I J This RFA. is filed under section 96 WW orde_r 46 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 01.03.2007 passed in O.S.No.6:751.x'2002 on the file of the XV_.';3.d'dl:'rCity Civil and Sessions Judge. Bangalore ~ No.3 dismissing the suit for ejectment. permanent ifljl_£'i'iC'l:tQAl1*€5,:'t€i. ~ This RFA coming for heari.nr;,:__4this."d;3i'y§:,'_';».the,'_'_Co'u_Vrt"r delivered the foliowinge Juoemsaf. This is plaintiffs gappea£.tj"' 2. The mawma fieu gull; ®$§§Kx475L?OO2 my egectmertt and case of the plaintiff is that she' .'suwi"t':.§scheciuie property through registiered and Katha has been transfeflrredl in plaintiff contends that the defendants the respondents herein are the tenants in
suit scheduée property on a monthly rent of
also contended, the defendants are trying to
su’b–~|ea’se’vt’he property and irispite of repeated requests,
it urer_§tind’ers and legaé notices, the respondents have not
“‘._\ra’c’ated the premises. Therefore, suit for ejection and
” “permanent injunction.
It///)
3. The first respondent i.e.t the first defendant has
filed his written statement contending that he is
and there is no relatéensnip of landlady and te.n’antre.ijet~ivee’n ‘
himself and the piaintiff and he ts”in”poss’essi«o:n”e§
schedeie property as a Vcoparcenedr aloiég”withw.””oee–..
S.lVlan;’unath and therefore. has:aV.V”p.raye.d'<~§ot'~~.di.Sn'§issVaVlV of the
suit.
4. Theasecond”respon’de=ntihesieznoti filed any written
statement. .b.lJ§’.’.,’ {:ornp{on}ése_d the njiaitwter.
_ _ Ti5.e_T,r’i3a.IyC4oti’i1t.._has.’framed the following isst.2es:-
° Vi/.het4ner:_4’t2’2.e”p’fei’nttff is the /endfedy of
tfte_”pre’mtses”fit/herer’n the defendant is a
Vtenen’t’?… _____ .. s 3′
..t_:l/finetfter the termination of tenancy is in
A ‘V-Vaccifordence with few?
3. Whether the plaintiff rs entrtied to the
possession of suit property?
L/..
6. The “trial Court has answered issue No.1 partly in
the affirmative. issue No.2 and 3 in the negative and
cohseqoentfy. has dismissed the suit.
7, Aggrieved by that, the appelIant–p|a.i_ntiffV=ha’s2ti*led
this appeal.
8. The learned counsel for the eapp’e.l_la~n:t”confiehcfed
that the Triat Court was not jt;§st’i”f~i.ed inidismissinoi”t.h’e-VVst:i~t. He-C’
also submitted that the appAe.ll.alht._hays purch,ase,cl the suit
schedule property throilggfih-.rsgisterietfsalesdeed dated 56»
3972 a’rt’d “Court–. that the appellant is the
ownerbf the suit s’c’h.ed.u:le..property and inspite of thatithe Trial
Court has”diismiVssed¥,rh’e«”suit which is not correct. He also
that tihieve-ppellant has issued notice as per exhibits
tierfrtinating the tenancy and even if Ex?-7 is hot
piroyed, _t.he’I.appellant can claim’ possession based on exhibits
D-l a~no3.D–2. i~le also submitted that the first respondent has
not’r_e§:)iied any notice sent to him ahd therefore, it is deemed
that the first respondent has admitted the tenancy. Further he
L’
submitted that the first respondent has not proved that he is in
possession of the property as a coparcener._.iHe«..4_fa.§so
submitted that the appellant has proved that
of the property and the first respond.ent..has ‘
capacity he is in possession of the:’pérop_’er’t’y
Trial Court was not justifiediniveisntissing He also-if
submitted that the eviffehce Ex.P–7
and the notices sent to”th_e- clearly establish
that the first re.spc.nderjtV’is therefore. the Trial
Court thefffsuit, tn support of his
subinVi.s’si’oni:be’ decision of the Hon’ble
Supre’m_e”C_o Vre:p’o:rVte.d: 1 985 SC Page 357.
__9. against ‘this. the learned counsel for the first
re;sponderzvtA. submi”i’t’ed that, the Trial Court: on proper
‘vtgonstirjieréatidit.of,the material on record, has rightly dismissed
tliewsuivt.ar’i§d’therefore. the impugned tudgment and decree
does” calt for interference. He also submitted that E><.D-1, it is mentioned
Lt"/, ,,,, ..
that the rate of rent is 83,260,.»-“1 per month and it was
enhanced to Rs.360:”- per month and in E><.P-77"l"'re t'hat–.the'r'eiv~i-3;'mention about the lease
e.greement4'_dated':V?'4~$?i»9V?£Z::'aijd0it has not been produced. He
also sebmiit–t.ed'v that tihei stamp paper is dated 205-2001 and
theiieaispe a_greemen.t.-«is said to have been executed on 10-5-
20000'?! Dclearly indicates that Ex.P-7 is a concocted
do'cu0me_n.t'.'V'i:'He: also submitted that the burden of proving EXP-
? is onuithe appellant and the appellant has iailed to prove
He also submitted that the plaintiff has not stepped
into the witness-box and there was no opportunity to cross-
examine the plaintitt and the evidence of Pwt and PW___2 is of
no consequence. He also submitted that one S.i\/lan__i.urtat«h_;'~the
son of P.Sathyanarayana. has filed suit in
tor partition on 27-2-2002, thereafte_r,»iinotice has_'_lo_ee.néV'
sent which ciearly indicates that the:"oauise"of activioninyfor
is imaginary and aiterthougr'it.U"~~.._Further__ thati
notices have been sent in AVydi–ftVe'i:er9];i§;;;narhtriesV-and there is
reieience to the |ease–'d'ee_d's'§' tiéhieiivvtleiaseyfdeeds have not
been produced@;: appellant has
not prodUGéd""Va.ny'iiiiV'l]Q themtirst respondent was
the teiii'a'i'it..'V.Va:nxid:;ti§i;e~ rightly heiol that the
appellant has fvaiiieiiijito» relationship of landlady and
tenant. lwi'e"–«alsvoVsu.biii.it'tecii'that the biirden is on the appellant
to..':y_jpiro}r.e that "t'hei—-.–i–i–rst respondent is the tenant and the
to prove that the first respondent is the
.tenant andi:i.hereforet the Trial Court has rightly disniissed the
siiit andtt does not cail for interference.
2 10' I have carefully considered the submissions made
2 V' "by the learned counsel tor the paities.
L/,.t-
E1. the point that arises for my consideration
Whether the Trial Court was
holding that the appet/ant has failed
EXP»? and the re/ati’onshi’p o.ftarrdladjr and:ttenaiit.’,i’,
between the appellant and the fl’FSt” Tr ‘
12. It is relevaat to case’bfi5theV}aPDe|lant-
plaintiff is that the respto’rid_er–iVtis ;hAe””re.i_ri»’V..i’are__the tenants under
her on a monthlyrent nowhere it is
stated when the There is no
mention oi appellant has produced
andh’as_e_>;3arni’ne’d..__t_wojwitnesses to prove her case.
P,W.i is thepoiweér holder of the appellant. P.W.1
is ng;}t”at.partv He has not signed E><_P–7, but, it is not confronted
him. He has not identified his signature in Ex.P–7. He has
{V/..
not identified the signatures oi’ the witnesses _..or the
detendants in Ex.P~7′. Apart from this. E><.P–7 is idtviideiibttytur
origin. The stamp paper is purchased on
document is said to have been executed' or; 1Qr..5?;?'Q0VV'i,_WHVi'Ch '
is improbabie. Apart from this, otie'.oi:t'he'istan'tp. pap.ers:"isi:irt'ot
signed by the stamp vendor; –Eii~r.ther tthere 'no""t§5hibcits Di and 2. in fact, there is no mention about
exhib~its’:.Di and D2 in plaint. Nothing is pieaded regarding
ei<h"i"'oits Di and D2 in the piaint. Therefore, the contention
that the tenancy was terminated through exhibits D1 and D2
L ,,,,,,, 74!:
cannot be accepted. in exhibit D1 there is referenceV.t-o__ lease
agreement dated 38-1972 and it is mentioned that”thef”ra;te..of
rent is Rs.260r’> per month and it was enhanced
per month. in E><.D-2 it is mentio-ne'd'«t.hat–'_'the.V.'ra't:e_of 'reintHE~s i
Rst260r'– per month and the arrearsxis:'$?s.'9,36'QrL;~ .ln
it is mentioned that the responideints are'duej'vfroVin"'i"éE§–2OOi'VV
and the rate of rent is rnonth'; iiihere is no
reference to exhibits or ;'¢.,..v'"e'i_$_hibit P10. One
Maniunath, ihvelsen has filed suit in
O.s.No.i339/'é_oo§t..3pi :2.7m2~2oo2. Thereafter,
Ex. P– i,o- iiwasctibleenizvnt.
pr’ob’ai)ility Ex.Pv7 has come into
existence of the suit. The plaintiff has
not producied anyVthing,_i’to..\–ghow that the first respondent has
pa.iC_Jj”3’«:reEr)_it.s at art} of time right from 1972. There is no
to show that the first respondent was the
tenant t,in’daeri.c::the plaintiff. The Trial Court. on proper
‘i._»consid~eration of the materiai on record, has rightly heid that
A “:if”thVeappellant has faiied to prove EXP-7 and the reiationship of
laindiady and tenant between the appellant and the first
Q 2/”
respondent. I do not find any error or illegality in thet-indings
recorded by the Trial Court. While it is true. the ap;_fleVt”i-a}rt.can
claim possession being the owner. but, the ap’oe£l.arn.tVycannoty
create something and claim poss-e’ss’i’on.&_ T&he;raip”peil:ant¥ has
failed to prove that the first resploijdenzt is .the” t.enai’14t”-andedy
therefore, the Trial Court has’;*.ie.ij’tr.tly dismissed’;thAe.:’sVuit.s I do
not find any error or ill=ega|ity,<irl tind._ings recorded by the
Trial Court. There is me r:éerir~Vr-;rr'i't mre.ieeppeeirt and hence, it is
liable to be dismiss-ed. yyyy H
13. V No order as to costs.
Sd/=3
EUDGE
. on u
rp