ANASUYA Vs. J. VENKATESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, 1964, challenging the dismissal of S.C. No. 1474/2011 filed by the petitioner herein seeking ejectment of the defendant from the suit schedule property.

(2.) The suit schedule property is described as premises bearing No. 5/46, Pipe Line Road, Chowdeshwari Nagar, Laggere, Bengaluru. Plaintiff is the wife of one Pravardhan Rao. Defendant is the son of brother of Pravardhan Rao. According to the plaintiff, she is the absolute owner of the suit property having purchased the same from one P. Babu S/o. Poongavanam by a registered sale deed dated 24.03.2003. She claims to have put up ground and first floor for her use and occupation. It is her case that as the defendant was related to her and was known to the family, in order to help him on humanitarian grounds, the plaintiff leased the schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs. 6,000/- per month. The lease started from 01.08.2008. The tenant paid monthly rent upto 31.03.2009 and collected cash receipts from the plaintiff. Subsequently, he stopped paying rents. Defendant was called upon to vacate the premises. He did not accede to the request. Plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 06.12.2010 terminating the tenancy of the defendant and called upon him to pay entire arrears of rent. However, the defendant refused to receive the legal notice, and therefore, she was constrained to file the suit.

(3.) Defendant denied the case of the plaintiff. He contended that the plaintiff was his aunt. Plaintiff's respondent was his uncle being the younger brother of his father. He urged that father of the defendant - Janardhana Rao died in the year 1991 leaving behind his mother Ningamma and Pravardhana Rao - the younger son of Ningamma/uncle of the defendant. Pravardhana Rao became the kartha of the joint family. Ningamma had borrowed money during her lifetime by mortgaging one of the properties for the purpose of incurring legal expenditure to get her second son Pravardhana Rao released from jail. Upon the death of Ningamma during 1976, the defendant along with his paternal aunt mustered financial help from the relatives and repaid the debts of Ningamma and redeemed the property that was mortgaged. After Pravardhana Rao was released from jail, as he had no issues, plaintiff and Pravardhana Rao treated the defendant as their son showing all love and affection to him. Later on defendant and his uncle jointly constructed the residential house consisting of four floors in the year 1991-92 in the property that was got released from mortgage. They all started staying together in the top floor and the remaining floors were rented out. Both defendant and his uncle jointly purchased the vacant site No. 5 situated at Laggere Gram Taria - suit schedule property from one P. Babu by investing the funds of the joint family. The property was registered in the name of the plaintiff - aunt of the defendant as per the sale deed dated 24.03.2003. Due to misunderstanding between the defendant's wife and the plaintiff, defendant's uncle orally told him to get the premises constructed on the vacant - site bearing No. 5 (present suit schedule property). Accordingly, the defendant constructed premises on the vacant site by collecting funds from friends, relatives and selling is wife's jewellery. The construction was commenced in September 2004 and completed by June 2005. The newly constructed building consists two floors measuring approximately 12 squares. The defendant performed gruhapravesha and started living in the ground floor and first floor was rented out. It is further contended that as the dispute between the wife of the defendant and the plaintiff re-surfaced, Pravardhana Rao and the plaintiff in the presence of other well-wishers jointly executed gift deed dated 09.09.2008 transferring the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant to avoid further misunderstanding in the family. It was thus contended by the defendant that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and there was no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant.