- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44261 RSA No. 677 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.677 OF 2024 (RES) BETWEEN: 1. JAYALAKSHMI W/O S.R. FASALKAR AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT NEAR POLICE CHOWKI VINOBANAGAR SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. 2. VINODA G. KALAL W/O G.K. KALAL AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O HOSAMANE, 1ST CROSS SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. 3. SUDHIR K., S/O R.K. KALYANKAR AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS ACCOUNT OFFICER IFFCO, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU–560 052. 4. MALATHI B. MATEKAR W/O BALAJI RAO AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/O VIDYANAGAR DAVANAGERE-577 005. 5. JIJA BAI @ SWETHA BHOJARAJ W/O BHOJARAJ AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44261 RSA No. 677 of 2024 R/O SHARIFF MANZIL BIDKEKAR, GANGA SADAN SAVARDEM, GOA–416 109. APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 5 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI. R.K. SIDDARAMANNA S/O R.K. KALYANKAR AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/O GANDHI BAZAR SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S.V. PRAKASH & SRI. UMESH MOOLIMANI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. KATHYAYANI W/O LATE SHIVAKUAMR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 2. DEEPAK S/O LATE SHIVAKUAMR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS BOTH ARE R/O C/O. A.V.PUSHPAVATHI NO.139, ‘ASHWINI’, A.N.K.ROAD 4TH CROSS, VENKATESHNAGARA SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.01.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.136/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, C/C. II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.03.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.168/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44261 RSA No. 677 of 2024 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal is filed against concurrent finding of the Trial Court. 3. The factual matrix of the case of plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that the property was let out to the defendants in the year 2011 and before filing the suit, notice was also issued, but no reply was given and defendants are also due for arrears of rent, but the plaintiffs restricted the prayer for recovery of arrears of rent for a period of 3 years. In order to substantiate that the defendants were tenants, nothing is placed on record. Hence, in paragraph No.12 of the judgment of the Trial Court, the Trial Court made an observation that the plaintiffs have not produced any single document to prove the relationship that plaintiffs and defendants are landlord and tenants. Though the plaintiffs have produced the copy of notice - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44261 RSA No. 677 of 2024 issued to the defendants which is marked as Ex.P6 terminating the tenancy, the signatures on Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 creates doubt in the mind of the Court and the same has not been proved by the plaintiffs by giving cogent evidence that the same is served to the defendants and also comes to the conclusion that unless the relationship of landlord and tenant is established, question of granting the judgment and decree does not arise and dismissed the suit. 4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.136/2020. The First Appellate Court also having considered the grounds which have been urged in the appeal, in detail discussed in paragraph Nos.17, 18 and 19 with regard to no document is placed before the Court to establish the fact that the respondents were tenants and even for sub-tenancy which they have pleaded not placed any document before the Trial Court. Even the First Appellate Court also having taken note of the signatures found on Exs.P7 and P8-postal acknowledgments, when notice was served on the defendants, found discrepancy in Exs.P7 and P8 and observed that the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44261 RSA No. 677 of 2024 signatures are totally inconsistent and not tallies with each other. Further on perusal of postal acknowledgement which belongs to suit summons of defendants discloses that defendants are residing at Bangalore permanently and Exs.P7 and P8 creates doubt in the mind of the Court. Therefore, service of termination notice on the defendants is also doubtful. Hence, answered point Nos.1 and 2 as ‘negative’ and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, present second appeal is filed. 5. The main contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellants in this second appeal is that both the Courts have committed an error in dismissing the suit notwithstanding the fact that defendants did not contest the suit as well as the appeal, since they remained absent and were placed ex-parte before both the Courts. The counsel would vehemently contend that the reasoning given by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court is that the plaintiffs have not established the landlord and the tenant relationship with the defendants, despite the plaint averments made by the plaintiffs went uncontroverted and the statement made on oath by P.W.1 went - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44261 RSA No. 677 of 2024 un-impeached. It is also contended that the Trial Court is not justified in holding that the signatures on Exs.P7 and P8 which are postal acknowledgements creates doubt in the mind of the Court and that the plaintiffs have not proved the same and they have not appeared and contested the matter. The counsel would contend that when the defendants did not appear and denied the very tenant and landlord relationship, ought to have granted the relief of ejection against the respondents. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and also on perusal of the reasons, admittedly the appellants/plaintiffs have not produced any document to establish that there was jural relationship between the plaintiffs and defendants. But, specifically it is pleaded that rent was payable at Rs.1,360/- and in order to come to such a conclusion also, no document as well as no rent receipts are produced before the Trial Court. It is also important to note that according to the plaintiffs, tenancy is of the year 2011 and eviction suit was filed in 2017 and in order to prove the factum of tenancy from 2011 to 2017 also, no document is placed before the Court. However, the counsel mainly relies upon the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44261 RSA No. 677 of 2024 notice which was issued, but no reply was given. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court has taken note of the fact that the signature found in Ex.P6 as well as the suit summons served on the defendants as per Exs.P7 and P8 i.e., postal acknowledgments not tallies with each other. When such observation is made by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court with regard to the signatures are concerned and no doubt, the counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that when the defendants did not choose to appear and contest the matter, the Court ought to have presumed that the defendants are tenants and the said contention of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted and in a case for ejection, the plaintiffs, who approach the Court must establish the tenancy and unless the tenancy is established, question of granting the relief does not arise and Court also cannot presume that the defendants are tenants where they have not appeared and contested the matter. Hence, I do not find any error on the part of the Trial Court and also the First Appellate Court in coming to the conclusion that plaintiffs have not established the jural relationship of landlord and tenant with the defendants. When such being the case, admitting the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44261 RSA No. 677 of 2024 second appeal and framing any substantial question of law invoking Section 100 of CPC does not arise. 7. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The regular second appeal is dismissed. (ii) The appellants are given liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings, if any material is found to establish the fact that there is a jural relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28