Karnataka High Court
Smt S V Rathnamma vs Shree Vinayaka Devasthana ... on 25 July, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:25781
CRP No. 235 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 235 OF 2017 (SC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. S V RATHNAMMA
W/O SRI N BALARAJ
AGED 57 YEARS
SHOP NO.6
SHREE VINAYAKA DEVASTHANA SAMITHI
SHOPPING COMPLEX
R.T.NAGAR MAIN ROAD
R.T.NAGAR
BENGALURU-560032.
...PETITIONER
(BY MRS. LAKSHMIDEVI K., ADV. FOR
SRI. PRASANNA V. R., ADV.)
AND:
SHREE VINAYAKA DEVASTHANA SAMITHI (R)
Digitally signed 1ST CROSS, II BLOCK
by SHARANYA T R.T.NAGAR MAIN ROAD
Location: HIGH BENGALURU-560032
COURT OF
KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAJARAM T., ADV.)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.18 OF THE
KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.04.2017 PASSED IN SC
NO.322/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDL. JUDGE, COURT
OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
EJECTMENT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:25781
CRP No. 235 of 2017
ORDER
This matter is listed for admission and I have heard
the learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned
counsel for the respondent.
2. The petitioner has challenged the decree dated
10.04.2017 in S.C.No.322/2012 on the file of the Court of
the Small Causes at Bengaluru (for short, 'Trial Court'),
wherein it is directed the defendant to quit and vacate the
suit schedule property and to handed over same to the
plaintiff within three months and also directed to pay the
arrears of rent in a sum of Rs.6,950/- and also directed to
pay damages of Rs.650/- per month from the month of
Febraury-2015 as rent till vacating the suit schedule
premises.
3. The main contention of the Revision Petitioner
before this Court is that the Court below committed an
error in directing to pay arrears of rent at Rs.6,950/- and
also directing to pay an amount of Rs.650/- per month as
rent. It is also contended that the documents which
NC: 2023:KHC:25781
CRP No. 235 of 2017
have been produced by defendant at Ex.D1 to D6, receipts
have not been considered by the Trial Court. The plaintiff
represented by new person claiming to be the Secretary
who was examined as P.W.1., filed an application seeking
permission to produce documents and the Court has
erroneously permitted Mr.Suram Krishna Murthy to mark
the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. It is also contended
that there was no occasion for the defendant to represent
herself before the Trial Court after remand, which has
resulted in passing exparte judgment. The Trial Court
committed an error in allowing the new person as
representative to prosecute the case. In the previous
round of litigation, one Mr.Varamballi was examined as
PW1, whereas after the remand one Sri.Suram Krishna
Murthy is examined as PW1. Once a person is examined
as PW1, without authority the Court below was pleased to
dismiss the earlier suit of the plaintiff. Though the
revision filed by the plaintiff came to be allowed, a
direction was given to produce the letter of authority with
an application within four weeks and allowed the new
NC: 2023:KHC:25781
CRP No. 235 of 2017
person to be examined as PW1. The Court below ought
not to have permitted new person to come and give
evidence. Hence the Trial Court committed an error and it
requires interference.
4. Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing for
respondent submits that the Trial Court considering both
oral and documentary evidence available on record, came
to the conclusion that there exists a relationship between
the parties. At paragraph No.10 of the judgment, it is
discussed with regard to the termination of notice and also
the Revision Petitioner has not disputed the fact that
termination notice which is marked as Ex.P2 and the
Postal Acknowledgment at Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 are also
produced before the Court and the Trial Court has not
committed any error.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the
respondent, the points that arise in the Revision Petition
are:
NC: 2023:KHC:25781
CRP No. 235 of 2017
1. Whether the order of the Trial Court
suffers from legality, correctness and
propriety of the order?
2. What Order?
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the judgment and decree of the Trial
Court and particularly having considered the reasons,
since the points framed by the Trial Court that whether the
plaintiff has proved that he has validly terminated the
tenancy of defendant from the schedule premises and
whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief as sought,
even those two points are framed by the Trial Court,
having considered the material on record and also grounds
urged in the Revision Petition in paragraph No.9 discussed
in detail with regard to authorizing Sri.Suram Krishna
Murthy to prosecute the case on behalf of Sri.Vinayaka
Devasthana Samithi by its resolution of the meeting held
on 13.12.2016 and the said resolution is also marked as
Ex.P1 and thereafter only he has prosecuted the matter.
Hence, such document is produced before the Court and
NC: 2023:KHC:25781
CRP No. 235 of 2017
the very contention of the Revision Petitioner before this
Court that the said Sri.Suram Krishna Murthy was not
authorized and a new person has entered into witness box
and he was not having any authority cannot be accepted.
The document at Ex.P1 is undisputed document and the
said document is also not challenged before the Trial
Court.
7. The Trial Court having considered the material
on record, taken note of the relationship between the
petitioner and the respondent as tenant and landlord and
also the very petitioner herein herself has produced the
document of lease deed dated 11.06.2015 and same is
marked as Ex.D1 and same also establishes the
relationship between the parties. The cash receipts totally
217 in number which have been produced is also taken
note of and the same are marked as Ex.D2 series. The
Trial Court also having taken note of the receipts and the
termination of notice in terms of Ex.P2 and postal
acknowledgment as Ex.P3, it is held that the notice was
NC: 2023:KHC:25781
CRP No. 235 of 2017
served on her and tenancy was also terminated and
complied Section 106 of Transfer Property Act and the
same is also considered in the order at paragraph No.10.
With regard to arrears of rent is concerned, the Trial Court
at paragraph No.11 has considered the receipts for an
amount of Rs.15,600/- after deducting the same, out of
the arrears of rent Rs.22,560/- found that Rs.6,950/- is
the balance amount and hence in the operative portion,
directed the defendant to pay the arrears of Rs.6,950/-
and also directed to pay Rs.650/- per month from the
month of Febraury-2015. Hence, I do not find any error
committed by the Trial Court and the said order also does
not suffer from legality, correctness and propriety of the
order and the same is based on the material on record.
The admitted documents, Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and Ex.P3, Ex.P4
and also Ex.P7 - lease agreement which were produced in
her evidence are rightly considered by the trial Court.
8. Having considered the material on record, I do
not find any ground to admit the Revision Petition and
NC: 2023:KHC:25781
CRP No. 235 of 2017
there is no merit in the Revision Petition. Hence, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(a) Revision Petition is dismissed.
(b) The Landlord is directed to refund
the advance amount, subject to
payment of rent as directed by Trial
Court, in view of the order dated
10-04-2017.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NC
CT:bms
