Karnataka High Court
Sri.Harsha D vs Smt.Prabha N Prasad on 3 April, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:13711
CRP No. 497 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 497 OF 2021 (SC)
BETWEEN:
SRI.HARSHA.D.,
S/O B.S.DEVENDRACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT No.38, 2ND FLOOR,
7TH CROSS, PRASHANTHANAGAR,
VIJAYANAGAR NORTH,
BANGALORE-560 079.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NAVEEN J.N.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. PRABHA.N.PRASAD,
W/O M.N.PRASAD,
Digitally AGED 65 YEARS,
signed by R/AT No.1308, 24TH MAIN,
KIRAN
KUMAR R KHB COLONY,
Location: MAGADI CHORD ROAD,
HIGH
COURT OF BANGALORE-560 079.
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MOHAN.S.,ADVOCATE)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE SMALL
CAUSES COURT ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 30.07.2021 PASSED IN SC.No.148/2020 ON THE FILE
OF THE VI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND
ACMM, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF
MONEY.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:13711
CRP No. 497 of 2021
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 14.03.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is the tenant who instituted a suit
against the respondent - landlord for recovery of a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per
annum.
2. It was the case of the tenant that he was inducted
into the residential house in question on 16.09.2017 under
an agreement, whereby he had agreed to pay a sum of
Rs.12,000/- per month as rent and also paid a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- as security deposit and the period of lease
was for 11 months. It was stated that this lease period
was extended till the filing of the suit and as on the date of
the suit, the tenant was paying rent of Rs.13,100/- per
month apart from Rs.500/- towards water charges.
3. It was alleged that since the landlord was trying to
evict the tenant forcibly and was threatening unlawful
NC: 2024:KHC:13711
eviction, the tenant had issued a legal notice on
01.10.2019 to the landlord and to this, reply was given by
the landlord on 20.10.2019 denying all the averments.
4. It was stated that on 26.12.2019, a complaint was
lodged to the jurisdictional police. It was also averred that
the tenant had vacated the premises on 06.12.2019 itself
and had sent a demand for repayment of security deposit
and since the same was not repaid, the suit was filed.
5. The landlord entered appearance and admitted the
relationship of landlord and tenant. It was also admitted
that there was a lease and that the said lease was
terminated on 30.09.2019 and the tenant was using the
premises without paying the rents. It was also admitted
that a notice dated 01.10.2019 sent by the tenant was
received, but it was contended that the tenant had not
paid the rents from 06.09.2019 till the filing of written
statement and he had also not handed over the keys of
the house and therefore, he was liable to pay rents from
06.09.2019 till 05.03.2020. It was also stated that the
NC: 2024:KHC:13711
tenant was liable to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards
cost of repairs and as a consequence, the tenant was
raising a counter claim seeking recovery of Rs.1,31,700/-
along with future rents.
6. The Trial Court, on consideration of pleadings and
the evidence adduced before it, came to the conclusion
that the tenant was in arrears of rent at the rate of
Rs.13,100/- per month from 06.09.2019 till handing over
of possession and it also held that the advance amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- paid by the tenant to landlord was not in
dispute.
7. It was also noticed that, though the tenant claimed
that he had vacated the premises on 06.12.2019, the keys
were not actually handed over and only after the suit was
filed on 29.01.2020, an application was made on
07.11.2020 by the landlord seeking a direction to the
plaintiff/tenant to handover the keys and only thereafter
on 06.02.2021, the keys were handed over. The Trial
Court has therefore concluded that possession of the
NC: 2024:KHC:13711
house in question was handed over only on 06.02.2021
and consequently, the tenant will have to pay the rent till
that particular date.
8. The Trial Court, accordingly, proceeded to decree the
suit for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff.
The Trial Court also decreed the counter claim of the
landlord and directed the tenant to pay the arrears of rent
from 06.09.2019 till 06.02.2021 at the rate of Rs.13,100/-
The Trial Court has also directed the landlord to file a
memo of calculation after adjusting the security deposit
towards arrears of rent along with painting cost of
Rs.13,100/-. However, it has held that the landlord was
not entitled to claim a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards the
cost incurred for repair of the residential house in
question. This part of the order has not been challenged
by the landlord.
9. Thus, the only issue to be considered in this revision
is:
NC: 2024:KHC:13711
Whether the Trial Court was justified in coming
to the conclusion that the tenant was liable to
pay rents from 06.09.2019 to 06.02.2021?
10. The evidence on record clearly indicates that rents
were not paid from 06.09.2019 by the tenant. In fact, it
was averred in the plaint itself that the landlord tried to
forcibly evict the tenant and the landlord also refused to
share the bank account details to enable the tenant to
transfer the amount. The evidence on record also indicates
that on 01.10.2019, a legal notice was issued by the
tenant calling upon the landlord to stop threatening him
with eviction. It is therefore clear that the finding of the
Trial Court that the rents were not paid from 06.09.2019
was justified.
11. The evidence on record also indicates that the house
in question was handed over to the landlord only after an
application in this regard had been filed by the landlord on
07.11.2020. The Trial Court has also noticed that the keys
were handed over only on 06.02.2021 and consequently,
NC: 2024:KHC:13711
the tenant was liable to pay rents from 06.09.2019 till
06.02.2021. The Trial Court has noticed that the admitted
rent was Rs.13,100/- and it was also noticed that the
lease agreement provided for the tenant to pay one
month's rent towards painting cost. In my view, this
finding of the Trial Court that the tenant was liable for
arrears of rent from 06.09.2019 to 06.02.2021 at the rate
of Rs.13,100/- per month along with painting cost of
Rs.13,100/- (one month's rent) being based on sound
reasoning cannot be found fault with. Thus, the arrears of
rent that the tenant was liable to pay for this period would
be Rs.2,22,700/- (Rs.13,100 X 17 months) and after
adding the painting cost of Rs.13,100/-, the same would
come to Rs.2,35,800/- (Rs.2,22,700/- + Rs.13,100/-). As
a consequence, the tenant would be liable to pay to the
landlord a sum of Rs.1,35,800/- (Rs.2,35,800/- minus
Rs.1,00,000/-) after deducting the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
that was paid as security deposit. The said amount shall
be paid by the tenant to the landlord within a period of
NC: 2024:KHC:13711
one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PKS
