Karnataka High Court
Dr Sudhir Kumar vs Balaji Babu B S on 13 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6047
CRP No. 49 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 49 OF 2016 (SC)
BETWEEN:
DR. SUDHIR KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
S/O LATE ANOOPLAL,
R/AT NO.328, NEW NO.21,
H. SIDDAIAH ROAD,
9TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN,
OPP: BBMP MATERNITY HOSPITAL,
WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE - 560 027.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.C. RAVIKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
BALAJI BABU B.S,
Digitally S/O V. SANJEEVAPPA,
signed by H
K HEMA AGEDA BOUT 38 YEARS,
Location: SHOP NO.3, NO.328,
High Court
of Karnataka H. SIDDAIAH ROAD,
9TH CORSS, 5TH MAIN,
OPP: BBMP MATERNITY HOSPITAL,
WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE - 560 027.
...RESPONDENT
(VIDE ORDER DATED 02.08.2019 - NOTICE TO
RESPONDENT IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6047
CRP No. 49 of 2016
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.18 OF THE SMALL
CAUSES COURTS ACT., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE
RECORDS IN S.C.NO.309/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE
XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE (S.C.C.H-23),
BANGALORE AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 05.01.2016, passed in
S.C.No.309/2015 by the XXI Additional Small Causes
Judge and XIX ACMM Member-MACT, Bangalore, the
plaintiff therein has preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of
the suit schedule property and the respondent is the
tenant.
3. It is contended that the respondent committed
default in payment of the rents and further, the tenancy
was a monthly tenancy and as the petitioner wanted the
property for his own use, he terminated the tenancy by
issuance of notice dated 13.12.2011 and thereafter, filed
NC: 2024:KHC:6047
HRC No.43/2014 and realizing that the same was not
maintainable withdrew the same and filed
S.C.No.309/2015.
4. It is further contended that, however, the trial Court
without considering the case on merits, has dismissed his
petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision
Petition is filed.
5. It is seen from the records that the petitioner herein
has issued a notice dated 13.12.2011 to the respondent
contending that he is the landlord of the suit schedule
property and that the respondent is a chronic defaulter in
payment of rents and that the lease in favour of
respondent is a monthly lease. As the petitioner is
desirous of utilizing the property for his own purposes, he
is terminating the tenancy and has demanded that the
respondent to quit and deliver the vacant possession of
the suit schedule property.
NC: 2024:KHC:6047
6. The respondent in turn has issued a reply dated
30.12.2011 and in the said reply, he admits the tenancy,
but denies the allegations that he is a chronic defaulter
and he has refused to vacate the suit schedule property.
The petitioner thereafter, has filed S.C.No.309/2015 with
the following prayers:
"WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a
judgment and decree directing the
Defendant to quit, vacate and deliver the
vacant possession of the suit schedule
premises.
Direct the Defendant to pay damage
of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of
the suit till the actual vacating the premises
take place.
Further pass such other relief/relief's
as this Hon'ble Court may think deem fit to
grant in the circumstances of the case
including cost in the interest of justice and
equity."
7. The respondent filed his written statement denying
the allegations made in the plaint and prayed for dismissal
NC: 2024:KHC:6047
of the same. The petitioner has examined himself as PW1
and has produced six documents i.e., Exs.P1 to P16,
including a copy of the legal notice and the reply notice.
The respondent has not cross-examined the plaintiff nor
has let in any evidence.
8. The trial Court on the ground that the legal notice
was issued on 13.12.2011 and the HRC petition was filed
on 12.03.2014 and S.C.No.309/2015 is filed on
25.03.2015, which is after four years of issuance of notice
and that an eviction petition ought to be filed within 15
days after the issuance of the legal notice, dismissed the
suit of the plaintiff.
9. The reading of Exs.P3 and P5, which are the notices
issued by the petitioner and the reply notice issued by the
respondent, reveals that there is a landlord and tenant
relationship between the petitioner and the respondent.
The said notices also reveals that the petitioner has
terminated the tenancy of the respondent on two grounds,
that he requires the property for his own use and that the
NC: 2024:KHC:6047
respondent has not paid the rents and he is a chronic
defaulter of the same.
10. In the small cause case suit filed by the petitioner, he
has prayed for the eviction of the respondent from the
schedule premises and damages of Rs.10,000/- per month
from the date of the suit till the respondent is vacated
from the premises. However, in the evidence, no material
is placed as to why he is demanding Rs.10,000/- per
month. Under the said circumstances, a question of
granting any damages does not arise.
11. The only question that arise for consideration is
whether the petitioner is entitled to have the respondent
evicted from the suit schedule property.
12. The trial Court has dismissed the suit on the ground
that the same ought to have been filed within a period of
fifteen days from the date of issuance of notice, which is
grossly erroneous.
NC: 2024:KHC:6047
13. Article 67 of the Limitation Act, reads as under:
Description of Period of Time from which
suit limitation period begins to
run
67. By a landlord Twelve years When the tenancy is
to recover determined
possession from a
tenant.
14. Thus, the limitation for initiating a proceeding by the
landlord to recover possession of a property from the
tenant is twelve years from the date of terminating the
tenancy, which in this case has been done by issuing a
notice dated 13.12.2011 and the suit has been filed on
25.03.2015, which is well within the limitation.
15. The trial Court erred in dismissing the suit nearly
based on the ground of limitation without examining the
same on merits.
16. Admittedly, the petitioner/plaintiff has not been
cross-examined nor any evidence has been letin by the
NC: 2024:KHC:6047
respondent/defendant. The petitioner in the course of the
trial, has marked the following documents:
"LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF
OF THE PLAINTIFF
PW-1: Dr.Sudhir Kumar
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
THE PLAINTIFF
Ex.P-1: CC of order sheet in HRC No.43/2014
Ex.P-2: CC of Katha extract
Ex.P-3: CC of legal notice
Ex.P-4: CC of acknowledgment
Ex.P-5: CC of reply notice
Ex.P-6: CC of certificate issued by IMA
certificate"
17. The said documents establish that there has been a
landlord and tenant relationship between the petitioner
and the respondent. The reply notice (Ex.P5) issued by the
respondent admits the same. By issuance of the legal
notice at Ex.P3, the petitioner has terminated the tenancy
of the respondent in the manner known to law. Having
NC: 2024:KHC:6047
terminated the same, he has preferred S.C.No.309/2015
within the period of limitation. The respondent being a
tenant and his tenancy being terminated in accordance
with law, as to quit and deliver the vacant possession of
the suit schedule property in favour of the petitioner
herein.
18. For the said reasons, the following order is passed:
ORDER
i. The judgment and decree dated
05.01.2016, passed in S.C.No.309/2015
by the XXI Additional Small Causes Judge
and XIX ACMM Member-MACT, Bangalore
is hereby set aside.
ii. The respondent is hereby directed to quit
and deliver the vacant possession of the
suit schedule property within a period of
four months from today.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6047
iii. The claim of the petitioner for payment
of Rs.10,000/- per month as damages
from the date of filing of
S.C.No.309/2015 till the vacation of the
suit schedule property is hereby rejected.
iv. No order as to costs.
SD/-
JUDGE
CH
CT: BHK
