A registered lease and rent transfers established the landlord–tenant relationship, warranting ejectment.

The respondents sought ejectment and occupational charges, claiming they had purchased the premises in 2011 and that the petitioner occupied it under a registered lease executed with their predecessor in title.

They relied on evidence of attornment, rent payments and a quit notice.

The petitioner denied the tenancy and asserted that the property was joint-family property and that his signature on the lease had been fraudulently obtained.

The Small Causes Court found a landlord–tenant relationship, held the tenancy had been terminated, and decreed ejectment and monetary relief.

The petitioner challenged that decree under Section 18 of the Small Cause Court Act.

1. Whether the respondents established a landlord–tenant relationship with the petitioner, despite his denial of the lease and claim that the property was joint-family property.

2. Whether the tenancy was validly terminated by notice and the respondents were entitled to ejectment and occupational charges.

3. Whether the Small Causes Court’s judgment and decree warranted interference in revision.

The revision was brought under Section 18 of the Small Cause Court Act, which provides the procedural basis for the High Court’s revisional consideration.

The Court referred to Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act in assessing the quit notice and accepted the trial court’s finding that the notice complied with that provision.

The Court also relied on the evidence of the registered lease, attornment, rent transfers, ownership documents and notice service to determine the tenancy and entitlement to possession; it cited no precedent.

The Court found that the respondents had produced a registered lease, documents supporting their ownership, evidence of attornment, and bank records showing transfers corresponding to the contractual rent.

The petitioner’s admission that he had transferred money to the first respondent’s account, together with his failure to explain those transfers, supported the finding that rent had been paid.

The Court also accepted the evidence of service of the quit notice and noted that the petitioner had not replied.

His joint-family-property and fraud assertions did not displace the tenancy evidence in this ejectment proceeding; the earlier partition suit he had filed had been dismissed for non-prosecution, and he had produced no evidence sufficient to undermine the trial court’s findings.

The trial court’s decree for possession, arrears of rent, occupational charges and continuing monthly charges therefore remained undisturbed; all interlocutory applications were closed.