H.S. PUTTASHANKARA Vs. YASHODAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The appellant has preferred the instant appeal challenging the impugned final judgment dtd. 31/3/2021 passed by High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in House Rent Revision Petition No. 68 of 2017, whereby the High Court allowed the revision and set-aside the order dtd. 1/9/2017 passed by the Court of Small Causes at Bangalore (for brevity 'Rent Controller') directing respondent to 'quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession' of the premise in question within a period of three months from the date of order.

(3.) The eviction proceeding was initiated under Sec. 27[Protection of tenants against eviction.](2)(a) (e)(g) and (o) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (in short 'Rent Act') and was resisted by disputing the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellant and the respondent and also questioning the title of appellant on the property. The Rent Controller, after considering the available material concluded that the landlord-tenant relationship had been established between the appellant and respondent and allowed the eviction petition directing to vacate the suit property. The question of title was not looked into in detail considering the scope in eviction proceedings which is limited to look into landlord and tenant relationship. On revision petition filed, High Court allowed the same vide impugned order and set-aside the order of Rent Controller, noting that no positive documentary evidence has been brought to prove Sri Banappa was indeed his great grandfather, however, failed to prove his lineage and ownership. Further, the signature on the counter-foils of rent receipts issued by the appellant was categorically denied by the son of the respondent stating that those signatures were never put by him. Being aggrieved, the appellant-landlord filed the present appeal.