Karnataka High Court
Mr Sharan Kumar vs Sri Kiran R Kabadi on 5 June, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
CRP No. 505 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.505 OF 2022 (SC)
BETWEEN:
MR SHARAN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O LATE MEGHANATH
M/S KARNATKAA SERVICE CENTRE
NO.1, TULASI THOTA ROAD
OTC ROAD CROSS
BENGALURU 560063
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAVINDRA B S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed SRI KIRAN R KABADI
by SHARANYA T SINCE DECEASED, REP BY HIS LRS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. SMT. RAJINI KABADI
KARNATAKA W/O LATE KIRAN R. KABADI
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
2. KUMARI APEKASHA.K. KABADI
D/O LATE KIRAN R. KABADI
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS
No.1(B) SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY
MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
SMT. RAJINI KABADI
-2-
CRP No. 505 of 2022
BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 444
1ST BLOCK, 3RD STAGE
BASAVESHWARANAGARA
BENGALURU 560 079
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ABHINAV RAMANAND A, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE
KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSE COURT ACT, 1961, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.08.2022 PASSED
IN S.C.NO.521/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL
SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, SMALL CAUSES AND ADDITIONAL
MACT, BENGALURU AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed challenging the judgment and
decree dated 02.08.2022 passed in S.C.NO.521/2019 on
the file of the IX Additional Small Causes Judge, Small
Causes and Additional MACT, Bengaluru.
2. This petition is listed for admission. Heard the
learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff
before the Trial Court is that he is the owner and landlord
of the entire property bearing old No.15/21, thereafter
CRP No. 505 of 2022
No.15 situated at Balepet, Tulasi Thota road, OTC road
cross, Bengaluru consisting of shops and residential
building. The said property along with some other
properties originally belonged to his father who had
derived the said properties through release deed dated
05.02.1996. His father Raghu H Kabadi was in possession
and enjoyment of the properties and later he settled his
properties to his wife Anasuya R Kabadi by executing a
settlement deed dated 22.05.2014 and mother was in
possession and enjoyment of the properties. Later, out of
love and affection, she settled the properties in favour of
her son as such property bearing No.1, Thulasi Thota road,
Bengaluru along with some other property was settled in
his favour by executing settlement deed dated
30.04.2015. Thus, he became the absolute owner of the
entire property. The defendant is a tenant in occupation
of Shop No.1, in the ground floor of the said property
under him and originally the defendant was inducted by
his father as tenant in the schedule shop premises and the
defendant had paid refundable rental deposit of
CRP No. 505 of 2022
Rs.2,00,000/- to his father at the time of inception as a
tenant. After the transfer of the ownership of the property
in his favour in pursuance of the said registered settlement
deed dated 20.04.2015, he became an absolute owner of
the entire property including the schedule shop premises
and the defendant became his tenant and the rental
deposit of Rs.2,00,000/-. The defendant desired to
continue the tenancy of the schedule shop premises under
him and he agreed to lease the schedule shop to the
defendant and both of them entered into a rental
agreement on 14.02.2017 with certain terms and
conditions.
4. It is contended that the tenancy period was for
only 11 months with effect from 14.02.2017 on monthly
rent of Rs.12,500/- and electricity and water charges
separately payable by the defendant to the concerned
authorities. The defendant is highly irregular in chronic
defaulter in the payment of the monthly rent and the
defendant is in arrears of rent as he has not paid the rent
CRP No. 505 of 2022
from September 2018 up to the current month on March
2019 to him and the defendant is in arrears of rent for 8
months for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Inspite of repeated
requests and demands by him, the defendant has not paid
the said arrears of rent. Whenever, the plaintiff demanded
the defendant to pay the arrears of rent, initially, the
defendant went on postponing to pay the arrears of rent
and later he started saying him that he would quit and
vacate the shop premises but the defendant failed either
to pay the arrears of rent or to quit and vacate the shop
premises. He has forfeited the arrears of rent of
Rs.1,00,000/- which was due out of the refundable deposit
of Rs.2,00,000/-. Hence, the defendant is liable to quit,
vacate and handover the vacant possession of the shop
premises to him.
5. It is further contended that as per clause 10 of
the Rent Agreement, the defendant is liable to pay
enhanced rent of 10% on the last prevailing rate and the
defendant has failed to pay enhanced rent to him and as
CRP No. 505 of 2022
per clause 12, the defendant is liable to effect necessary
repairs and also painting to the lease premises at the time
of vacating the premises failing which, he is entitled to
recover the cost of repairs, painting charges, arrears of
rent, electricity, water charges etc. Hence, the plaintiff
has got issued legal notice on 07.03.2019 to the defendant
calling upon him to vacate and handover the vacant
possession of the schedule shop within 15 days of the
receipt of notice failing which, he is liable to pay
Rs.30,000/- per month for wrongful occupation of the suit
schedule property till he vacate the property. But the
defendant gave untenable reply on 12.03.2019 denying
the very jural relationship of landlord and tenant between
himself and the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the
suit.
6. In pursuance of suit summons, the defendant
appeared and filed the written statement denying the
entire plaint averments. It is contended that his employer
Manjunath is the tenant and he entered into rental
CRP No. 505 of 2022
agreement with Raghu H Kabadi who is the father of the
plaintiff for monthly rent of Rs.7,500/- on refundable
deposit of Rs.3,50,000/- and taken the possession. It is
further contended that the defendant is not in possession,
he is a stranger and the alleged agreement is a created
and forged document. It is contended that the said
Manjunath demanded to refund the security deposit to
vacate the schedule premises but the father of the plaintiff
did not make any arrangements to refund the amount
hence, the said Manjunath issued legal notice dated
04.01.2019 to the Raghu Kabadi and inspite of receipt of
the notice, he did not settle the security deposit.
7. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial
Court framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead
their evidence. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff,
the plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and got marked the
documents at Ex.P1 to P4. On the other hand, the
defendant examined himself as DW1 and got marked the
documents at Ex.D1 and D2 and one witness by name
CRP No. 505 of 2022
Manjunath got examined as DW2. The Trial Court having
considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on
record answered point Nos.1 and 2 as affirmative in
coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff has established
the relationship of tenant and landlord and he legally
terminated the tenancy as per law and the plaintiff is
entitled for the relief. Being aggrieved by the judgment
and decree of the Trial Court, the present revision petition
is filed before this Court.
8. The main contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the Trial Court has committed an error
in allowing the suit filed by the plaintiff even though there
is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the
plaintiff and the defendant. The counsel also vehemently
contend that the decree passed by the Trial Court is
without jurisdiction and the Trial Court failed to consider
the evidence of the petitioner and also DW2 who
specifically pleaded that he is the tenant and not the
defendant and the defendant is the stranger and failed to
CRP No. 505 of 2022
consider Ex.D1 and D2 which shows that Manjunath has
filed the suit against the father of the plaintiff for recovery
of security deposit of Rs.3,50,000/- hence, the order of
the Trial Court is erroneous. It is also contended that
when the plaintiff relies upon the document at Ex.P1, he
has not proved the same by examining two witnesses who
are the attesting witnesses and the same has not been
considered by the Trial Court.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondent would vehemently contend that the specific
case of the plaintiff that the defendant has paid the rent
and thereafter he did not pay the rent hence, the arrears
of rent is of Rs.1,00,000/- and the same was adjusted
from the security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- and hence, he
issued legal notice to the defendant demanding him to
vacate and hand over the vacant schedule premises but
the defendant gave untenable reply to the said notice.
The Trial Court in paragraph 14 held that the defendant
disputed his signature in the lease deed, vakalath, written
- 10 -
CRP No. 505 of 2022
statement as well as affidavit and same also was taken
note of by the Trial Court while considering Ex.P1 and also
taken note of the fact that even though examined the said
Manjunath as DW2 who claiming that there was a rental
agreement in his favour in the year 2013 but no such
agreement is produced before the Court and not even
produced any document to show that he has deposited
Rs.3,50,000/- as security deposit and the Trial Court in
detail discussed the material on record and allowed the
case of the plaintiff having taken note of non-payment of
arrears of rent and non-filing of documents and rightly
comes to the conclusion that the defendant is liable to pay
arrears of rent of Rs.12,500/- per month from the date of
suit till vacating the schedule premises and the plaintiff is
at liberty to recover the same by due process of law
hence, the Trial Court has not committed any error in
allowing the suit of the plaintiff.
10. Having hearing the learned counsel appearing
for the respective parties and also considering the
- 11 -
CRP No. 505 of 2022
averments made in the plaint as well as in the written
statement, it discloses that based on the settlement deed
dated 20.04.2015 in terms of Ex.P2, he became the owner
of the premises and it is also clear averment that prior to
that the defendant was tenant under his father and made
the security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- and when the
defendant failed to comply the terms of the rent
agreement, legal notice was issued and the defendant
gave untenable reply to the said notice and the same are
produced as Ex.P3 and P4. The counsel for the defendant
also took the specific defence that he was not a tenant but
one Manjunath was tenant and the said Manjunath also
examined before the Trial Court as DW2 but no such
document of agreement entered between DW2 and the
father of the plaintiff is produced before the Court and also
for having taken the contention that said Manjunath has
paid security deposit of Rs.3,50,000/- and no document is
placed to prove the same. It is the case of the defendant
that he himself denied his signatures available in the
written statement, vakalath and affidavit. Under such
- 12 -
CRP No. 505 of 2022
circumstances, the Trial Court compared the signature of
the defendant available in the said documents invoking
Section 73 of the Evidence Act and comes to the
conclusion that that DW1 in the cross-examination has
categorically admitted the ownership of PW1 and also not
placed any documents with regard to his contention that
one Manjunath is the tenant and he has paid security
deposit of Rs.3,50,000/-. Hence, the Trial Court comes to
the conclusion that the plaintiff has established the
relationship between the parties.
11. It is important to note that when the defendant
asserts before the Court that Ex.P1 is a created, concocted
and forged document and also asserts that the signature
available in the agreement, written statement, vakalath
and affidavit is not belongs to him. Under such
circumstances, the defendant has to prove the same but
he has not taken any steps except examining DW2 and he
has not sent the said documents for hand writing expert
when he disputing his own signature in the said
- 13 -
CRP No. 505 of 2022
documents. The Apex Court in the case of K S
SATYANARAYANA vs V R NARAYANA RAO reported in
(1999) 6 SCC 104 held that when the defendant denied
his own signature in the agreement, written statement,
vakalath and also affidavit, the Court has to take note of
the conduct of the defendant who is making an attempt to
make wrongful gain even denying his own signature in the
admitted documents. Hence, the said judgment is
applicable to the case on hand. The counsel for the
defendant contends that the plaintiff has not examined the
witnesses of Ex.P1 and the said contention cannot be
accepted since the suit is filed for the relief of eviction and
not for proving the transaction except rent agreement.
The counsel for the defendant brought to notice of this
Court that the documents at Ex.D1 and D2 are the copies
of the order sheet and plaint in O.S.No. 4258/2019 which
was filed by Manjunath and those documents are only the
copies of order sheet of the suit and unless the suit is
decided on merits, those documents will not come to the
aid of the petitioner. Hence, I do not find any merit in the
- 14 -
CRP No. 505 of 2022
petition and the Trial Court has rightly comes to the
conclusion that that the plaintiff has established jural
relationship between the parties and ordered to evict him
from the premises.
12. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN
