Sri A Boopathi vs Kotak Mahindra Bank
2023 Latest Caselaw 1855 Kant

                                               -1-
                                                          RFA No. 1911 of 2017




                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

                                              BEFORE
                               THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
                          REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1911 OF 2017 (EJE)

                   BETWEEN:
                   SRI. A. BOOPATHI
                   S/O LATE T.M. ANJINEYALU
                   AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
                   R/AT NO.17, CLARKE ROAD
                   RICHARDS TOWN
                   BANGALORE - 560 005
                                                                    ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI: K. ANANDARAMA, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:
Digitally signed
by NANDINI B G     KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK
Location: High
Court Of           NO.44, COLES PINNACLE
Karnataka          COLES ROAD, PULAKESHI NAGAR
                   BANGALORE - 560 005
                   REPRESENTED BY ITS
                   BRANCH MANAGER
                                                                  ...RESPONDENT
                   (BY SRI: BALA SUBRAHMANYA .K.M., ADVOCATE FOR R1
                       SRI: P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR PROPOSED IMPLEADING
                         RESPONDENT)



                         THIS R.F.A. IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 1 AND SECTION
                   96 OF CPC., 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
                   17.02.2017 PASSED IN OS.NO.26745/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE
                   XXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU,
                   DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.



                       THIS R.F.A., COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY THE
                   COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                -2-
                                             RFA No. 1911 of 2017




                             JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for appellant and the learned

counsel for the applicant in IA.1 of 2023.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

appellant is entitled for the entire amount which is in deposit

before the Trial Court by the respondent. In the alternative, he

submits that at any rate, he will be entitled for the arrears of

rent till 31.03.2008. He further submits that the applicant who

is the subsequent purchaser has no locus standi to maintain the

application and to come on record in the present proceedings.

He further submits that FDP No.25006 of 2023 on the file of the

XXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit

(CCh-20), Bengaluru, is pending before the Trial Court, where

the applicant is the Decree Holder and the matter may be

decided by the Final Decree Court. Hence, he prays for

dismissal of IA.1 of 2023.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the applicant in IA.1

of 2023 submits that the tenancy of the applicant was

terminated with effect from 23.03.2008. The rent deposited by

the applicant is for the subsequent period and therefore, the

RFA No. 1911 of 2017

respondent is entitled for the same. In view of the same, he

intends to come on record, claiming arrears of rent which is in

deposit before the Trial Court.

4. Considering the rival contentions and on perusal of

the materials on record, there is no dispute that the respondent

has deposited the rent for a period of four months, which is in

excess. It is not in dispute that the rate of rent per month was

Rs.14,485/-. That being the case, a sum of Rs.57,940/-, is the

excess amount towards arrears of rent deposited by the

respondent. In addition, he has also entitled for the earnest

money i.e., Rs.41,790/-. Therefore, in all, he is entitled for

Rs.99,730/-. Hence, I am of the opinion that the respondent is

entitled to withdraw the amount of Rs.99,730/- from out of the

amount that is deposited before the Trial Court towards arrears

of rent.

5. The dispute inter se between the appellant and the

applicant/proposed respondent is that, the appellant is the

lessee and applicant is the purchaser of the property during the

pendancy of litigation. Admittedly, after the applicant

succeeded in the suit filed by him seeking ejectment against

RFA No. 1911 of 2017

the appellant and for mesne profits, FDP No.25006 of 2023 was

filed and the same is pending before the Trial Court, wherein,

the appellant and the applicant are parties. Under such

circumstances, without going into the matter regarding

entitlement for the remaining amount that is in deposit, I deem

it appropriate to keep open the matter to be decided by the

Final Decree Court.

6. In view of the above, I proceed to pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is dismissed.

(ii) The application i.e., IA.1 of 2023 filed by the

applicant is dismissed.

(iii) Respondent is entitled to withdraw an amount of

Rs.99,730/-, which is in deposit before the Trial Court, on due

identification.

It is made clear that the remaining amount in deposit

before the Trial Court is to be taken into consideration by the

Court, where final decree proceedings in FDP No.25006 of 2023

RFA No. 1911 of 2017

is pending and the entitlement for the said amount is to be

decided in the said proceedings.

Parties are directed to bear their own costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

*bgn/-