M R Shanthakumari vs T C Ashok
2022 Latest Caselaw 7772 Kant

                              1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2022

                         BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

              R.F.A.NO.968 OF 2017 (RES)

BETWEEN
M. R. SHANTHAKUMARI,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
NO.27TH, 3RD FLOOR,
CHANDRASHEKARA COMPLEX,
1ST MAIN, GANDHINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
                                           ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.S.B.HALLI, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.     T. C. ASHOK,
       S/O LATE T.V.CHANDRASHEKAR SETTY,
       AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

2.     SMT. LAKSHMI,
       W/O T.C.ASHOK,
       AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

3.     SRI. T. A. NAGARAJ,
       S/O T.C.ASHOK,
       AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

4.     SRI. T. A. CHANDRASHEKAR,
       S/O T.C.ASHOK,
       AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
       REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER
       SRI.T.C.ASHOK.

5.     SRI. T. A. MADHUKIRAN,
       S/O T.C.ASHOK,
       AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
                              2



      RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5
      C/O NO.27, CHANDRASEHKAR COMPLEX,
      1ST MAIN ROAD, GANDHINAGAR,
      BENGALURU - 560 009.
                                             ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.A.SAMPATH, ADVOCATE)

      THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.02.2017
PASSED IN OS.NO.4326/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE LIX ADDL.
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, C/C OF X ADDL. CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, DECREEING THE
SUIT FOR EJECTMENT AND ARREARS OF RENT.
     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                       JUDGMENT

This appeal is by the defendant in

O.S.No.4326/2014 is directed against the impugned

judgment & decree dated 01.02.2017 passed by the X

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore,

whereby the said suit filed by the respondents-

plaintiffs against the appellant-defendant for

ejectment/ eviction and other reliefs in respect of the

suit schedule B premises was decreed by the Trial

Court in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs. By the

impugned judgment & decree, the trial Court directed

the appellant-defendant to quit and deliver vacant

possession of the suit schedule B premises within a

period of six months and also directed payment of

arrears of rent of Rs.48,000/- to the respondents-

plaintiffs and further directed an enquiry into mesne

profits as contemplated under Order XX Rule 12 of

CPC.

2. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment &

decree passed by the trial court, the appellant is

before this Court by way of the present appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant

and learned counsel for the respondents and perused

the material on record.

4. In addition to reiterating the various

contentions urged in the appeal and referring to the

documents produced, learned counsel for the

appellant submits that the impugned judgment &

decree passed by the Trial Court suffers from various

legal infirmities, inasmuch as, the Trial Court failed to

consider & appreciate the material on record which

indicated that the termination of tenancy of the

appellant by the respondents-landlord was not in

accordance with law and consequently, the suit for

ejectment/eviction filed by the respondents-plaintiffs

against the appellant-defendant was not maintainable.

It is also contended that the respondents had

sufficient means for their livelihood by virtue of other

various business including jewellery business and as

such, since they did not need or require suit schedule

B premises for their own bonafide use and occupation,

the suit was liable to be dismissed on this ground also.

It is also contended that the appellant had never

committed willful default in payment of rent due to the

respondents and that the decreetal amount of

Rs.48,000/- has also been paid by the appellant-

defendant to the respondents-plaintiffs and on this

ground also, the judgment & decree passed by the

trial court deserves to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the

respondents-plaintiffs in addition to supporting the

impugned judgment & decree also invites my

attention to several orders passed by this Court and

applications on record in order to point out that except

for payment of Rs.1,20,000/- made by the appellant-

defendant to the respondents-plaintiffs before this

Court, the appellant - defendant is due in huge

amount to the respondents - plaintiffs towards arrears

of rent from April, 2014 to May, 2022. It is therefore

submitted that without depositing the arrears of rent,

the appellant-defendant has no locus to prosecute the

appeal and the defence of the appellant in the suit as

well as grounds of the appeal are liable to be

struck off and the appeal is liable to be dismissed

by confirming the impugned judgment & decree

passed by the Trial Court. It is also submitted

that alternatively, the impugned judgment & decree

passed by the Trial Court is a well reasoned, proper

and well considered judgment & decree, which is in

accordance with law and does not warrant

interference of this Court in the present appeal.

6. By way of reply, learned counsel for the

appellant submits that the appellant-defendant

disputes the contention urged on behalf of

respondents - plaintiffs with regard to the quantum of

arrears of rent as well as other contentions put forth

by the respondents.

7. The following points arise for consideration

in the present appeal:-

(i) Whether the Trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit for ejectment/eviction filed by the respondents-plaintiffs against the appellant-defendant?

(ii) Whether the respondents-plaintiffs were entitled to arrears of rent as claimed by them?

(iii) Whether the respondents-plaintiffs are entitled to arrears of rent by way of damages at the admitted rate of Rs.6,000/- from the date of termination till the date of handing over possession by the appellant- defendant to the respondents-plaintiffs?

Re-Point No.1:-

8. A perusal of material on record including

the pleadings and evidence of parties would clearly

indicate that while dealing with Issue No.1 relating to

termination of tenancy, the trial Court has taken into

account the statutory notice at Ex.P-4 issued by the

respondents-plaintiffs to the appellant-defendant as

well as postal receipts and acknowledgment coupled

with the reply notice at Ex.P.7 in order to come to the

correct conclusion that said notice is inconsonance

with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act,

1882. Accordingly, the trial Court has answered Issue

No.1 in the affirmative thereby coming to the correct

conclusion that termination of the tenancy of the

appellant-defendant by the respondents-plaintiffs with

effect from 30.04.2014 is valid & legal and in

accordance with law.

9. Upon re-appreciation and revaluation of the

entire material on record, I am of the considered

opinion that findings recorded by the Trial Court with

regard to the termination of tenancy of appellant-

defendant by the respondents-plaintiffs in respect of

suit B schedule premises, is correct & proper and does

not suffer from any illegality, perversity or infirmity

warranting interference by this Court in the present

appeal.

Re-Point No.2:-

10. Insofar as Issue No.2 pertaining to arrears

of rent is concerned, the trial Court took into account

the unimpeached, uncontroverted and unchallenged

pleadings & evidence of the respondents-plaintiffs

coupled with the fact that appellant-defendant had not

adduced any legal or valid evidence to establish that

she had paid rent in a sum of Rs.48,000/- in favour of

respondents-plaintiffs. Accordingly, the trial Court

answered Issue No.2 in favor of the respondents-

plaintiffs and came to the correct conclusion that the

appellant-defendant had not paid rent to respondents-

plaintiffs from August 2013 to March 2014 and

consequently, decreed the suit of the respondents-

plaintiffs by directing the appellant-defendant to pay

a sum of Rs.48,000/- in favour of respondents-

plaintiffs. The said findings recorded by the Trial Court

on Issue No.2 does not suffer from any illegality or

infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the

present appeal and accordingly, finding on Issue No. 2

also deserves to be confirmed.

Re-Point No.3:-

11. Insofar as the contention urged by the

respondents-plaintiffs that apart from paying

Rs.1,20,000/- during the pendency of this appeal, the

appellant-defendant is due to pay the balance arrears

of rent at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month from April

2014 onwards upto 31.05.2022 is concerned, in view

of the rival claims of both the sides in this regard, I

deem it just and proper to direct the appellant-

defendant to pay the arrears of rent within a period of

three months from today and to file a latest / fresh

Memo of Calculation in this regard on or before

09.09.2022; so also, liberty is reserved in favour of

the respondents - plaintiffs to file their latest / fresh

Memo of Calculations also on or before 09.09.2022.

12. Further, in view of the aforesaid rival

contentions with regard to arrears of rent coupled with

the fact that applications in relation thereto are

pending consideration, I also deem it just & proper to

direct listing of the pending applications for further

orders on 09.09.2022 pursuant to the disposal of this

appeal by this order.

Point Nos. 1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I pass

the following:-

ORDER

(i) Appeal is hereby dismissed;

(ii) The impugned judgment & decree dated

01.02.2017 passed in O.S.No.4326/2014 by the LIX

Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is

hereby confirmed;

(iii) The appellant-defendant is granted time

upto 30.11.2022 to voluntarily quit, vacate and deliver

vacant possession of the suit B schedule premises in

favour of the respondent-landlord without driving

them to file execution proceedings.

(iv) The appellant-defendant shall not sub-let,

under-let or part with the possession of the Suit B

schedule premises in favour of third parties;

(v) The appellant shall continue to pay the rent

at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month to the

respondents - plaintiffs till they vacate and hand over

vacant possession of the schedule premises to the

respondents.

(vi) Registry is directed to list the matter for

further orders at 2.30 p.m. on 09.09.2022.

SD/-

JUDGE

DS/SRL