ORDER : M.G.UMA, J. The petitioner being the respondent in HRC No.462/2007 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru City (SCCH- 24) is impugning the order dated 16.09.2022, allowing the petition under Section 27(2)(a)(e) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and directing the respondent to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the schedule premises to the petitioners within one month from the date of the order. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court. 3. The facts in brief of the case are that, the petitioner has filed HRC No.462/2007 under Section 27(2)(e) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 against the respondent seeking eviction and directing the respondent to hand over the vacant possession of the schedule premises. The schedule attached to the petition describes the portion of a house property bearing No.17, Rest House Road, Bangalore-01 within the boundaries mentioned therein. 4. It is the contention of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is represented by her GPA holder. She is the absolute owner of the entire property bearing No.17, Rest House Road, Bangalore-01 as the same was gifted in her favour by her grandmother by way of registered settlement deed dated 13.06.1975. Since then, petitioner No.1 is the absolute owner in possession of the property. It is stated that the respondent is a tenant in respect of portion of house property, which measures approximately 150 Sq. Ft., on a monthly rent of Rs.150/-. The respondent was very irregular in payment of rent. 5. It is contended that the schedule premises is constructed about 75 years ago and it is in a dilapidated condition. It is dangerous and may collapse at any time. Therefore, petitioner No.1 asked the respondent to vacate the premises and hand over the possession. It is also contended that petitioner No.1 required the schedule premises as she entered into joint development agreement with M/s. Abrar Investor and develops (P) Ltd.,. Therefore, she intends to demolish the premises and construct multi-storied Commercial Complex. 6. It is the contention of petitioner No.1 that she got issued the legal notice dated 10.07.2007 by the respondent calling upon him to vacate and deliver the possession. She is in bonafide requirement of the schedule premises. But the respondent has not vacated the premises. Therefore, she intends to demolish the premises and construct multi-storied Commercial Complex. 6. It is the contention of petitioner No.1 that she got issued the legal notice dated 10.07.2007 by the respondent calling upon him to vacate and deliver the possession. She is in bonafide requirement of the schedule premises. But the respondent has not vacated the premises. On the other hand, issued an untenable reply. Therefore, petitioner sought for eviction of the respondent/tenant. 7. The respondent appeared before the Trial Court and filed her statement of objections contending that the description of the property in the schedule is not correct. Petitioner has not given true and correct measurement of the schedule premises and she is not entitled to seek eviction of the respondent. The General Power of Attorney deed referred to by the petitioner No.1 is a fabricated one. Respondent denied the jural relationship with petitioner No.1. However, admitted that the respondent is a tenant in respect of the schedule premises on a payment of rent of Rs.150 per month. It is contended that Mrs. S. Baig, was the owner of premises and after her demise, petitioner No.1 was collecting the rent from the respondent. 8. Respondent contended that there is serious dispute regarding the ownership of the schedule premises and there are various litigations between petitioner No.1 and others who are claiming ownership over the properties. Under such circumstances, petitioner No.1 has not proved her ownership over the property in question. Hence, she is not entitled to seek eviction. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition. 9. The petitioner No.1 got examined her GPA holder as PW.1. However, evidence of PW1 was discarded at the request of petitioner No.1 and later petitioner No.1 got examined the very same GPA holder as PW.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. The respondent got examined as RW1 and got marked Ex.R1 to R.14 in support of her defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these contentions, came to the conclusion that the petitioner No.1 is entitled for the relief under Section 27(2)(a)(e) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. Accordingly, directed the respondent to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the schedule premises within one month from the date of the order. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent is before this Court. 10. Heard Sri. Accordingly, directed the respondent to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the schedule premises within one month from the date of the order. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent is before this Court. 10. Heard Sri. Chandrakanth R. Goulay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Ashok Patil, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the materials on record. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the ownership of the property is in serious dispute. R.F.A.Nos.2471/2007 and 2514/2007 are pending consideration before this Court, wherein the ownership of the petitioner is challenged. O.S.No.1041/2022 is filed, wherein the petitioner is seeking declaration of title and the same is still pending consideration before the Civil Court. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for any reliefs. 12. Learned counsel also contended that the petition is filed under Section 27(2)(e) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 but has not proved the said requirement. The petitioner has never invoked Section 27(2)(a) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. Inspite of that, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order. The respondent is paying the rent by depositing the same before the Court. Unless the petitioner proves her title over the property, she is not liable to vacate the schedule premises. The Trial Court committed an error in passing the impugned order and he prays for allowing the present petition. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents herein opposing the submissions, contended that even though Section 27(2)(e) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is invoked, the pleadings pleaded before the Trial Court are sufficient to invoke Section 27(2)(a) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. Admittedly, respondent is in arrears of rent. Under such circumstances, respondent is liable to be evicted under Section 27(2)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. 14. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent is disputing the ownership of petitioner before the Trial Court only as an afterthought; Ex.P5 is the reply notice issued by the respondent, wherein there is clear admission that the petitioner was collecting the rent as owner. Moreover, this Court has passed an order as per Ex.P13 in HRRP No.37/2017, wherein it is held that the petitioner is the owner and is entitled to maintain and prosecute the eviction petition. Moreover, this Court has passed an order as per Ex.P13 in HRRP No.37/2017, wherein it is held that the petitioner is the owner and is entitled to maintain and prosecute the eviction petition. Under such circumstances, the respondent cannot be permitted to agitate the question of title over the property once again. 15. Learned counsel submits that the Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are the revenue documents which stands in the name of the petitioner and the petitioner has produced various documents to show that she has entered into joint development agreement with the power of attorney holder and the property is required by her. Under such circumstances, the Trial Court was right in allowing the petition directing the respondent to hand over schedule premises. There is no merit in the petition filed by the respondent and prays for dismissal of the petition. 16. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition?" My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following: REASONS 17. Firstly, it is the contention of the respondent before the Trial Court that one Mrs. S. Baig, was the owner of larger extent of the land including the schedule premises. According to the respondent, Mrs. S. Baig, executed a settlement deed in favour of the petitioner. But subsequently, the same was cancelled. However, the fact remains that the respondent issued a reply as per Ex.P5. The respondent has categorically admitted that he is the tenant in respect of the schedule premises and it is the petitioner, who is collecting rent of Rs.150/- per month. Once the tenant admits his tenancy and contends that it is the petitioner who is collecting the rent, the petitioner is estopped from contending otherwise or denying the title of the petitioner to claim eviction. Section 3(e) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 defines the word 'land lord' which means, a persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent for any premises. Therefore, the petitioner satisfies the Court regarding the fact that she is the landlord as described in the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. 18. Section 3(e) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 defines the word 'land lord' which means, a persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent for any premises. Therefore, the petitioner satisfies the Court regarding the fact that she is the landlord as described in the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. 18. Admittedly, the Trial Court had initially dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner upon which the petitioner had approached this Court by filing HRRP No.37/2017. The said HRRP No.37/2017 came to be allowed vide order dated 18.11.2020 as per Ex.P13 by referring to the reply notice- Ex.P5, recorded a finding that there is an admission on the part of the respondent that he is paying rent to the petitioner. Hence, he assumes the character of landlord as defined under Section 3(e) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and accordingly, the HRRP was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the Trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 19. It is thereafter, the trial was held before the Trial Court and the impugned order came to be passed. Admittedly, the respondent has never challenged the order of this Court produced as per Ex.P13. Therefore, the respondent cannot be permitted to once again raise the contention challenging the ownership of the petitioner, when once it is accepted. 20. Even according to the respondent, he was not punctual in payment of rent. Initially he was paying the rent to the petitioner and later he started disputing the ownership of petitioner and stopped paying the rent. Now it is the contention of the respondent before the Trial court that the rent was being deposited before this Court. However, it is not in dispute that there was arrears of rent which the respondent failed to pay to the petitioner. Thereby, requirement of Section 27(2)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is satisfied. 21. It is the contention of the petitioners that the petition schedule premises is in dilapidated condition and the same is to be demolished and the building needs to be reconstructed. It is also the contention that she has entered into the joint development agreement to demolish and reconstruct the building by putting up a multi-storied commercial complex. In that regard, PW2 has deposed before the Court and produced various documents. It is also the contention that she has entered into the joint development agreement to demolish and reconstruct the building by putting up a multi-storied commercial complex. In that regard, PW2 has deposed before the Court and produced various documents. It is interesting to note that even though PW2 was cross examined, the contention of the petitioner as taken in the petition was never disputed. None of the documents produced by the petitioner was disputed during cross examination of PW2. Only suggestions were made during cross-examination by denying the title of the petitioner. When the evidence of PW2 regarding the requirement of petitioner and arrears of rent was not disputed during cross-examination, it amounts to admission on the part of the respondent. Even on that point, the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for under Section 27(2)(e) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. 22. On perusal of the materials on record, I am of the opinion that the respondent is not entitled to squat over the schedule premises by raising flimsy grounds. He has no valid defence in his favour. 23. I have gone through the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. It has taken into consideration all the materials on record and has arrived at the right conclusion. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER Petition is dismissed with costs.