Karnataka High Court
Mr P Gopal vs Mr P Vasu on 3 November, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44101
CRP No. 102 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.102 OF 2020 (SC)
BETWEEN:
MR. P. GOPAL,
S/O PARASURAM SHETTIAR,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.276,
(PORTION IN 1ST FLOOR)
BEHIND SRINIVAS THEATRE,
2ND MAIN, GOWDANAPALYA,
UTTARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 061.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVI PRAKASH V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
MR. P. VASU,
S/O. PARASURAM SHETTIAR,
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
by SOWMYA RESIDNG AT NO.20,
DODDAMARAIAH
Location: HIGH FLAT NO.101, S.V.P. RESIDENCY,
COURT OF GROUND FLOOR, RANGAPPA LANE,
KARNATAKA
CHIKKAMAVALLI,
BANGALORE-560 004.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B.N. KRISHNAPPA, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
04.01.2020 PASSED IN SC.NO.15149/2019 ON THE
FILE OF THE XVII ADDL.JUDGE COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU PARTLY
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44101
CRP No. 102 of 2020
HC-KAR
DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT AND
DAMAGES.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Defendant is the revision petitioner challenging the decree passed by the 17th Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCC-21) on 04.01.2020 in SC No.15149/2019.
2. Operative portion of the trial court order reads as under:
"Suit is decreed in part with cost. Defendant is directed to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the plaintiff within 30 days from today.
Plaintiff is entitled for arrears of rent in respect of suit schedule premises amounting to Rs.1,05,000/- and for mesne profits @ Rs.5,000/- p.m. from date of filing of the suit till -3- NC: 2025:KHC:44101 CRP No. 102 of 2020 HC-KAR the delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule premises.
On failure of the defendant to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises, the plaintiff is at liberty to get the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises by the process of court.
Draw decree accordingly."
3. Heard Sri.Ravi Prakash for revision petitioner. None appears for the respondent.
4. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:
4.1. Plaintiff being the brother of the respondent, filed a suit against the defendant for ejectment, arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.1,05,000/- and damages at the rate of Rs.500/- per day from the date of suit till delivery of the vacant possession of the suit property.
4.2. Plaint averments further revealed that plaintiff purchased the residential property bearing No.1, Katha No.31/1, New No.276, situated behind Srinivasa Theatre, 2nd Main, Gowdanapalay, -4- NC: 2025:KHC:44101 CRP No. 102 of 2020 HC-KAR Kadirenahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru, under the registered sale deed from its earlier vendor Smt.Nirmala.
4.3. Defendant being the brother of the plaintiff, approached the plaintiff for emergency accommodation for a short period in the suit premises consisting of two bedrooms, a hall with attached bathroom and kitchen.
Defendant agreed to pay monthly rent of Rs.5,000/- from the month of May 2017 and plaintiff agreed for the same. Defendant also paid rents for three months at the rate of Rs.5,000 from May 2017 to July 2017, but abruptly stopped paying the rents.
4.4. Therefore, a legal notice came to be issued on 01.04.2019 by the plaintiff to the defendant claiming arrears of rent. Despite service of notice, there was no reply nor compliance. Therefore, suit came to be filed.
5. Pursuant to the suit summons defendant entered appearance through his advocate and filed detailed written statement inter-alia denying the landlord and tenant relationship and also denied that he occupied the premises on monthly rental basis. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:44101 CRP No. 102 of 2020 HC-KAR
6. Defendant maintained that he had paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintiff as security deposit and he contended that he is ready to vacate the suit property if plaintiff repays a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.
7. Learned trial judge conducted the trial and decreed the suit as referred to supra.
8. After the impugned order came to be passed, defendant vacated the premises on 11.03.2020 pursuant to the delivery warrant issued by the Executing Court.
9. Therefore, the present revision petition is now restricted to decree of payment of arrears of rent in a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- and mesne profit at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit till delivery of the vacant possession.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Ravi Prakash vehemently contended that there was a security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- and therefore there was no arrears of rent as claimed by the plaintiff which -6- NC: 2025:KHC:44101 CRP No. 102 of 2020 HC-KAR has not been properly considered by the trial Court and therefore question of payment of arrears of rent would not arise, so also grant of Rs.5,000/- per month as mesne profit.
11. In the light of the argument put-forth on behalf of the plaintiff, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
12. On such perusal of the material on record, there is no dispute that plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. All that the defendant has maintained is that he had paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as security deposit. To substantiate said contention, there is no document placed on record.
13. Further, in the cross-examination of the defendant, he has specifically admitted that he has paid the rents at the rate of Rs.5,000/- for a period of three months. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that defendant paid rents for three months and abruptly stopped from July 2017 onwards.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:44101 CRP No. 102 of 2020 HC-KAR
14. DW1 also admitted in cross-examination that there is no document to show that he had paid security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/-.
15. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned trial judge not only decreed the suit for ejectment, but also arrears of rent in a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- and sum of Rs.5,000/- per month as the damages from the date of termination of the notice till the vacant possession.
16. It is pertinent to note that decree of the trial Court has been executed by filing the execution petition and it was not voluntary act of the defendant. Pursuant to the delivery warrant issued, the vacant possession is obtained by the plaintiff.
17. Under such circumstances, decreeing of the suit by the trial Court ordering arrears of rent and the mesne profit at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month is just and proper and requires no further interference in this revision.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:44101 CRP No. 102 of 2020 HC-KAR
18. Accordingly, the following ORDER Revision petition is merit-less and hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64