- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40903 CRP No. 394 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.394 OF 2025 (SC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SAGAYRAJAN, S/O JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 2. SMT.MARGARET D/O JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.29(2), STANDAGE ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BANGALORE -560 005 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI MAHESHA.B FOR SRI MURALIDHARAN.D, ADVOCATES) AND: RAO BAHADUR B.P.ANNASWAMY MUDALIAR C.I,E.S. PUBLIC CHARITIES A CHARITABLE TRUST HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.39, MOORE ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BANGALORE -560005. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, DR.B.A.ANANTHARAM AND SECRETARY ASHRITHA A.HATTANGADI …RESPONDENT (BY SRI ARUN KUMAR.K, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONGWITH SRI MAYANK HEBBAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40903 CRP No. 394 of 2025 2.04.2025 PASSED IN S.C.No.1164/2022 ON THE FILE OF XIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER - MACT AND ACJM, BENGALURU, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Mahesha B., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Muralidharan D., counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar K., learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Mayank Hebbar, counsel for the respondent. 2. Defendants are the revision petitioners challenging the order passed by the XIV Additional Small Causes and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru (SCCH-10) in S.C.No.1164/2022, directing the revision petitioner to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule properties within three months from 02.04.2025. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are asunder: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40903 CRP No. 394 of 2025 4. Plaintiff filed number of suits which were tried in common in S.C.No.1134/2022 and connected five suits. 5. Plaintiff contended that plaintiff is a Trust namely, Rao Bahadur B.P., Annaswami Mudallyar C.I.E. Public Charities against the defendants with a prayer that the defendants in all those suits are occupying the portions of the property bearing number 29(1), 29(2), 29(3), 29(4), 29(5) and 29(6), situated at Standage Road, Frazer Town, Bengaluru. 6. All the defendants were represented by their power of attorney holder namely, Joseph Andrew, S/o Aruldas John and they engaged the common advocate to represent them. 7. On 21.02.2025, counsel for the plaintiff filed the application to club all the suits for common trial which was allowed. 8. Plaintiff claimed in the suit that plaintiff is a charitable Trust, which supports the management and functioning of Annaswamy Mudaliar General Hospital and to run Annaswamy Schools. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40903 CRP No. 394 of 2025 9. Plaintiff being the absolute owner of the suit properties, let out the premises on monthly rent of Rs.100/- to different tenants including the petitioner. Defendants continued to occupy the suit properties without any revision in the monthly rentals. 10. It is also contented by the plaintiff that there is no written agreement of lease between the parties and tenancy was from month to month. 11. Plaintiff further contented that defendants were paying monthly rentals for many years but from January 1999 abruptly defendants failed to pay the monthly rent and outstanding rent from February 1999 to May 2022 is amounting to Rs.29,200/-. Plaintiff also wanted the premises for the activities of the plaintiff's Trust. Therefore, requested the defendants to vacate and hand over the physical possession of the suit property. 12. Defendants did not accede to such requests, which necessitated the plaintiff from filing the respective suits. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40903 CRP No. 394 of 2025 13. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants entered appearance and engaged a common Advocate and filed written statement stating that the suit is not maintainable. 14. It was admitted that defendants are the tenants under the plaintiff’s Trust, but denied that there was no written agreement between the parties. Defendants were paying the monthly rentals regularly and denied that they never neglected to pay the monthly rentals. 15. Defendants also denied that plaintiff requested the defendants to hand over the physical possession of the suit properties at any point of time. 16. It was also contented by the defendants that plaintiff with mala fide intention issued notice of termination of tenancy which is incorrect and illegal and sought for dismissal of the suit. 17. Learned trial Judge thereafter raised necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties, decreed the suit as referred to supra. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40903 CRP No. 394 of 2025 18. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant in S.C.No.1195/2022 has preferred the present revision petition on the following: GROUNDS  The impugned Judgment and decree is not a speaking order in as much as the Court below has failed to give the reason while passing the impugned judgment.  The Court below has committed an error in passing the judgment in the said suit, without providing sufficient opportunities to the Petitioners. Despite making several applications and submissions by the Petitioners, the Court below failed to consider the same and passed impugned orders in favour of the respondent without valid title over the suit schedule property.  The Court below erred in not noticing that the respondent is Public Charity, which failed to approach the District Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore to obtain previous sanction from the Hon'ble District Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore, which is having the original jurisdiction in O.S.No.1/1946 dated 22/09/1948.  The Court below erred in not noticing that the respondent has totally failed to establish the title and ownership over the suit schedule - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40903 CRP No. 394 of 2025 premises as well as landlord and tenant relationship. The admission made in the written statement before the court below is by the counsel who was not at all engaged by the Petitioners/defendant. The respondent has played a foul game before the Court below.  The Court below erred in not noticing that, the documents produced by the plaintiff/respondent in support of his case are created for the purpose of case and are not relevant authenticated documents. These documents are not believable at any stage.  The Court below erred in not considering the defence taken by the defendants/Petitioners in written arguments, while pronouncing the judgement.  The impugned order is opposed to principles of natural justice.  The impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to all cannons of law and not sustainable in the eye of law.  The Court below wasn't giving sufficient time to the Petitioners after orders on IA's to prefer an appeal. The court below has proceeded with the case in a speedy manner, without giving an opportunity of being heard, and only on the mere admission made in the written statement, the court below has never gone into depth of the title of the schedule property as to whether - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40903 CRP No. 394 of 2025 the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the schedule property, and blindly passed the impugned judgement and decree.  The Court below has failed to observe the admitted facts of the respondent.” 19. Sri Mahesha B., learned counsel for the revision petitioners, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that there is a fraud played by the counsel for the defendants inasmuch as it is the counsel for the defendants who forged the signature on the written statement and did not defend suit properly, resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting the revision petition for further consideration. 20. He would further contend that already necessary action has been initiated by the defendants in respect of the alleged fraud, before the Bar Council of Karnataka and result of such enquiry has got a bearing on the merits of the matter, inasmuch as there is no proper contest of the suit and thus sought for admitting the matter for further consideration. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40903 CRP No. 394 of 2025 21. It is also contented by the learned counsel that plaintiff is not the owner of the suit properties and the properties are not belonging to the Trust and sought for admitting the revision for further consideration. 22. Per contra, Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel representing the plaintiff supports the impugned order. 23. He would further contend that the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners is totally incorrect and the case has gone on a marathon trial before the trial Court, inasmuch as number of times written statement came to be amended. He also submits that there were also petitions filed for dragging on the suit on one pretext or the other, besides filing a transfer petition against the learned Judge, levelling all illegal and unfounded allegations against the learned trial Judge, which shows that the contentions urged on behalf of the defendants is per se incorrect. 24. He would further contend that the suit was not decreed exparte, it was hotly contested and counsel for the defendants used all his methods to protract the proceedings on one pretext or the other. Very fact that no rents are paid or - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40903 CRP No. 394 of 2025 deposited before this Court, the revision petition itself is not maintainable and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 25. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 26. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the plaintiff has placed as many as seven documents on record which were exhibited and marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. Among them, Ex.P1 is the certified copy of the power of attorney of PW1, Ex.P2 is the computer printout of tax paid receipt in respect to suit property, Ex.P3 is the office copy of legal notice, Ex.P.4 is the track consignment, Ex.P5 is the office copy of reply notice, Ex.P.6 is the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and Ex.P7 is the copy of Board resolution. 27. As against the same, common defence evidence was placed on record and as many as 93 documents were placed on record which were exhibited and marked as Exs.D.1 to D.93 in SC No.1134/2022 comprising of Ex.D.1 is the notarized copy of first page of complaint given before State Bar Council, Ex.D.2 is the notarized copy of aadhaar card of David - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40903 CRP No. 394 of 2025 Anthony, Ex.D.3 is the notarized copy of aadhaar card of Charistoper Anthony, Ex.D.4 is the notarized copy of aadhaar card of Sagay Rajan, Ex.D.5 is the notarized copy of aadhaar card of Rodrigues Bernard, Ex.D.6 is the notarized copy of Voter ID of Charistoper Anthony, Ex.D.7 is the notarized copy of Voter ID of Nesamani, Ex.D.8 is the notarized copy of Voter ID of Daniel Dennies, Ex.D.9 is the notarized copy of Voter ID of Jayasheelani, Ex.D.10 is the notarized copy of Voter ID of Kanikaswami, Ex.D.11 is the notarized copy of Voter ID of Nadhan, Ex.D.12 is the notarized copy of Voter ID of Rodrigues Bernard, Ex.D.13 is the notarized copy of Ration Card of J.John, Ex.D.14 is the notarized copy of Ration card of Kanikaswami, Ex.D.15 is the notarized copy of Aadhaar card of Joseph Andrew, Ex.D.16 is the death certificate of Lourdamma, Ex.D.17 is the death certificate of Shikey Anthony, Ex.D.18 is the photographs, Ex.D.19 is the sanction order, Exs.D.20 and 21 are the notarized copies of DL, Exs.D.22 and 23 are the notarized copies of Voter ID, Ex.D.24 is the notarized copy of Aadhaar card, Exs.D.25 to 28 are the electricity bills, Ex.D.29 is the letter issued by BESCOM, Ex.D.30 is the tax invoice, Ex.D.31 is the consumer water card, Exs.D.32 and 33 are the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40903 CRP No. 394 of 2025 Gas connection bills, Exs.D.34 and 35 are the inspection form, Ex.D.36 is the death certificate, Ex.D.37 is the letter by Kalpally Burial ground, Ex.D.38 is the plaint copy of O.S.No.1/1946, Ex.D.39 is the scheme formation order in O.S.No.1/1946, Ex.D.40 is the certified copy of memo filed in SC No.43/2023, Exs.D.41 to 46 are the certified copies of vakalath, Ex.D.47 is the certified copy of written statement in SC No.1138/2022, Exs.D.48 to 50 are the certified copies vakalath, Ex.D.51 is the certified copy of written statement, Ex.D.52 is the certified copy of additional written statement, Exs.D.53 to 55 are the certified copies of vakalath, Ex.D.56 is the certified copy of written statement, Exs.D.57 to 59 are the certified copies of vakalath, Ex.D.60 is the certified copy of written statement, Exs.D.61 and 62 are the certified copy of vakalath, Ex.D.63 is the certified copy of written statement, Exs.D.64 to 69 are the notarized copies of Index filed in Revision Petition, Ex.D.70 is the cumulative record, Ex.D.71 is the death certificate, Exs.D.72 and 73 Gas refill bills, Exs.D.74 to 76 are the notarized copies of voter ID, Exs.D.77 to 79 notarized copies of Aadhaar cards, Ex.D.80 is the notarized copy of bank pass book, Ex.D.81 is the notarized copy of ration card, Ex.D.82 to 89 are the notarized - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40903 CRP No. 394 of 2025 copies of electricity bills, Ex.D.90 is the notarized copy of agreement of marriage, Ex.D.92 is the notarized copy of termination letter and Ex.D.93 is the notarized copy of death certificate. 28. From the documentary evidence placed on record, plaintiff is able to successfully establish that the plaintiff’s Trust is the owner of the suit property. 29. Contention of the defendants is that they are not the tenants under the plaintiff. If it is so, if any contra title as pleaded by the defendants, it is always open for the defendants to file appropriate suit before the Civil Court and establish their rights and then get back into the property by vacating the suit property forthwith as per the settled principles of law. 30. Further, non payment of the rent is one of the grounds urged in that defendants are not the tenants under the plaintiff. Again, before this Court there is no deposit of rent made by the defendants. 31. When once the relationship is disputed by the defendants and failed to pay rent and not even depositing the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40903 CRP No. 394 of 2025 rent before this Court under protest, the very revision petition itself is not maintainable. 32. As already observed supra, if there is any contra title in the defendants, they can always establish that title that they are residing in the suit property out of their own right and get back to the property by filing an application under Section 144 CPC. 33. With the above liberty for the defendants, this Court does not find any grounds, whatsoever much less good grounds to admit the revision petition for further consideration. 34. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. (ii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR