Dr H Hanumanthappa vs M/S Hatti Food And Beverages Pvt ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3682 Kant

                                              -1-
                                                     NC: 2023:KHC:21953
                                                         CRP No. 475 of 2021




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

                                            BEFORE

                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

                         CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 475 OF 2021 (SC)

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    DR. H.HANUMANTHAPPA
                         S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA
                         AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
                         R/AT NO.18, KHB COLONY
                         5TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA
                         BANGALORE-560 095.
                                                                 ...PETITIONER
                                  (BY SRI. SURESH P, ADVOCATE)
                   AND:

                   1.    M/s. HATTI FOOD AND BEVERAGES PVT. LTD.,
                         NO.45/1, S.N.SQUARE
                         3RD CROSS, ULSOOR ROAD
                         BANGALORE-560 042
                         REPRESENTED BY ONE OF
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T            ITS DIRECTORS
Location: HIGH           Mrs. S.MAHENDAR
COURT OF                                                      ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA

                        THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF SMALL
                   CAUSES COURT ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
                   DATED 31.01.2020 PASSED IN S.C.No.1809/2018 ON THE FILE
                   OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
                   BENGALURU, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF
                   MONEY.

                       THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
                   COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                   -2-
                                             NC: 2023:KHC:21953
                                                CRP No. 475 of 2021




                               ORDER

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned

counsel appearing for the revision petitioner.

2. In this revision petition, the petitioner has assailed

the order of the Trial Court in S.C.No.1809/2018 decreeing the

suit for an amount of Rs.1,10,728/- with future interest at 18%

p.a., from the date of suit till its realization.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before

the Trial Court is that the plaintiff is a Company-M/s. Hatti

Kaapi has changed its status to a private Limited Company,

now its status changed as, in the name and style of Hatti Food

& Beverages Pvt. Ltd., vide agreement dated 25.09.2015. It is

the case of the plaintiff that it has finalized a rental agreement

with the defendant, with an intention to provide

accommodation for its employees working at the Koramangala

Store Area, at a monthly rent of Rs.8,560/- and upon payment

of security deposit of Rs.80,000/- vide Demand Draft

No.163467 dated 17.12.2013 drawn on Canara Bank,

Chamarajpet Branch, Bengaluru. The defendant had agreed to

the terms of the rental agreement and having received the said

NC: 2023:KHC:21953 CRP No. 475 of 2021

terms of rental agreement dated 18.02.2016 on stamp paper

did not return a signed copy of the said agreement to the

plaintiff for the reasons best known to the defendant.

Nevertheless, in conduct, right from the effective date as per

clause 4 of the terms and conditions of the said rental

agreement, from the effective date i.e., 1st day of December

2015, the plaintiff has paid and the defendant has received a

rent of Rs.8,560/- by way of bank transfer. During the

beginning of January 2017, the defendant requested the

plaintiff to vacate the rental premises by the end of January

2017 and the plaintiff complied without raising any objections

and ready to handover the possession of the premises, upon

return of the security deposit of Rs.80,000/-. On 04.02.2017,

the plaintiff by registered post issued letter intimating the

defendant about the readiness to vacate the premises and

requested to return interest free said security deposit amount

and take back the possession of the premises. However,

without returning the security deposit amount, the defendant

went ahead and took back the possession of the premises by

breaking open the lock put by the plaintiff and more shockingly

then letting out the premises wrongfully to another tenant.

NC: 2023:KHC:21953 CRP No. 475 of 2021

Such being the fact, the plaintiff without any alternative issued

a legal notice, the same was duly served and no reply was

given. Hence, without any other alternative remedy constrained

to file a suit for recovery.

4. The defendant in response to the suit summons

appeared through the Counsel and filed the written statement

on 15.06.2019 and also 21.09.2019 inter alia contending in the

written statement dated 15.06.2019 that, the suit filed by the

plaintiff is not maintainable. At the time of vacating the

premises, they have returned the amount. Earlier, he said no

objection to vacate the premises. Later, he has raised the

objection and his claim was settled but not issued any receipt.

He is a senior citizen and highly educated and a reputed person

in the Society and prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

5. The plaintiff in order to prove its case, one of the

Directors of Plaintiff Company has examined himself as P.W.1

and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P5. P.W.1 was not

cross examined and the defendant had not led any evidence

before the Trial Court. The Trial Court having considered both

oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit considering

NC: 2023:KHC:21953 CRP No. 475 of 2021

Exs.P1 to P5 viz., Original Ledger extract from 01.04.2014 to

31.03.2015, Original Ledger extract from 01.04.2015 to

31.12.2015, Original Ledger extract from 01.04.2016 to

31.03.2017, Original rental agreement dated 16.12.2013 and

authorization letter, respectively. Having taken note of the

material on record, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that

though an advance amount of Rs.80,000/- was received and

the same was not returned, hence, ordered to pay the amount

with interest. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present

revision petition is filed before this Court.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would vehemently contend that it is a very specific case of the

petitioner that after receiving the advance amount only, the

respondent/plaintiff has vacated the premises and handover

the key to the petitioner. It is also contended that as per the

agreement he has to accommodate only two people instead he

has kept seven people and he has charged Rs.4,500/- per

person amounting to Rs.4.80 Lakhs for three years and it has

to be recovered from the plaintiff. The Trial Court has not

considered the same properly.

NC: 2023:KHC:21953 CRP No. 475 of 2021

7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and having considered the material on record before

filing the suit, the plaintiff issued notice and the same is also

served on the defendant and no reply was given. When the

specific contention was taken in the written statement that he

has returned the amount; in order to substantiate his

contentions, he has not placed any material before the Trial

Court and not cross-examined P.W.1 and also not substantiated

his defense though filed the written statement. Hence, the

Trial Court has not committed any error; instead considered

both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and

considered the original ledger extract for having made the

payment with regard to the rent is concerned. Now, the learned

counsel contends that the rents also not paid and the other

ground in the revision petition is that though as per the

agreement the provision is to stay only two persons, but

allowed seven persons to stay in the house. Hence, the very

plaintiff himself is due for an amount of Rs.4.80 Lakhs. In

order to substantiate the said contention, no material had been

placed before the Trial Court and even not cross-examines

P.W.1. When such being the case, I do not find any error

NC: 2023:KHC:21953 CRP No. 475 of 2021

committed by the Trial Court and the order is not suffers from

legality and correctness. Hence, no grounds to issue notice to

the respondent.

8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The revision petition is dismissed.

In view of dismissal of the petition, IA-1/2021 for stay

does not survive for consideration, the same stands disposed

of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

CP