, on a monthly rent of Rs.6,000/- with enhancement in the rent of 5% every 11 months. 3(iii) It is contented that said B. Vijayakumar died on 13.11.2018 and thereafter, the revision petitioner stopped paying rents to the suit property and started claiming rights over the suit property as if she is the wife of B.Vijayakumar, after the death of first wife of B.Vijayakumar. 3(iv) A legal notice came to be issued vide Ex.P5. There is no compliance to the callings of the legal notice or any reply to the said legal notice. As such, the suit for ejectment came to be filed by the plaintiff. 3(v) The revision petitioner served with the summons of the suit, entered appearance and filed written statement denying the jural relationship of landlady and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant and resisted the suit claim. 3(vi) Learned trial Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, by the impugned order, allowed the suit and directed the respondent to vacate and hand over the suit premises within three months from the date of order i.e., from 30.03.2024. 3(vi) Learned trial Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, by the impugned order, allowed the suit and directed the respondent to vacate and hand over the suit premises within three months from the date of order i.e., from 30.03.2024. 3(vii) Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant has filed the present revision petition on following grounds:- The Court below failed to appreciate the nature of the defense raised by the petitioner that the Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for ejectment and ought to have returned the plaint. The Trial Court wholly erred in its jurisdiction holding that the petitioner herein has not produced the rent receipt, if the petitioner is tenant she would have been paid the rent to the father of the respondent. Since the petitioner is the wife and resided under the same Roof, there was no such circumstance of paying the rent. The Trial Court wholly erred in appreciating evidence led by this petitioner, such as tax paid receipt, voter ID and judgment passed in the CC No.24187/2017. Once a dispute is other than termination of tenancy, under no circumstances, Small Causes Court gets jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Trial Court has not considered the material evidence adduced in the case. In fact, the respondent has produced the only photocopy of the rent agreement, which Hon'ble Trial Court should not have considered the same. Further, the signature on the alleged rent agreement is forged one, same erred by the Hon'ble Trial Court, same should have considered by the Hon'ble Trial Court while passing the judgment and decree. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the witness to the said alleged rental agreement was the brother and sister of the respondent herein. On these ground alone, the case should have been disposed off. The respondent herein has admitted the Ex-D5, that the photograph, wherein the petitioner, her husband, who is father of the respondent participated in a family Pooja and took a photograph with close gestures and also another photograph shows that the husband of the petitioner and his brother family along with this petitioner has gone to the family trip. Further same was not disputed by the respondent herein and Trial Court has utterly failed to appreciate Ex.D-5. Further same was not disputed by the respondent herein and Trial Court has utterly failed to appreciate Ex.D-5. The Trial Court ought to have held on admitted fact, the respondent or her father, has not received any rents, since the petitioner is the wife of the said B. Viajayakumar. Further, the respondent herein is not a party to the alleged EX-P6, the alleged Ex-P6 said have been executed/entered between, one B. Vijayakumar with this petitioner, when such being the case, the Trial Court ought have dismissed suit of the respondent, on the ground that the respondent and petitioner are not the landlady and tenant. The Judgment and Decree of the Court below is otherwise opposed to law, facts and probabilities of the case and weight of evidence. The certified copy of the Judgment and Decree is herewith enclosed. Hence, this revision petition. There are no proceedings pending before this Court or in any other forum on the same cause of action on the same Order. 4. Sri Harish N.R., learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contented that the learned trial Judge failed to note that there was no jural relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant as that of landlady and tenant. 4(i) He would further contend that the defendant is the second wife of B.Vijayakumar, after the death of first wife of B.Vijaykumar, that is, the natural mother of the plaintiff. 4(ii) He would also contend that when late B.Vijayakumar married the defendant, she has taken care of the plaintiff, who was a minor and after the death of B.Vijayakumar, in order to grab the property and to deny the legitimate share of the defendant, the suit for ejectment came to be filed, which is per se incorrect and sought for allowing the revision petition. 4(iii) He would also invite the attention of this Court to the pending partition suit filed in O.S. No.1635/2021 on the file of the Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru and sought for admitting the petition on the ground that the step-mother of the plaintiff cannot be treated as a tenant in respect of the suit property and sought for allowing the revision petition. 5. Per contra, Sri Nitin Ramesh, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff supports the impugned order. 5. Per contra, Sri Nitin Ramesh, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff supports the impugned order. 5(i) He would further contend that the learned trial Judge has rightly analysed the probative value of Ex.P6 in holding that there existed a relationship of landlady and tenant and there is automatic attornment of tenancy in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the rights that were settled between the parties in Ex.P6 and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 5(ii) He would also contend that the revision petitioner has not paid or deposited any rent in respect of the petition premises and therefore, on that score also, the revision petition is not maintainable. 6. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the contention of the revision petitioner that she is the second wife of late B.Vijayakumar, is not established by placing any convincing material evidence on record. 7. Notarized copy of the Aadhar card, Voter ID card, certified copy of the judgment in C.C No.24187/2017 are not per se, documents which could be accepted as material evidence to establish the relationship of husband and wife between late B.Vijayakumar and the revision petitioner. 8. Further, the photographs placed on record vide Ex.D5 would not ipso facto establish the relationship of husband and wife between late B.Vijayakumar and the defendant. 9. Pertinently, when there is a dispute as to the relationship of husband and wife between late B.Vijayakumar and the revision petitioner, apart from the oral testimony of D.W.1 and documents vide Exhibits D1 to D19, it was incumbent on the part of the revision petitioner to place additional evidence to prove the factum of marriage. Therefore, the learned trial Judge not accepting the contention that the revision petitioner is the wife of late B.Vijayakumar is just and proper. 10. As against the stand taken by the defendant, there is overwhelming material evidence placed on record on behalf of the plaintiff in the form of not only the oral testimony of the plaintiff, but also documents which were exhibited and marked as Exhibits P1 to P15. 11. Among them, the important document which would clinch the issue is Ex.P6 - rental agreement executed by late B.Vijayakumar and the revision petitioner. 12. 11. Among them, the important document which would clinch the issue is Ex.P6 - rental agreement executed by late B.Vijayakumar and the revision petitioner. 12. It is to be noted that at an undisputed point of time, the said document has come into being as it is dated 16.03.2012. For a period of six years, B.Vijayakumar was alive and there was no dispute as to the Ex.P6. If the contention of the revision petitioner is to be accepted that she is the second wife of late B.Vijayakumar after the death of the first wife of B.Vijayakumar, Ex.P6 would not have come into being and the revision petitioner would not be treated as tenant. 13. Further, when there is a legal notice issued before instituting the ejectment suit on 13.06.2019, there was no reply issued by the revision petitioner to Ex.P5. If the step-mother of the plaintiff is to be called as a tenant and notified by a legal notice of the intended legal action, it is to be noted that no prudent person would keep quiet in not replying to the legal notice. 14. Therefore, learned trial Judge basing Ex.P6 to record a finding that there existed a jural relationship between plaintiff and defendant as that of landlady and tenant, is thus justified in the attendant facts and circumstances of the case. 15. It is a settled principle of law that requires no emphasis that by the death of a person or other alienation known to law, there would be automatic attornment of tenancy. Therefore, by operation of law, the plaintiff can exercise the right of the landlady in seeking ejectment of the defendant. 16. It is also found from the material on record vide Ex.P7 that after the death of B.Vijayakumar, there was a partition between the plaintiff, her sister and brother. Therefore, it is crystal clear that if the defendant had any right whatsoever in respect of the suit property, necessarily she would be a party to Ex.P7. 17. Anyway, it is for the revision petitioner/defendant to substantiate her right in the pending suit in O.S.No.1635/2021 for partition and obtain necessary orders. 18. Since on record there is a rent agreement, the ejectment decree passed by learned trial Judge needs no interference, that too under the revisional jurisdiction before this Court. 19. 17. Anyway, it is for the revision petitioner/defendant to substantiate her right in the pending suit in O.S.No.1635/2021 for partition and obtain necessary orders. 18. Since on record there is a rent agreement, the ejectment decree passed by learned trial Judge needs no interference, that too under the revisional jurisdiction before this Court. 19. It is made clear that in the event the revision petitioner succeeds in the pending suit in O.S.No.1635/2021, necessarily she can claim back possession of the suit property in the final decree proceedings seeking for equitable relief. 20. Till such time, since there exists a jural relationship of landlady and tenant between the parties, and also taking note of the fact that no agreed rate of rent is paid or deposited, this Court is of the considered opinion that the revision petition needs to be dismissed, of course, by granting a reasonable time to vacate and hand over the suit property. 21. Hence following:- ORDER (i) The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. (ii) Time is extended till 31.01.2026 for the revision petitioner to vacate and hand over the premises. (iii) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter with regard to the lis between the revision petitioner and the defendants in O.S.No.1635/2021. In view of dismissal of the main matter, pending applications do not survive for consideration and the same are disposed of.