Karnataka High Court
Tabrejulla vs Jaffar Khan on 26 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:49271
RSA No. 582 of 2025
C/W RSA No. 592 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 582 OF 2025 (INJ)
C/W
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 592 OF 2025 (INJ)
IN RSA No. 582/2025:
BETWEEN:
1. TABREJULLA
S/O. M. SANAULLA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
PROPRIETOR, MADANI WOOD
CRAFT BUSINESS, BADA ROAD,
SANTHEBENNURU VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 552.
Digitally signed ...APPELLANT
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. JAYAPRAKASH R.V., ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. JAFFAR KHAN
S/O. LIYAKATH ALI KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
OCC: MORTAR WORKER,
R/O MASJID MOHALLA,
NAYAKARA BEEDI, SANTHEBENNURU VIILLAGE
SANTHEBENNURU HOBLI-I
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 552.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:49271
RSA No. 582 of 2025
C/W RSA No. 592 of 2025
HC-KAR
...RESPONDENT
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED
02.12.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.38/2024 ON THE FILE OF
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.04.2024 PASSED IN
OS NO.120/2021 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, CHANNAGIRI.
IN RSA NO. 592/2025:
BETWEEN:
1. TABREJULLA
S/O. M. SANAULLA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
PROPRIETOR, MADANI WOOD
CRAFT BUSINESS, BADA ROAD,
SANTHEBENNURU VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 552.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. JAYAPRAKASH R.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. JAFFAR KHAN
S/O. LIYAKATH ALI KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
OCC: MORTAR WORKER,
R/O MASJID MOHALLA, NAYAKARA BEEDI,
SANTHEBENNURU VIILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 552.
...RESPONDENT
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:49271
RSA No. 582 of 2025
C/W RSA No. 592 of 2025
HC-KAR
02.12.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.39/2024 ON THE FILE
OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
CHANNAGIRI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
08.04.2024 PASSED IN OS.NO.120/2021 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
CHANNAGIRI.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. These matters are listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant in the respective appeals. These two second appeals are filed against the concurrent finding.
2. The factual matrix of case of appellant before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of permanent injunction, it is contended that the defendant is the owner of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is licensee of the said property by virtue of a license granted through written document dated 11.02.2015 for a period of 6 years that comes to an end on 11.02.2021 and he is -4- NC: 2025:KHC:49271 RSA No. 582 of 2025 C/W RSA No. 592 of 2025 HC-KAR running wood craft business in the scheduled property. As per the terms of license, the plaintiff constructed permanent structure of building in the suit schedule property for the purpose of wood craft business. It is also stated that monthly rent was at Rs.701/- and same will be enhanced from certain period and it is currently Rs.1,500/- per month. The defendant agreed that he would pay the cost of structure after the termination of license period or completion of license period, to the plaintiff. In view of the COVID-19 pandemic, the license period was orally enhanced by the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff had paid the rent every month. It is also contended that defendant without any reason came to the suit property on 17.04.2021 with KEB person in order to cut down the electricity supply which would have been taken for the wood craft industry. The same was done in order to harass him and thereby to see that the plaintiff should vacate and handover the suit schedule property to the defendant. The plaintiff invested an -5- NC: 2025:KHC:49271 RSA No. 582 of 2025 C/W RSA No. 592 of 2025 HC-KAR amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in the wood craft business and due to COVID-19 pandemic, he had no earning in such one year period. The defendant without taking care of legal aspects gave pin prick to the plaintiff in order to harass him and hence, filed the suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendant appeared and filed written statement denying the possession of plaintiff as tenant and also ownership to "Madani Wood Craft Business", which was established in the scheduled property. The defendant admitted that there was a license amongst himself and plaintiff through an agreement dated 11.02.2015 and the same is an unregistered document and the same is covering the period for rent more than 11 months. Therefore, said document is of no legal consequences in the absence of registration as it is compulsorily registrable document.
3. The other contention is taken in the written statement that the structure which would left by the plaintiff is temporary. The plaintiff had continued his wood -6- NC: 2025:KHC:49271 RSA No. 582 of 2025 C/W RSA No. 592 of 2025 HC-KAR craft business at his property bearing panchayath property No.3588 of Santhebennuru Village and that too after the date 11.02.2021, the plaintiff has purposefully not produced the license in order to misguide the Court and said property is situated nearby the suit property. The plaintiff with an intention to gain wrongfully is avoiding and handing over the vacant possession of the suit property and remained in possession illegally. It is also contended that in terms of the agreement dated 11.02.2015, that structure put up by the plaintiff has to be left as it is to the defendant. The rate of rent was also enhanced to Rs.1,500/- from 11.02.2018 and the plaintiff paid Rs.3,000/- only on 15.05.2019. Thereafter, he had stopped the payment of rent on the mutual understanding that the rental amount has to be adjusted towards the cost of structure which would be left by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also agreed to pay the remaining amount of rent on 11.02.2021. The plaintiff filed the suit without any cause of action and hence, prayed that plaintiff has no -7- NC: 2025:KHC:49271 RSA No. 582 of 2025 C/W RSA No. 592 of 2025 HC-KAR right to remain in the suit property as tenant and therefore, the suit is not tenable in the eye of law.
4. The defendant also filed the counter claim contending that the plaintiff had agreed to pay an amount of Rs.1,500/- per month as rental amount. He had not paid the said amount since 11.02.2018 till filing of the suit and the counter claim. Even after the filing of the suit also, the plaintiff has not paid the rental amount as agreed. The defendant in need of suit schedule property and as such he approached the plaintiff with a request for vacant possession of the same. When the plaintiff has not come forward to handover the vacant possession of the property, got issued the termination of notice dated 06.09.2021 and thereby terminated the tenancy of defendant from 01.10.2021 and said notice came to be served upon the plaintiff. Even after also, the plaintiff has not vacated and handed over the premises. After terminating the tenancy of the plaintiff, he has no legal right to continue the possession in and over the suit -8- NC: 2025:KHC:49271 RSA No. 582 of 2025 C/W RSA No. 592 of 2025 HC-KAR schedule property and he is in arrears of rent of Rs.87,000/- from 11.02.2018 till filing of the counter claim. Hence, prayed the Court to grant the counter claim. When the counter claim was filed, the plaintiff also filed the rejoinder and he denied the rental arrears since from 11.02.2018 and the rental amount of Rs.1,500/- per month and contended in the statement that term of lease was for a period of 6 years and monthly rent was Rs.701/-. The said rental amount was enhanced from year to year. The current rate of rent per month is Rs.1,500/-. The plaintiff has paid the rental amount since 11.02.2018 consistently. During the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown, he had not paid the rental amount and after lifting out the lockdown the plaintiff approached the defendant for clearance of the rental arrears and amount. However, the defendant refused to receive the rentals in order to expel the plaintiff's possession from the suit schedule property.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:49271 RSA No. 582 of 2025 C/W RSA No. 592 of 2025 HC-KAR
5. The Trial Court taking into note of the pleadings of the parties, i.e., plaint averment and written statement averment and as well as the counter claim framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The plaintiff examined one witness as P.W.1 and got marked document Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17 and the respondent also examined one witness as D.W.1 and got marked document Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2. The Trial Court having considered the oral and documentary evidence, answered Issue Nos.1 and 2 as negative and answered Issue Nos.3 and 4 as affirmative and while answering Issue No.1 and 2, comes to the conclusion that the license period was terminated by issuing the notice and hence, the possession is not a legal possession and also comes to the conclusion by taking into note of the admission on the part of rate of rent and also deducted the amount of Rs.3,000/- which was paid in the year 2019 and comes to the conclusion that arrears of rent is Rs.87,000/- upto the date of filing of counter claim and hence, answered Issue
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49271 RSA No. 582 of 2025 C/W RSA No. 592 of 2025 HC-KAR Nos.3 and 4 as affirmative and ordered to handover the vacant possession of the property within 3 months.
6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court having re-assessed the material available on the record and in keeping the grounds which have been urged in the appeal memo, formulated the point whether the appellant has established that the Trial Court erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff and decreeing the counter claim relief sought by the defendant directing the plaintiff to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the defendant and also directing to pay the arrears of monthly rent of Rs.87,000/- without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence led by both the properties and whether it requires interference of this Court.
7. The First Appellate Court having re-assessed the material available on record comes to the conclusion that there is a license and also the document which
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49271 RSA No. 582 of 2025 C/W RSA No. 592 of 2025 HC-KAR clearly discloses handing over the possession in favour of the appellant and also the same is for a period of 6 years and 6 years period has already been elapsed. Apart from that taken note of non payment of rent and also the rate of rent Rs.1,500/- was also admitted and only taken the contention that during the COVID-19 period, could not able to pay the arrears of rent and the same is calculated and taking into note of the payment of Rs.3,000/- and the same was deducted out of Rs.3,000/- and ordered to pay the balance amount of Rs.87,000/-. The First Appellate Court also taken note of the document Ex.P.1 is unregistered rent agreement, for any rent agreement covering more than a period of 1 year as per Section 17 of the Registration Act, such rent agreements shall be registered in accordance with law. If any agreement not registered, it will hit by Section 49 of the Registration Act and also taken note of the plaintiff's claim as per Ex.P.1, it is the defendant who has to pay the cost of permanent structure put up by the plaintiff in the suit schedule
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49271 RSA No. 582 of 2025 C/W RSA No. 592 of 2025 HC-KAR property and also taken note of both oral and documentary evidence comes to the conclusion that the appellant has committed a default in payment of rent and squatting on the property, illegally without payment of rent, under these circumstances, not entitled for any relief and hence, confirmed the order of The Trial Court.
8. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, present second appeal is filed before this Court. The main contention of the counsel for the appellant before this Court is that when the permanent structure was put up, ought not to have terminated the contract between the plaintiff and defendant. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the same is irrevocable as provided under Section 60(b) of Indian Easement Act, 1882, when the plaintiff has made construction of permanent nature on the suit schedule property by incurring expenditure after taking the vacant property on license basis. The counsel also vehemently contend that the First Appellate Court also committed an error in
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49271 RSA No. 582 of 2025 C/W RSA No. 592 of 2025 HC-KAR dismissing the appeal without looking into the pleadings of the parties and particularly the fact that license granted in favour of the plaintiff was irrevocable in view of Section 60(b) of the Indian Easement Act, 1882 and also committed an error in awarding Rs.87,000/- as rent without considering the oral and documentary evidence and hence, this Court has to admit and frame substantive question of law.
9. The counsel in support of his argument relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in (1987) 2 Supreme Court Cases 555 and brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.9 wherein discussion was made with regard to Section 60(a) and (b) and also brought to notice of this Court, paragraph No.10 wherein also discussed that the result is that the respondents acting upon the license had executed works incurring expenses which rendered the license irrevocable. As regards evidence, we have perused the statement of Ganga Prasad Dhayani, D.W. 1, Shanker Dutt, D.W.2 and Bhola
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49271 RSA No. 582 of 2025 C/W RSA No. 592 of 2025 HC-KAR D.W.3. Their testimony fully established that the school had constructed three classrooms, latrines and the urinals and the incurred expenses. Having taken note of the same, it is held that it is difficult to believe that he had no knowledge of the constructions, such defence which was taken. Hence, counsel pressed into the service of the principles laid down in the said judgment.
10. Having heard the appellant's counsel and also on perusal of material available on record, very plaintiff himself has pleaded in the plaint that there was a license and the same is also for a period of 6 years from 11.02.2015 to 11.02.2021. It has to be noted that the present suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction after the period of 6 years and also it is emerged during the course of evidence that the rent was not paid after completion of 3 years i.e., from 11.02.2018 and there is an admission on the part of the plaintiff also in the written statement filed by the plaintiff when the counter claim was made that the present current rate of rent is
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49271 RSA No. 582 of 2025 C/W RSA No. 592 of 2025 HC-KAR Rs.1,500/-. When such being the case, the defendant also terminated the license period since period was already completed, but not vacated the premises and also there was an arrears of rent and claimed the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.1,500/- from 11.02.2018 and also due was taken note upto the extent of Rs.87,000/- and also terminated the tenancy and filed the counter claim. Having taken note of all these materials before the Court, the Trial Court answered the Issue Nos.1 and 2 as negative and though the plaintiff is in possession of the property and the possession is unauthorized possession since the license is terminated by causing legal notice and also material discloses that he did not pay the rent and though it is admitted in the pleading also that due to COVID-19, could not able to pay the rent, but, even for having paid the rent subsequent to the COVID-19 also nothing is placed on record. All these materials were taken note of by the Trial Court and also the Appellate Court while considering the grounds which have been
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49271 RSA No. 582 of 2025 C/W RSA No. 592 of 2025 HC-KAR urged and particularly taking into note of the document Ex.P.1 is an unregistered document. However, the defendant did not trouble the possession of the plaintiff for the period for which he had agreed from 11.02.2015 to 11.02.2021 and immediately after the expiry of the period of 6 years, the plaintiff only approached the Court seeking for the relief of permanent injunction and immediately the defendant also issued notice and filed counter claim and also arrears of rent was also not paid and taking into note of all these factors into consideration when the termination was made and counter claim is filed, both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court considered the said fact into consideration.
11. No doubt the counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon the judgment and pressed into the service Section 60(b) Indian Easement Act,1882 but in the case on hand, it is very clear that the vacant land is given to the defendant and the same is also for a period of 6 years, not for permanent period as contended by the
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49271 RSA No. 582 of 2025 C/W RSA No. 592 of 2025 HC-KAR plaintiff/appellant and when the document itself which is not disputed and the said document is also very clear, the same is for a period of 6 years and after the period of 6 years only, the plaintiff has approached the Court when he did not vacate the premises and paid the rent. Thereafter, legally terminated the tenancy and filed the counter claim and counter claim is also entertained. When such being the case, the very contentions and principles laid down in the judgment will not comes to the aid of appellant and appellant cannot squat on the property without payment of rent as agreed and no dispute with regard to even the rate of rent also and categorically pleaded in the written statement filed by him to the counter claim also the present rate of rent is Rs.1,500/-. At the same rate of rent, the defendant also claimed the arrears of rent and also the counter claim. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to admit and frame substantive question of law.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49271 RSA No. 582 of 2025 C/W RSA No. 592 of 2025 HC-KAR
12. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Both the Second Appeals are dismissed.
ii) In view of the dismissal of the appeals, I.As., if any do not survive for consideration, the same stands disposed of in both the appeals.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48