M/S. Vinayaka And Company vs Sri. Jagadguru Renukadi ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5827 Kant

                            1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                        BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

     CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.354 OF 2021 (SC)

BETWEEN:

1.     M/S. VINAYAKA AND COMPANY
       MAHAVEER MARKET
       PREMISES NO.83/1, A.M. LANE
       CHICKPET, BANGALORE-560053
       REPRESENTED BY
       ITS PROPRIETOR
       V.P.A.THYAGARAJAN

2.     SMT. A. SHAKUNTHALA
       W/O LATE P. ARMUGAM
       AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
       PREMISES NO.83, SHOP NO.83/1
       GROUND FLOOR, A.M. LANE
       CHICKPET, BANGALORE-560053.

3.     V.P.A. THYAGARAJAN
       S/O LATE P. ARMUGAM
       AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
       PREMISES NO.83, SHOP NO.83/1
       GROUND FLOOR, A.M. LANE
       CHICKPET, BANGALORE-560053.

4.     SRI. A. MOHAN
       S/O LATE P. ARMUGAM
       AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
       PREMISES NO.83, SHOP NO.83/1
       GROUND FLOOR, A.M. LANE
       CHICKPET, BANGALORE-560053.
                                      ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K.N.DAYALU, ADVOCATE)
                               2


AND:

SRI. JAGADGURU RENUKADI PANCHACHARYA
FREE BOARDING TRUST
A REGISTERED TRUST HAVING
ITS TRUST OFFICE AT
SRI MAHANTRARA MUTT
CHICKPET, BANGALORE-560053
REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR
SRI. H.VEERABHADRAIAH
                                    ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. G.V.DAYANAND, ADVOCATE FOR
CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT)

      THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE SMALL
CAUSES COURTS ACT, 1964 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 21.08.2021 PASSED IN S.C.NO.1234/2015 ON
THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND ACMM, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
EVICTION.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

This Revision Petition is filed under Section 18 of the

Karnataka Small Causes Court Act, 1964 challenging the

Judgment and Decree dated 21.08.2021 passed by the

II Additional Judge and ACMM Court of Small Causes,

Bengaluru in S.C.No.1234/2015.

2. The respondent herein being the owner of a

commercial premises, occupied by the petitioners herein as

tenants, issued a notice of termination of tenancy. The

respondent claimed that the petitioners had failed to pay

the arrears of rent of Rs.2,40,000/- and also on the ground

that the building was in a dilapidated condition. The said

notice of termination was served on the petitioners herein.

However, the petitioners did not reply to the said notice of

termination. Consequent thereto, the present suit was

filed for eviction of the petitioners from the petition

premises.

3. The petition was contested by the petitioners

herein, who admitted the tenancy and contended that the

rent was not Rs.5,000/- per month as claimed by the

respondent but it was a sum of Rs.595/- per month.

Based on these contentions, the case was set down for

trial.

4. The Administrator of the respondent was

examined as P.W.1, who marked documents as Exs.P.1 to

10. The petitioner No.3 herein was examined as D.W.1

and he marked a document as Ex.D.1.

5. The Trial Court relied upon Ex.P.7, which

contained receipt Nos.410, 440, 472 and 495 which clearly

indicate that the petitioners were paying rent of Rs.5,000/-

per month. The Trial Court also noticed Ex.P.6 which was

a resolution passed by the petitioners that indicated that

the rent was increased to a sum of Rs.5,000/- from

24.05.2007. Though the petitioners contested, the Trial

Court found that the petitioner No.3 had signed the said

resolution and had agreed to pay enhanced rent and the

arrears of rent. The Trial Court held that the petitioners

had paid rent only till December, 2010 and that they had

failed to pay rent from January, 2011 till the date of filing

the suit. The Trial Court, therefore, decreed the suit and

directed the petitioners herein to quit and deliver the

vacant possession of the suit property to the respondent

within two months.

6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and

decree, this revision petition is filed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended

that the petitioners had not authorized its Administrator to

file a petition and also to adduce evidence. He submitted

that the rate of rent was only a sum of Rs.595/- but not a

sum of Rs.5,000/- and therefore, the notice of termination

as well as the entitlement of the respondent to file a suit to

eject the petitioners from the petition premises was not

maintainable.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the

respondent submitted that the tenancy is not in dispute.

All that is sought to be stated is that the respondent had

not duly authorized its administrator to represent in the

suit. He, however, contended that the respondent is

represented by an Administrator duly appointed by the

trustees. Therefore, the Administrator was entitled to

represent the Trust.

9. I have considered the arguments canvassed by

the learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the

records of the Trial Court.

10. A perusal of the written statement filed by the

petitioners before the Trial Court does not show that they

had challenged the authority of the Administrator to

represent the plaintiff's Trust. On the contrary, the Trust

deed at Ex.P1 shows that the Peetadhipathi of

Sri.Jagadguru Rambhapuri Peetha of Balehonnur would be

the patron of the Trust named Sri.Jagadguru Renukadi

Panchayacharya Free Boarding Trust with its office at

Sri.Mahanthara Mutt, Chickpet. Ex.P2 is an authorisation

by the trust authorising its administrator to initiate legal

proceedings in respect of the properties of the trust. It

was only during the course of cross-examination that a

suggestion was made that the Administrator is not entitled

to represent the Trust. Therefore, the contention of the

petitioners that the Administrator was not entitled to

represent the trust is raised in revision for the first time

before this court and the same cannot be taken into

consideration.

11. This Court is wary of the fact that this

proceeding relates to eviction of a tenant from the

property of the trust and thus any observation recorded is

be limited to the facts of the case and shall not affect any

judicial proceedings related to the trust or the trustees.

Though the petitioners denied the ownership of the

respondent, DW1 admitted that the petition premises was

taken on rent by Vinayaka and Company. He stated that

he was paying rent to the respondent as a representative

of Vinayaka and Company. He admitted his signature

found on Ex.P2(b) - Rent receipt. He also admitted that the

signatures of his sister and mother were found in the rent

receipts. He admitted that he attended the meeting of the

respondent on 24.05.2007 and had signed the resolution

by which rent was enhanced to Rs.5,000/- per month. He

did not dispute that they had paid rent at Rs.5,000/- per

month upto December 2009 as per Ex.P1. Therefore, there

is no dispute regarding the jural relationship.

12. Therefore the contention that the rate of rent

was only sum of Rs.595/- per month, is belied by the

resolution dated 24.05.2007, which is acknowledged by

petitioner No.3, whereby the rate of rent was increased to

a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. This is not disputed by

the petitioner No.3. The petitioners have not demonstrated

that they had paid the rent from January 2010 and

onwards. Having regard to the fact that the notice of

termination was duly served and was not challenged by

the petitioners, the Trial Court was justified in directing

ejectment of the petitioners from the suit schedule

property.

There is no merit in the petition and the same is

dismissed. The petitioner is granted three months time to

quit and deliver vacant possession of the petition premises

to the respondents.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NBM