Karnataka High Court
Sri Neeraj Gupta vs Sri Nimbuja Devi Temple Trust (R) on 7 June, 2024
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:19965
RFA No. 874 of 2022
C/W RFA No. 875 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.874 OF 2022 (RES)
C/W
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.875 OF 2022 (RES)
IN RFA NO.874/2022
BETWEEN:
SRI. NEERAJ GUPTA,
S/O N.D. GUPTA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO.31, JYOTHI BUILDING,
B.V.K. IYENGAR ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 053.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PULAKESHI A.P., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by AND:
BASAVARAJU PAVITHRA
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
SRI. NIMBUJA DEVI TEMPLE TRUST (R),
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.94,
4TH FLOOR, B.V.K. IYENGAR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 053
REPRESENTED BY ITS
1. THE PRESIDENT,
SRI. B.K. VENKATESHA JETTY,
S/O SRI. B.K. KRISHNA JETTY,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:19965
RFA No. 874 of 2022
C/W RFA No. 875 of 2022
R/AT NO.35, 5TH 'A' BLOCK,
KORMANGALA LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-560 095.
2. THE SECRETARY,
SRI. JAGANNATH A JETTY,
S/O SRI. A. ANANTHAPADMANABHA JETTY,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT NO.25,
VENKUSAHUJA LANE,
CHICKPET,
BANGALORE-560 053.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41
RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 17.02.2022 PASSED IN OS No.2258/2016 ON THE FILE
OF THE LXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EVICTION,
DAMAGES AND ARREARS OF RENT.
IN RFA NO.875/2022
BETWEEN:
SRI. NEERAJ GUPTA,
S/O N.D. GUPTA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO.31, JYOTHI BUILDING,
B.V.K. IYENGAR ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 053.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PULAKESHI A.P., ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:19965
RFA No. 874 of 2022
C/W RFA No. 875 of 2022
AND:
SRI. NIMBUJA DEVI TEMPLE TRUST (R),
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.94,
4TH FLOOR, B.V.K. IYENGAR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 053
REPRESENTED BY ITS
1. THE PRESIDENT,
SRI. B.K. VENKATESHA JETTY,
S/O SRI. B.K. KRISHNA JETTY,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT NO.35, 5TH 'A' BLOCK,
KORMANGALA LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-560 095.
2. THE SECRETARY,
SRI. JAGANNATH A JETTY,
S/O SRI. A. ANANTHAPADMANABHA JETTY,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT NO.25,
VENKUSAHUJA LANE,
CHICKPET,
BANGALORE-560 053.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.02.2022 PASSED IN
OS No.2255/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE LXVIII ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY,
DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT AND DAMAGES.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:19965
RFA No. 874 of 2022
C/W RFA No. 875 of 2022
JUDGMENT
Appeals are filed by the defendant in O.S.2258/2022. Suit
for eviction is decreed. Therefore, the defendant in both the
appeals have preferred these appeals.
2. Parties in this appeal are referred to as per their rank
in the Trial Court.
3. The plaintiff has filed suit for eviction against the
defendant contenting that the plaintiff is a Temple Trust and
having some immovable properties which have been given on
rent basis to the defendant. The plaintiff has filed suit for
eviction after notice under Section 6 of the Transfer of Property
Act and the suit came to be decreed. Against this the
defendant has preferred these two appeals for two different
properties let out to him.
3. Though the defendant has appeared through Advocate
and filed written statement but has not given any evidence
either oral or documentary. The plaintiff No.2 being the
Secretary of the Temple Trust is examined as PW.1 and got
marked exhibits P.1 to P.10. The defendant has not examined
NC: 2024:KHC:19965
any witness and has not got marked any documentary
evidence.
4. After hearing the arguments, the Trial Court framed the
issues as follows :
"1. Whether the plaintiff-Trust proves that it is the owner of
the suit property and defendant is the tenant of the suit
property under it?
2. Whether the plaintiff-Trust proves that there is valid
termination of tenancy of defendant?
3. Whether the plaintiff-Trust proves that defendant is in
arrears of rent of Rs.92,444/- from January-2015 to
22-01-2016?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages of
Rs.1,00,000/- per month from 22/1/2016 till handing over of
vacant possession of Suit Schedule Property by the
defendant?
5. What Order/Decree?
and the Trial Court held that the plaintiff Trust proved that it is
the owner of the suit property and defendant is a tenant and
tenancy was terminated and defendant was in arrears of rent
and accordingly, decreed the suit.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the
defendant has preferred these two appeals.
NC: 2024:KHC:19965
6. Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the
records.
7. The plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule premises.
The defendant has admitted that the plaintiff Trust is the owner
of the suit property and also the defendant has admitted that
he is the tenant over the suit property. The only contention
taken by the defendant is that the plaintiff Trust has not
produced document of registration and questioned the entity of
the Trust. Exhibits P.1 and P.2 are the katha extracts and
katha certificates respectively. Ex.P.8 is the by-law book of
Plaintiff's Trust, Ex.P.9 is the certified copy of the resolution
and Ex.P.10 is the minutes of meeting book which proved that
plaintiff Trust is a registered Trust and is in existence. Contrary
to this, there is no evidence by the defendant. The defendant
has not disputed that he is the tenant of the suit premises of
the plaintiff Trust. Therefore, the trial Court after considering
the oral and documentary evidence on record has rightly held
that the plaintiff Trust proves that it is the owner of the suit
property and defendant is the tenant of the suit property.
NC: 2024:KHC:19965
8. Since the defendant has committed default of rent
payment, plaintiff has got issued legal notice and has given him
15 days time to hand over vacant possession of the property
which is received by the defendant. Therefore, valid termination
of tenancy is proved. The Trial Court while appreciating the
material on record has held that the plaintiff Trust proves that
defendant is in arrears of Rs.92,444/- from January, 2015 to
January, 2016 and accordingly, held the defendant is liable to
pay arrears of rent as claimed by the plaintiff Trust. Thus,
there is no perversity or illegality found in the judgment passed
by the trial Court. Therefore, there is no material found in the
lis and it is liable to the dismissed in the admission stage itself.
Therefore, the appeals are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
rs
