Karnataka High Court
Chinnaswamy.K vs Theosophy Company (Mysore) Pvt Ltd on 9 May, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:17140
CRP No. 483 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 483 OF 2023 (SC)
BETWEEN:
CHINNASWAMY.K,
S/O LATE MUNIREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
R/AT No.5, MYTHRI BHAVAN,
M.N.KRISHNA RAO ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BANGALORE-560 004.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.N.SATHYA RAJ., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THEOSOPHY COMPANY (MYSORE) PVT LTD.,
MYTHRI BHAVAN, No.4
Digitally
signed by M.N.KRISHNA RAO ROAD,
KIRAN
KUMAR R BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560 004.
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF REPRESENTED BY SRI.SRIKANTA PRASANNA,
KARNATAKA
& SRI.M.L.RAMAPRAKASH.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. AJAY KADKOL.T., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2023 PASSED IN SC
No.1507/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:17140
CRP No. 483 of 2023
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 28.02.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The present revision petition is preferred seeking
quashing of the judgment and decree dated 08.06.2023 in
S.C. No. 1507/2017 on the file of IX ASCJ, Small Causes
an Addl. MACT, Bangalore, allowing the respondent's suit
for ejectment with a direction to the petitioner herein to
vacate the suit schedule property and hand over
possession of the same to the respondent herein.
2. The respondent-Company contends that the
petitioner was appointed at their establishment as a
watchman and as per the terms of this employment, the
petitioner herein was given medical benefits as well as
rent-free quarters for the purpose of accommodation in the
schedule property that belonged to the Company. The
petitioner attained the age of superannuation on
30.11.2016 but refused to vacate the schedule property. It
NC: 2024:KHC:17140
was further contended that upon receiving no response to
the legal notice sent by the respondent-Company, a suit
for eviction was filed against the petitioner herein in S.C.
No. 1507/2017, which came to be decreed in their favour.
Hence the present revision petition.
3. Per contra, it is the contention of the petitioner that
the defendant herein is a non-existent company and that
his family had perfected their title to the suit schedule
property by way of adverse possession, and, for this
reason, the suit for eviction was not maintainable. The
petitioner also averred that he was not employed by the
plaintiff-company but was selling vegetables in the
neighbourhood along with his father, in addition to
engaging in some gardening work in the area. It is further
stated that since the suit schedule building was in a
dilapidated condition, the petitioner's family restored the
same and began living in it.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that
the respondent-company is not in existence and that the
NC: 2024:KHC:17140
defendants therein are not the actual owners of the suit
property.
5. The main dispute arising in this petition is regarding
the existence of the jural relationship of a 'landlord and
tenant' by virtue of the petitioner being given a rent-free
accommodation as a condition to his employment and the
entitlement of the respondent-company to secure
possession by initiation of eviction proceedings.
6. Upon perusal of the records, it is evident that the
respondent-Company has produced its Articles of
Association as well as the Memorandum of Association to
prove that they were an existing Company. They have also
produced their Income Tax Returns filed in the name of the
respondent-Company, their bank statements, certificate
issued by a company secretary, and balance sheets, in
addition to a certified copy of the certificate of
incorporation for having been registered under the Mysore
Company's Act, 1938 to establish that the plaintiff-
company was not a defunct company. In light of the
NC: 2024:KHC:17140
documents produced by the respondent-company, the Trial
Court was absolutely justified in recording a finding to that
effect.
7. The respondent--Company also produced a
registered gift deed (Ex. P-40) and also the Khatha
certificates which indicated that the Khata was registered
in its name to establish its ownership of the schedule
property and on the basis of these records, the Trial Court
was right in recording a finding that the suit property did
belong to the respondent-plaintiff.
8. The petitioner, however, took up the plea that his
father was in adverse possession and, thereafter, he was
in adverse possession of the premises and the
respondent--Company had no title over the suit property.
The petitioner also denied the contention of the
respondent--company that the petitioner was its employee
and that he was provided the rent-free accommodation. In
fact, the petitioner also set up a plea that the property
belonged to the BBMP and one Ramaswamy Reddy had
NC: 2024:KHC:17140
created documents in respect of the suit property and had
also created bogus mortgage deeds in favour of various
banks, and had ultimately alienated it to Mr. Wadia and
thus no title could have been conveyed by said
Ramaswamy Reddy.
9. The Trial Court has, as already stated above,
recorded a clear finding regarding the title of the
respondent--Company over the suit property as there was
a registered gift deed executed in its favour by Mr. Wadia
in the year 1952, and the Khata certificates produced also
indicated that the Khata had been registered in the name
of the respondent--Company.
10. As for the contention of the respondent--Company
that the petitioner was its employee and was given rent-
free accommodation, the Trial Court has noticed that as
per Exs.P-4, P-5 and P-6, the appointment of the petitioner
as a watchman stood proved. The Trial Court has also
noticed that as per the bank statement (Ex. P-13) and the
salary register (Ex. P-14), the petitioner had been paid
NC: 2024:KHC:17140
salary regularly. The Trial Court has also noticed that the
respondent-company had taken out a LIC policy in favour
of the petitioner and was remitting the premium towards
the policy and it has also recorded a finding that it had
reimbursed the medical expenses when the petitioner
underwent a procedure and it has thereafter clearly
recorded a finding that the petitioner was, in fact, an
employee of the respondent--Company. In my view, this
finding recorded by the Trial Court is on the basis of clear
documentary evidence which established, without any
doubt, that the petitioner was an employee of the
respondent-company cannot be found fault with.
11. In Ex. P-5, the memorandum dated 11.4.2003, it is
stated as follows:
"As per decision taken by the Company Sri K.Chinna
Swamy was sanctioned an annual increment inhis
salary by Rs.150 w.e.f. 1.1.2002. When Sri
Chinnaswamy was paid the increment in January
2002 he accepted the same under protest that he
was entitled to higher salary. Again when he was
paid the next annual increment during January 2003
NC: 2024:KHC:17140
he refused to accept the same saying that employees
of the status as himself are paid Rs. 4500 p.m. and
more.
The Council of Management of the Company in their
meeting held on 2.3.2003 considered in detail the
question of payment of salary to Sri. K.Chinna
Swamy. The Council noted that at present Sri.
K.Chinna Swamy is in receipt of the following
emoluments and perquisites:
1. Monthly salary of Rs.2560
2. Monthly recurring deposit in his name (the
accumulated amount of which is being further
invested as to give him maximum financial
benefit) Rs.500 p.m.
3. Payment of premium on his life insurance
policy for Rs. One laksh @ Rs.5440 p.a. or an
amount of Rs.453 p.m.
Total emoluments Rs.3513-00 p.m
The council further noted that Sri. K.Chinna Swamy
has been extended the facility of rent-free residential
accommodation with free water supply and free
electricity supply.
The Council also noted that as a measure of staff
welfare a fixed deposit of Rs.35000 has been made
NC: 2024:KHC:17140
in his name it is earning compound interest being
added to the principal; in fact that fixed deposit is
being augmented by adding the formulated
Recurring Deposit of Rs. 500 p.m. made in his name;
and in fact that whole accumulated amount together
with the interest and would be handed over to
Sri.K.Chinna Swamy at the time of his retirement
from the employment of the Company.
On top of all this the Company has borne the brunt
of his medical expenses in the past.
The total consideration of all the relevant factors and
in appreciation the good work being done by Sri.
K.Chinna Swamy the Company has resolved to
sanction to Sri. K.Chinna Swamy an annual
increment of Rs.200-00 (in lieu of Rs.150.p.m. now
being drawn) w.e.f 1.1.2003. The Council further
resolved that this annual increment will be paid only
till the monthly salary of Sri.K.Chinna Swamy
touches the limit of Rs.3000-00. Other perquisites as
above noted will continue as before.
The Council of Management is of the view the terms
herein offered are fair to Sri.K.Chinna Swamy and to
the Company which is but a non-profit making
charitable organization with limited source of income.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17140
One copy of this memorandum will be signed by
Sri.K.Chinna Swamy and returned to the Company
for the Company's record."
12. As could be seen from the above, it is manifestly
clear that the petitioner was an employee of the
respondent--Company and he was also provided a rent-
free accommodation. This memorandum also contains the
signature of the petitioner, signifying his assent to the
terms of the employment. This document, coupled with the
salary register and the bank statement which establishes
regular payment of salary to the petitioner, proves without
any doubt that he was an employee of the respondent--
Company and had been provided with the suit property as
rent-free accommodation as a perquisite of his
employment.
13. It must be noticed here that providing of a rent-free
accommodation, as a term of employment, would create a
jural relationship of a 'landlord and tenant' even between
an employer and an employee. This is because, the
component of rent is a part of his emolument which results
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17140
in an employee getting a reduced salary. The Trial Court
was thus justified in coming to the conclusion that there
did exist a jural relationship and the suit filed for eviction
was perfectly maintainable and the plea of adverse
possession sought to be raised was a false and specious
plea.
14. The Trial Court has duly considered the material on
record and has passed a reasoned and elaborate order,
and has rightly ordered the petitioner to deliver possession
to the respondent--Company.
15. Consequently, I find no merit to interfere with the
order passed by the Trial Court and the present revision
petition is, therefore, dismissed.
16. In my view, having regard to the fact that the
petitioner chose to take up a false plea regarding adverse
possession and also questioned the title of his employer
who had provided him rent-free accommodation apart
from a regular salary in addition to a recurring deposit
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17140
account and a LIC policy in his name, this would be an
appropriate case to saddle the petitioner with exemplary
costs of Rs. 50,000/-.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PKS/P
