Karnataka High Court
M/S Liberty Shoes Limited vs Mr. Omprakash S/O Bhavaralal Joshi on 28 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4621-DB
COMAP No.100012 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
COMMERCIAL APPEALS NO.100012 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
M/S. LIBERTY SHOES LIMITED,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE,
AT GROUND FLOOR, BUILDING 8, TOWER A,
DLF CYBER CITY, PHASE II, GURUGRAM,
HARYANA STATE-122 002,
& HAVING ITS RETAIL OUTLET AT LIBERTY SHOES,
NEAR WESTERN TOWERS,
KIRLOSKAR ROAD, BELAGAVI-590 002.
R/BY STORE MANAGER, DHARWAD,
VISHAL
NINGAPPA MR. MOHAMMED IRFAN MALI
PATTIHAL
S/O MOHAMMED RAFIQ MALI,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. STORE MANAGER, DHARWAD,
Date: 2024.03.05
12:27:15 +0530 LIBERTY SHOES LIMITED, SHOP NO.66/13 B,
GROUND FLOOR, PB ROAD, DHARWAD-580 007.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ S BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MR. OMPRAKASH S/O. BHAVARLAL JOSHI
AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. LEGAL PRACTITIONER,
R/O. "RADHA KUNJ", 2414, KACHERI GALLI,
NAGORI CHAWL, NEAR GANAPATI TEMPLE,
SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI-590 003.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4621-DB
COMAP No.100012 of 2022
THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)
OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS, ACT, 2015, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.04.2022 IN COM.OS
NO.36/2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMERCIAL COURT AND
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
M.I.ARUN, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated
08.04.2022, passed in Com. O.S. No.36/2021, by the
Commercial Court & Principal District Judge, Belagavi, the
defendant therein has preferred this appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their status before the trial Court.
3. The plaintiff is the landlord and the defendant is
the tenant of the suit schedule property.
4. The defendant vacated the suit schedule
property on 09.02.2021. On the ground that the defendant
had not paid the rents for the period 01.04.2020 and
onwards, the plaintiff preferred Com. O.S. No.36/2021. It
is not in dispute that the property was a commercial
property and the dispute involved is a commercial dispute.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4621-DB
5. The defendant entered appearance and filed his
written statement denying the claim made by the plaintiff.
6. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed
the following issues and answered the same as mentioned
hereunder:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant
is liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,89,000/-
towards rent for the period 01.04.2020 to
28.02.2021?
2. Whether the defendant is also liable for
interest at 18% on the above said amount?
3. Whether the defendant proves that he
vacated the rented premises on 09.02.2021?
4. To what relief the parties entitled to?
5. What order?
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative.
Issue No.2 : Partly in the affirmative.
Issue No.3 : In the affirmative.
Issue No.4 : As per final order
Issue No.5 : As per final order.
7. The plaintiff to prove his case got himself
examined as PW1 and got marked 20 documents. As
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4621-DB
against this, the defendant has examined its Manager as
DW1 and got marked 9 documents.
8. The trial Court based on the pleadings and
evidence let-in has passed the following order:
"ORDER
The suit is hereby decreed with costs.
The defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff
a sum of Rs. 10,03,365/-with interest at the rate
of 9% per annum from the date of suit, until
realisation.
Defendant is directed to pay suit claim
amount to plaintiff within 3 months from the date
of this judgment, failing which, plaintiff is at liberty
to enforce the decree in accordance with law.
Draw decree accordingly."
9. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is
filed by the defendant therein.
10. The defendant admits the landlord and tenant
relationship between the plaintiff and defendant and that
the suit schedule property was taken on lease for a rent of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4621-DB
Rs.99,000/- per month. It is further submitted that a sum
of Rs.3,96,000/- was paid to the plaintiff as security
deposit refundable without interest when the defendant
vacate the suit schedule property.
11. Though, the defendant has contended that he
had taken the property on lease during the Covid period
and in law, he is entitled to some rebate at the hands of
the plaintiff, in the course of argument, the said
contention is given up and the defendant submits that he
would be happy, if the rental dues are calculated
appropriately.
12. It is submitted that the trial Court erred in
holding that the defendant is liable to pay a sum of
Rs.10,03,365/- in favour of the plaintiff after deducting a
sum of Rs.3,96,000/- security deposit lying with the
plaintiff. It is further submitted that the defendant is liable
to pay a sum of Rs.10,89,000/- towards 11 months for
which the rents have not been paid and that a sum of
Rs.3,96,000/- is already with the plaintiff and the same
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4621-DB
has to be adjusted towards the amount due with the
defendant.
13. The advocate for the plaintiff upon instructions
submits that he is agreeable for the same.
14. Thus, the plaintiff would be entitled to a sum of
Rs.6,93,000/- (Rs.10,89,000/- rental dues -
Rs.3,96,000/- security deposit lying with the plaintiff) as
against Rs.10,03,365/- as ordered by the trial Court.
15. With regard to the interest of 9% p.a. is
granted by the trial Court on the amounts due, we find the
same to be just and reasonable given the fact that the
transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant was
commercial in nature. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The defendant is liable to pay to the
plaintiff a sum of Rs.6,93,000/- with
interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the
date of the suit until realization along
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4621-DB
with costs of the suit as determined by
the trial Court.
(iii) The amount in deposit to the tune
payable to the plaintiff shall be released
in favour of the plaintiff and the balance
amount, if any, shall be released in
favour of the defendant.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
VNP/ CT : VP
