- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41259 CRP No. 204 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 204 OF 2020 (SC) BETWEEN: MR. ALATAF AHMED AGE 59 YEARS, S/O A R RAZACK HAVING SHOP AT NO.5A NO.64/2, FIRST FLOOR, OLD KASAI ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 002 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARATH S GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: NAZNIN TAJ AGED 69 YEARS, W/O DR IMTIAZ ALI TAJ R/AT C/O NO.376, K.P.T.C.L. LAYOUT KASAVANAHALLI SARJAPURA ROAD CROSS, BENGALURU - 560 035 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MEHTER .M. AZZAM, ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF CPC 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.03.2020 PASSED IN SC.NO.15085/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE I/C V ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND XXIV ACMM, BENGALURU DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT. THIS CRP, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41259 CRP No. 204 of 2020 ORAL ORDER The petitioner being the defendant in SC.No.15085/2019 on the file of the learned V Additional Judge, Small Causes Court and XXIV ACMM, Bengaluru, is impugning the judgment dated 12.03.2020 decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff and directing the petitioner/defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property within two months and to pay the arrears of rent. 2. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that, the plaintiff filed S.C.No.15085/2019 against the defendant seeking his ejectment and for vacant possession of the premises in question. It is the contention of the plaintiff that, initially her mother was the owner of the premises, and after her death, she succeeded to the property and became the owner. The defendant was inducted as tenant in respect of the schedule property, which is a commercial shop premises, on a monthly rent of Rs.400/-. The defendant was a chronic defaulter, and the plaintiff issued the legal notice determining the tenancy and calling upon him to surrender the vacant possession. But the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41259 CRP No. 204 of 2020 defendant has not adhered to the legal notice and hence, the suit came to be filed. 4. The defendant has appeared before the Trial Court and filed his written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff. It is contended that the defendant is not the tenant under the plaintiff. There is no lease agreement and there is no jural relationship of owner and tenant. Hence, he contended that the Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is further contended that the father of the defendant had paid Rs.1,50,000/- on 04.09.1996 to the mother of the plaintiff and he has paid Rs.1,00,000/- each on 07.06.1999 and again on 05.05.2002. Therefore, it is contended that the defendant's father was in permissive occupation of the premises. Only on payment of Rs.3,50,000/- referred to above, the defendant is ready to hand over the possession of the premises. 5. On the basis of these pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following points for consideration. POINTS "(i) Whether the plaintiff proves that there is a jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant? - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41259 CRP No. 204 of 2020 (ii) Whether the plaintiff proves that the tenancy of the defendant was terminated with respect of the suit schedule premises? (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim the relief as sought for? (iv) What order or decree?" 6. The plaintiff got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. The defendant got examined himself as DW.1. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration all these materials on record came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved the jural relationship and decreed the suit as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant is before this Court. 7. Heard Sri. Sharath S. Gowda, the learned counsel for petitioner and Sri. Mehter M. Azzam, the learned counsel for respondent. Perused the materials on record. 8. In view of the rival contentions, urged by learned counsel for both the parties the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the petitioner has made out any ground to allow the petition?" - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41259 CRP No. 204 of 2020 My answer to the above point is in the 'negative' for the following: REASONS 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner herein contended that the jural relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is not proved. No document is produced in that regard. It is the specific contention of the plaintiff that there was oral lease and the defendant was the tenant under her mother. Even though the defendant contended that his father was in permissive occupation of the premises, it is his specific contention that his father has paid Rs.3,50,000/- on 3 different dates referred to above. When his father was in a permissive occupation of the premises, what was the necessity for him to pay such huge amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from 1996 to 2002, is not explained. The defendant has not produced any documents in support of such contention. Admittedly, the defendant is not the owner of the premises in question. Under such circumstances, the burden shifts on the defendant to prove the nature of his possession over the schedule property. 10. The plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 and spoke about the contention. She has produced Ex.P1-copy of the legal - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41259 CRP No. 204 of 2020 notice, Ex.P3 is the postal acknowledgements for having served the notice on the defendant. The defendant admittedly has not issued any reply. Adverse inference will have to be drawn against the defendant for not replying the legal notice. Only on filing the suit before the Small Causes Court, the defendant appears to have taken some defence to squat over the property indefinitely. I do not find any support for the defence taken by the defendant before the Trial Court. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Abdul Wajid -vs- A.S. Onkarappa1, in support of his contention regarding the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court. The Division Bench of this Court in the above decision held that, when a suit for ejectment is filed within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court, and it only involves determination of jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court, it is maintainable before this Court. But when a suit for recovery of possession, which may involve question of title, the Small Causes Court may not have the jurisdiction. 1 ILR 2011 KAR 229 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41259 CRP No. 204 of 2020 12. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the ownership of the property. Simply because the defendant has raised some defence without any support, the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court cannot be excluded. 13. I have gone through the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. It has taken into consideration all the materials on record and arrived at a right conclusion. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 14. From the discussions held above, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is successful in proving the jural relationship between herself and the defendant with respect of the suit schedule premises. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'negative' and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM CT:VS