[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Samyuktha Systems & Software Ltd vs M/S Shri Chitrapur Math on 16 December, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:53966
RFA No. 1013 of 2010
C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010
RFA No. 1014 of 2010
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1013 OF 2010 (RES)
C/W
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1004 OF 2010 (RES)
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1014 OF 2010 (RES)
IN R.F.A.NO. 1013/2010:
BETWEEN:
SAMYUKTHA SYSTEMS & SOFTWARE LTD
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.6-C,
6TH FLOOR, CHITRAPURA BHAVAN,
15TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE-55 REPRESENTED
BY ITS CHAIRPERSON
SMT. SHOBHANA S. RAO.,
MAJOR
WIFE OF SRI. J.S. RAO
Digitally signed by
PRASHANTH N V PRESENTLY RESIDENT OF
Location: High NO.803, SHRI CHITRAPURA HOUSING
Court of
Karnataka SOCIETY, 15TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE - 55
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. D.R. RAVI SHANKAR, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. HARISH KUMAR C, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. ACHINTH A. SARVESH, ADVOCATE AND
SRI. RISHI .S. CHUGH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S. SHRI CHITRAPUR MATH
132, 15TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE - 55, A PUBLIC TRUST
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:53966
RFA No. 1013 of 2010
C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010
RFA No. 1014 of 2010
HC-KAR
REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF THE BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUSTS ACT,
REPRESENTED STANDING COMMITTEE,
SRI. N. MURALIDHAR
2. M/S. LADDAR CONSULTANCY SERVICE
PVT. LTD, HEAD OFFICE 27/2-A,
RAMESHWARAM ROAD, T. NAGAR,
CHENNAI-600 017, ALSO AT BRANCH
OFFICE AT CHITRAPUR BHAVAN,
5TH FLOOR, OFFICE NO.5 D NO. 68,
8TH MAIN, MALLESWARAM BANGALORE-55
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI RAMANAN,
V CHITRAPUR BHAVAN, 5TH FLOOR
OFFICE NO.5 D NO. 68, 8TH MAIN,
MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE - 560 055
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE FOR R1
V/O DT.2/2/15, NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W)
THIS R.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:26.02.2010 PASSED IN
O.S.7776/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND
RECOVERY OF ARREARS OF RENT.
IN R.F.A.NO. 1004/2010
BETWEEN:
SAMYUKTHA SYSTEMS & SOFTWARE LTD
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.6-C,
6TH FLOOR, CHITRAPURA BHAVAN, 15TH CROSS,
8TH MAIN MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-55
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON
SMT. SHOBHANA S. RAO., MAJOR
WIFE OF SRI. J.S. RAO
PRESENTLY RESIDENT OF
NO.803, SHRI CHITRAPURA HOUSING
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:53966
RFA No. 1013 of 2010
C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010
RFA No. 1014 of 2010
HC-KAR
SOCIETY, 15TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE - 55
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. D.R. RAVI SHANKAR, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. HARISH KUMAR C, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. ACHINTH A. SARVESH, ADVOCATE AND
SRI. RISHI .S. CHUGH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S. SHRI CHITRAPUR MATH
132, 15TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE - 55, A PUBLIC TRUST
REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF THE BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUSTS ACT,
REPRESENTED STANDING COMMITTEE,
SRI. N. MURALIDHAR
2. M/S ORCHIDSOFT INDIA P LTD
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING
ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.OLD
NO.33, NEW NO.41, SHANKARA PARK,
BANGALORE - 560 004
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE FOR R1
V/O DT.28/10/10, NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W)
THIS R.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:26.02.2010 PASSED IN
O.S.7775/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND
RECOVERY OF ARREARS OF RENT.
IN R.F.A.NO. 1014/2010
BETWEEN:
M/S. SAMYUKTHA COMPUTER SERVICES PVT. LTD
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:53966
RFA No. 1013 of 2010
C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010
RFA No. 1014 of 2010
HC-KAR
PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.6-C,
6TH FLOOR, CHITRAPURA BHAVAN, 15TH CROSS,
8TH MAIN MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-55
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON
SMT. SHOBHANA S. RAO., MAJOR
WIFE OF SRI. J.S. RAO
PRESENTLY RESIDENT OF
NO.803, SHRI CHITRAPURA HOUSING
SOCIETY, 15TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE - 55
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. D.R. RAVI SHANKAR, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. HARISH KUMAR C, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. ACHINTH A. SARVESH, ADVOCATE AND
SRI. RISHI .S. CHUGH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S. SHRI CHITRAPUR MATH
132, 15TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE - 55, A PUBLIC TRUST
REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF THE BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUSTS ACT,
REPRESENTED STANDING COMMITTEE,
SRI. N. MURALIDHAR
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS R.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:26.02.2010 PASSED IN
O.S.7777/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND
RECOVERY OF ARREARS OF RENT.
THESE R.F.AS. HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 19.11.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:53966
RFA No. 1013 of 2010
C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010
RFA No. 1014 of 2010
HC-KAR
CAV COMMON JUDGMENT
The appellant in these appeals being defendant No.1 in
OS.Nos.7776/1998, 7775/1998 and 7777/1998 on the file of
the learned XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru
(hereinafter referred as to 'the Trial Court' for short), is
impugning the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2010,
decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for possession and for arrears
of rent and directing defendant No.1 to vacate the premises
and to hand over the vacant possession to the plaintiff within
four months from the date of judgment and also to pay the
arrears of rent and continue to pay the periodical rent.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be
referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiff filed the
suit OS.No.7776/1998 before the Trial Court against the
defendants seeking vacant possession of Schedule-B property
and for arrears of rent and other dues i.e., a sum of
Rs.58,772/- with interest at 18% per annum till realisation and
also to pay periodical rent during the pendency of suit.
Schedule-B attached to the plaint describes 1,870 sq.feet of
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:53966
RFA No. 1013 of 2010
C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010
RFA No. 1014 of 2010
HC-KAR
office space identified as No.6-C on the 6th floor of the multi
storied building, Chitrapurbavan situated at No.68 (old
No.742), 8th Main Road, Malleshwaram (hereinafter referred to
as 'the schedule property'). Schedule-A attached to the plaint
describes the entire piece and parcel of their land, bearing
Corporation No.68 (old No.742) situated at 15th cross of which
Schedule-B property is a portion.
4. It is the contention of the plaintiff that it is a
Charitable Institution as defined under Hindu Charitable and
Endowments Act. It is a Public Religious Trust registered under
the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act, having its Central
Office at Shiralikkanara, Uttar Kannada District and it also has a
branch at Bengaluru. The plaint is signed by the authorized
signatory.
5. It is stated that the provisions of Karnataka Rent
Control Act is not applicable to the premises as the plaintiff is a
Charitable Trust. Defendant is a Private Limited Company
incorporated under Company Act, 1956, of which, Smt.Shobana
Rao is the Managing Director and is representing the Company.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:53966
RFA No. 1013 of 2010
C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010
RFA No. 1014 of 2010
HC-KAR
6. The plaintiff contended that it is the absolute owner
in possession of Schedule-A property. During 1980, the plaintiff
formed a scheme for construction of commercial complex in the
portion of property, comprising of office premises and parking
space. Accordingly, the construction was completed on
Schedule-A.
7. Defendant was intending to open an office at
Bengaluru and approached the plaintiff for providing the office
space. The plaintiff agreed for the same. A lease deed dated
19.03.1991 was entered into between the plaintiff and the
defendant creating a lease for a period of 45 years in respect of
Schedule-B property. As per the terms of lease, defendant was
to pay an advance amount of Rs.4,57,500/- at the rate of
Rs.250/- per Sq.ft, being interest free advance, which is not
refundable on expiry of the lease period. Defendant agreed to
pay rent at the rate of Rs.1.20/- per Sq.ft, totaling to
Rs.2,244/- per annum. Defendant agreed to pay the same,
quarterly in advance amounting to Rs.561/- per quarter. There
was an agreement to increase the rate of rent by 10% once in
five years. If the defendant commits default in payment of rent
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:53966
RFA No. 1013 of 2010
C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010
RFA No. 1014 of 2010
HC-KAR
for over six months, the plaintiff is entitled to re-enter the
premises and the defendant was duty bound to hand over the
possession of the premises.
8. It is contented by the plaintiff that as per clause 4
of part-B of the lease deed, the defendant was also liable to
pay maintenance and service charges for every month as
computed in respect of the leased premises. The failure on the
part of the defendant to pay such charges within the end of
calendar month would attract penal interest at 15% per annum
and he is also liable for eviction.
9. It is contented that the defendant is a chronic
defaulter in payment of rent and maintenance charges right
from the beginning. As on 31.08.1998, the defendant was in
arrears of a sum of Rs.58,772/-. The plaintiff made repeated
requests to pay the arrears and to pay the rent regularly. The
defendant vide its letters dated 31.12.1997 - Ex.P10 and
09.01.1998 - Ex.P12 while admitting that there are arrears of
rent and other dues, promised to pay all the arrears in monthly
instalments of Rs.20,000/- each. But the defendant has not
made any payment pursuant to the promise made.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:53966
RFA No. 1013 of 2010
C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010
RFA No. 1014 of 2010
HC-KAR
10. The plaintiff contended that the defendant started
showing hostile attitude without paying the arrears, and
therefore, the plaintiff got issued the legal notice dated
10.06.1998 - Ex.P17, terminating the lease, demanding the
arrears of rent, and seeking delivery of vacant possession of
Schedule-B property. The said notice was served on the
defendant on 12.06.1998. The defendant has neither replied
nor complied with the demands made therein. Therefore, the
plaintiff filed the suit for possession, arrears of rent and other
dues. During pendency of this suit, M/s Orchidsoft India Private
Limited is impleaded as defendant No.2.
11. Defendant No.1 appeared before the Trial Court and
filed the written statement admitting that it has entered into a
lease agreement with the plaintiff under the lease deed dated
19.03.1991 in respect of Schedule-B property for a period of 45
years. The rate of rent and other terms as stated by the
plaintiff is also admitted. It is contented that as per the terms
of lease deed, which was for a period from 12.10.1988 to
11.10.2033, the lessee was given an option for extension of
period for another 45 years, subject to the terms and
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53966
RFA No. 1013 of 2010
C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010
RFA No. 1014 of 2010
HC-KAR
conditions mutually agreeable within one year prior to expiry of
the lease, subject to executing a fresh lease deed. Defendant
admitted that, in case of failure to pay the rent along with
interest as agreed, the lesser is entitled to terminate the lease
and exercise the right of re-entry. It is contented that the
defendant has paid rent of Rs.16,572/- as part payment
through cheque dated 25.05.1996 and the same is
acknowledged by the plaintiff. Therefore, it is contented that
the averments made in the plaint that the defendant has not
made any payment towards rent is denied.
12. It is contented that one Shri. J.S. Rao, the
Managing Director of defendant - Company was associated with
the Mutt since 1979 in both housing and commercial complex of
Chitrapur Mutt. He was the retired Commissioner of Income
Tax Department and he was the brain behind various projects
undertaken by the plaintiff. Therefore, it is contented that the
defendant - Company is not only a lessee, but also part of the
plaintiff's Mutt.
13. The defendant admitted that as per clause 4 of
part-B of the lease agreement, he is liable to discharge all
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53966
RFA No. 1013 of 2010
C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010
RFA No. 1014 of 2010
HC-KAR
cesses, taxes, outgoings such as electrical, water and sanitation
charges, expenses of routine maintenance including painting,
whitewashing, lift, lighting and other items of common services,
or repairs or renewals of proportional taxes or any other taxes,
that may be levied from the Government or local authority, and
contented that the defendant is maintaining the schedule
property and paying all the dues promptly, as per the lease
agreement.
14. The defendant admitted that, he is liable to pay the
maintenance of the complex as regards to common utility
services. However, he contends that there are in all 30 lessees
of which, the defendant is occupying only one portion.
Therefore, the monthly maintenance amount will have to be
shared by all the 30 lessees. It shall be calculated on actual
expenditure incurred. The plaintiff has to give the account as to
the actual expenditure incurred towards maintenance. He has
not given accounts with regard to the same. Under such
circumstances, the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant
is due to a sum of Rs.1,06,671/- is denied. As regards arrears
of maintenance as contented by the plaintiff, it is contented
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53966
RFA No. 1013 of 2010
C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010
RFA No. 1014 of 2010
HC-KAR
that the defendant is maintaining his portion of the premises by
paying all charges. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff towards
arrears of maintenance is totally arbitrary and baseless.
15. The defendant has denied the authority of the Vice-
President of the Standing Committee to file and maintain the
suit. The defendant contended that, he is liable to pay rent of
Rs.443/- per quarter which is less than Rs.500/- and therefore,
the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is also
contented that the statutory notice as required under Section
106 of the Transfer of Property Act, was not issued. Hence, the
suit is not maintainable. Therefore, the defendant prayed for
dismissal of the suit.
16. Defendant No.2 also filed a written statement
contending that the suit against it is not maintainable, as no
relief is claimed against it. Pursuant to an advertisement in an
English daily newspaper, defendant No.2 had approached
defendant No.1 seeking tenancy in respect of Schedule-B
property. A lease deed dated 05.02.2004 was executed and
defendant No.2 paid the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as refundable
interest free deposit and agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs.15
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53966
RFA No. 1013 of 2010
C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010
RFA No. 1014 of 2010
HC-KAR
per Sq.ft., The lease period was for 33 months. Defendant
No.2 paid the rent to defendant No.1 promptly. It is also
contented that after the lease period, defendant No.2 vacated
and handed over the possession of the lease schedule property
to defendant No.1 on 31.10.2006. Therefore, prayed for
dismissal of the suit against it.
17. On the basis of these pleadings, the Trial Court
framed the following issues:
"1) Whether Sri. N Muralidhar is competent to file
this suit on behalf of Shri.Chitrapur Math, Bangalore?
2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants
breached the terms of lease agreement?
3) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant
is in arrears of rent and other dues amounting to
Rs.528,772/- as on the date of the suit?
4) Whether the plaintiff proves that it terminated
that tenancy of the defence in accordance with law?
5) Whether the suit is barred under Section 21 of
Rent Control Act?
6) What decree or order?"
18. The plaintiff examined PW.1 and got marked
Exs.P1 to 19 in support of its his contention. Defendants
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53966
RFA No. 1013 of 2010
C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010
RFA No. 1014 of 2010
HC-KAR
examined DWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.D1 to 95 in support
of their defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration
all these materials on record, answered issue Nos.1 to 5 in the
affirmative and decreed the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for,
directing defendant No.1 to vacate Schedule-B premises and
handover the vacant premises to the plaintiff within four
months from the date of judgment and also to pay arrears of
rent upto date, while dismissing the suit against defendant
No.2.
19. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 has
preferred RFA.No.1013/2010.
20. The plaintiff has filed similar suits in
OS.Nos.7775/1998 and 7777/1998 in respect of two other
premises which are described in Schedule-B, referring to the
lease deed with similar terms and seeking vacant possession
and arrears of rent from the defendant.
21. The defendant has appeared before the Trial Court
and filed written statements taking similar defence. The Trial
Court framed similar issues and after referring to the oral and
documentary evidence led by the parties, proceeded to pass
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53966
RFA No. 1013 of 2010
C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010
RFA No. 1014 of 2010
HC-KAR
the impugned judgments, which are challenged in
RFA.Nos.1004/2010 and 1014/2010.
22. Since the contentions of parties in all these suits
and the appeals are one and the same and the parties are also
common, all the three appeals are taken up for common
discussion.
23. Heard Sri. Sridhar Prabhu, learned counsel for the
respondent. Perused the materials including the Trial Court
records.
24. Learned advocate on record for the appellant even
though present before the Court has not addressed his
arguments inspite of granting sufficient opportunity. However,
finally he requested the Court to proceed with the matter with
liberty to file written submissions. Accordingly, written
arguments of the appellant with list of authorities is filed.
25. Learned counsel for the appellant filed the written
submission admitting execution of three lease deeds in respect
of the premises which are the subject matter of three suits
before the Trial Court. By re-iterating the terms of lease
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53966
RFA No. 1013 of 2010
C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010
RFA No. 1014 of 2010
HC-KAR
agreement, he contended that the claim of the plaintiff
regarding arrears of rent and maintenance is baseless. It is
contended that when the arrears of maintenance are not
calculated or apportioned by the plaintiff, he was not entitled
for any such relief.
26. Learned advocate has highlighted the amount that
was due towards rent and contended that the defendant had
paid a sum of Rs.2,66,906/- where the amount payable
towards rent was only Rs.46,220/-. Therefore, it is contended
that since the defendant has paid the excess amount towards
rent, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. It is re-iterated
that the plaintiff without computation of amount towards
maintenance could not have claimed the same from the
defendant. According to the defendant, the plaintiff has levied
the maintenance charges arbitrarily and thus he is not entitled
for the same. It is also contended that the plaintiff has not
formed an 'association of lessees' to claim maintenance which
disentitles him from claiming any amount towards the same.
27. Learned advocate contended that as per the
calculation made in the written arguments, no amount is due
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53966
RFA No. 1013 of 2010
C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010
RFA No. 1014 of 2010
HC-KAR
towards rent and the plaintiff has not claimed the maintenance
on any specific grounds. He refers to various clauses in the
documents that are exhibited on his behalf to deny the claim of
the plaintiff. It is contended that the Trial Court and First
Appellate Court have not taken into consideration the oral and
documentary evidence placed on record in a proper perspective
and thus arrived at a wrong conclusion. Hence, prays for
allowing the appeals in the interest of justice.
28. Learned counsel for the respondent - plaintiff
opposing the appeals contended that the three premises
described in the plaint before the Trial Court were leased in
favour of the defendant, subject to the terms of lease deed.
Defendant in categorical terms admitted the ownership and
jural relationship between plaintiff and itself. The defendant has
also admitted that there are arrears of rent and issuance of
notice for termination of tenancy. The contention of the
defendant that he has maintained his portion of the premises
and not liable to pay the maintenance charges cannot be
accepted for the simple reason that, he himself admits that he
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53966
RFA No. 1013 of 2010
C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010
RFA No. 1014 of 2010
HC-KAR
is liable to contribute the maintenance of common area and
common amenities enjoyed by him.
29. Learned counsel further contended that the lease
deed dated 19.03.1991 is an admitted document and it is
marked as Ex.P18. This lease deed is signed by Sri.Muralidhar
the Vice -President of the Standing Committee. When said
Sri.Muralidhar in his capacity as Vice-President of Standing
Committee signed the lease deed Ex.P18, the defendant could
not have questioned his authority to sign the plaint. The other
defence taken by the defendant are baseless and they are
against the terms of lease deed, which is an admitted
document.
30. Learned counsel also contended that the defendant
had written various letters addressed to Sri.Muralidhar, either
seeking indulgence by granting time for payment of arrears of
rent and also seeking permission to sublet the premises. Under
such circumstances, the defendant could not have disputed his
authority.
31. Learned counsel further contended that when
defendant categorically admitted that, there are arrears of rent
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53966
RFA No. 1013 of 2010
C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010
RFA No. 1014 of 2010
HC-KAR
and maintenance charges and he defaulted in complying with
the terms of lease deed, he is liable for eviction. He further
contended that even though defendant No.2 is impleaded
contending that defendant No.1 has sublet the premises in its
favour, the Trial Court formed an opinion that such subletting
was after the termination of lease and the said finding is not
challenged by the plaintiff.
32. Learned counsel further contended that Ex.P11 is
the letter which proves that the cheque referred to by
defendant No.1 in the written statement was dishonored.
Ex.P15 is the letter written by defendant No.1 admitting the
arrears of rent, various other letters i.e., Exs.P10 to 12, 14 to
16 were also written by him and none of these documents are
disputed. Exs.P7 and 8 are the statement of bills. Ex.P9 is the
ledger extract. Ex.P17 is the notice addressed to defendant
No.1. When the defendant categorically admits violation of the
terms of lease deed, he cannot be permitted to squat over the
property. The Trial Court after appreciation of the materials on
record, arrived at a right conclusion. Therefore, there are no
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53966
RFA No. 1013 of 2010
C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010
RFA No. 1014 of 2010
HC-KAR
grounds to entertain the appeal. Accordingly, he prays for
dismissal of the appeals.
33. In light of the rival contentions taken by both the
parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the impugned judgment and decree
passed by the Trial Court suffers from perversity or
illegality and calls for interference by this Court?"
My answer to the above point in the 'Negative' for the
following:
REASONS
34. The plaintiff had filed three suits i.e.,
OS.Nos.7775/1998, 7776/1998 and 7777/1998 against the
defendant for possession and for arrears of rent. The defendant
filed the written statement admitting the relationship between
the parties. It is also admitted that he has entered into a lease
deed dated 19.03.1991 in respect of the scheduled property for
a period of 45 years, agreeing to pay the rent and maintenance
charges. He also admits that on his failure to pay the rent, he
was liable to pay interest.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53966
RFA No. 1013 of 2010
C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010
RFA No. 1014 of 2010
HC-KAR
35. The defendant has denied the authority of Vice-
President who signed the plaint and filed the suit. Interestingly,
the defendant has issued several letters addressed to the very
same Vice-President. Exs.P10 to 16 are various letters
produced by the plaintiff which were written by the defendant.
When the defendant admits that he was tenant under the
plaintiff who executed the lease deed as per Ex.P18, which was
signed by N Muralidhar, who was none other than the Vice-
President of the Mutt, who signed the plaint representing the
Mutt, the defendant could not have taken a defence denying
the authority of the very same N Muralidhar to represent the
Mutt while filing the suit. This shows again the conduct of
defendant in taking untenable defence only with an intention to
deny the rightful claim of the plaintiff and to squat over the
property indefinitely.
36. The plaintiff examined PW.1 as its witness. He was
cross-examined at length on four different dates of hearing. But
nothing has been elicited from the witness. On the other hand,
it is suggested to the witness that, N Muralidhar, who signed
the plaint and represented the Mutt was in-charge of the
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53966
RFA No. 1013 of 2010
C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010
RFA No. 1014 of 2010
HC-KAR
administration of Bengaluru Mutt. This suggestion was admitted
by PW.1. It is also suggested to PW.1 that Ex.P1 - Power of
Attorney was executed by the Mutt in favour of PW.1, and the
said N Muralidhar, who represented the Mutt. Therefore, it is
clear that the defendant is inconsistent in taking his defence, as
in the written statement he denies the authority of N
Muralidhar to represent the Mutt. But while cross-examining
PW.1, he categorically admits his authority. The letters Exs.P10
to 16 written by defendant to the plaintiff discloses that, he is
not in fact disputing the authority of N Muralidhar, who signed
the plaint. The question arises as to why the defendant is
taking such inconsistent plea. It is obviously with an intention
to drag on the matter and to hoodwink the Court.
37. Ex.P1 is the Special Power of Attorney executed the
Matadhipathi of the Mutt in favour of in favour of N.Muralidhar,
the Vice-President and PW.1 - Suresh K Savanal to represent
the Mutt in the suits that were filed before the Trial Court by
examining himself as PW.1.
38. A strange contention was taken in the written
statement that the Managing Director of the defendant
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53966
RFA No. 1013 of 2010
C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010
RFA No. 1014 of 2010
HC-KAR
Company was associated with him since 1979 and he was the
brain behind various projects and hence the defendant was not
a lessee, but he was part of plaintiff's Mutt. When defendant
categorically admits execution of the lease deed dated
19.03.1991 in respect of the schedule property by agreeing to
pay the rent and the maintenance charges, this contention
taken by the defendant cannot be accepted even for a moment.
That shows the conduct of the defendant in disowning its
liability to pay the rent as well as the maintenance charges.
Such contention taken by the defendant assumes importance in
the light of the contention taken by the plaintiff that the
defendant was in arrears of rent. It is pertinent to note that the
defendant in the written statement while categorically
admitting the lease deed even refers to Clause 'B' (4) where he
was liable to discharge various payments including the routine
maintenance charges towards painting, white washing, lift,
lighting and towards common service etc,.
39. Even though, it is contented by the defendant that
he was not in arrears of either rent or maintenance, it is his
specific contention that he is maintaining the schedule property
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53966
RFA No. 1013 of 2010
C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010
RFA No. 1014 of 2010
HC-KAR
which is in his actual possession. It is not the contention of the
defendant he has paid the maintenance towards common area
including the lift and electricity charges. But on the other hand,
it is his contention that the plaintiff should have given an
account of actual expenditure by producing the documents and
dividing the total expenses incurred by 30 lessees, and then
only the defendant was liable to pay the amount.
Unfortunately, that was not the term of lease deed agreed
between the parties. On the other hand, the defendant
categorically undertook to pay the maintenance charges as
demanded by the plaintiff.
40. Interestingly, the defendant has never raised any
dispute calling upon the plaintiff to give account of the
maintenance charges demanded by him. On the other hand, he
kept quiet without paying the maintenance charges, which
shows the conduct of the defendant only to deny legal right of
the plaintiff, who is required to maintain the common area by
paying electricity, water charges, maintenance of lift, white
wash and keep the premises in a habitable condition. Such
claim made by the plaintiff cannot be termed as either illegal or
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53966
RFA No. 1013 of 2010
C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010
RFA No. 1014 of 2010
HC-KAR
baseless, when the defendant has never raised any dispute by
issuing notice to the plaintiff, calling upon him to explain the
basis for such claim of maintenance. When the defendant
agreed to pay the maintenance charges as per the terms of
lease deed, he is estopped from taking up untenable defence in
the written statement.
41. It is pertinent to note that Exs.P7 and 8 are the bills
sent by the plaintiff. Ex.P9 is the ledger extract. None of these
documents were disputed by the defendant regarding the
outstanding dues of Rs.58,772/- that was payable by the
defendant till the end of December, 1998.
42. A strange defence was taken by the defendant that
he is maintaining his portion of the building i.e., the schedule
premises and therefore, he is not liable to pay any other
amount. This contention is against the terms of lease deed -
Ex.P18. Moreover, admittedly, the legal notice as per Ex.P17
was issued to the defendant, but there is no reply to the same.
43. It is pertinent to note that the defendant examined
one J.S Rao as DW.1 and filed the affidavit in lieu of
examination-in-chief which runs into 31 pages. Many irrelevant
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53966
RFA No. 1013 of 2010
C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010
RFA No. 1014 of 2010
HC-KAR
facts are deposed in this affidavit which has no basis
whatsoever. The contentions which were never taken by the
defendant in the written statement were stated in the affidavit,
which cannot be taken into consideration for any reason.
44. During cross-examination of DW.1, he states that
he had paid the maintenance charges under protest, as the
details of maintenance charges were not provided by the
plaintiff. But he had not called upon the plaintiff to furnish such
details, and he has also not produced any material to show that
he has paid the maintenance charges under protest or that, he
has raised objection in that regard with the plaintiff. When
DW.1 was further cross-examined about the letters, he is said
to have written to the plaintiff by raising objections. He
categorically stated that "I am not finding any letters written by
me objecting the plaintiff's claim". This again shows the
conduct of the defendant in raising baseless and false defenses.
The witness further categorically admits that, he had not paid
the amount as claimed by the plaintiff. Witness pleads his
ignorance as to what was the amount that was paid by him
towards maintenance. Even though he states that such
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53966
RFA No. 1013 of 2010
C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010
RFA No. 1014 of 2010
HC-KAR
payments were referred to in his various letters, he failed to
identify any of the letters that are produced before the Court.
The cross-examination of this witness discloses that even
though he claims payment of the rent and the maintenance
upto date, the witness was unable to lay his hands on any of
the documents produced by him to substantiate his contention.
45. It is pertinent to note that the defendant has taken
a contention that he had issued few cheques to the plaintiff
towards arrears of rent and maintenance. During cross-
examination, he categorically admits that two such cheques
issued by him were subsequently withdrawn. He admits the
letter Exs.P10 and 12 written by him to the plaintiff. It is the
specific contention of the plaintiff that even after Ex.P10, the
defendant has not paid any amount. Even though, such
suggestion is denied by DW.1, no materials are placed before
the Court to substantiate his contention regarding payment of
the arrears of rent and maintenance.
46. The plaintiff produced Ex.P9 copy of the ledger
extract to show the arrears of maintenance charges that is due
from the defendant. They also produced Exs.P7 and 8 to
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53966
RFA No. 1013 of 2010
C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010
RFA No. 1014 of 2010
HC-KAR
substantiate their contention regarding the arrears of
maintenance from the defendant. These documents were never
disputed by the defendants while cross examining PW.1. Ex.P10
is the letter addressed by the defendant to the Chairman of the
plaintiff's Mutt. There is reference to the letter written by N
Muralidhar and also the telephonic discussions held by the
defendant with the said N Muralidhar, who is none other than
the person who signed the plaint. As per letter dated
31.12.1997 the defendant offering to pay monthly instalment of
Rs.10,000/- for January, 1998, Rs.20,000/- for February, 1998
and so on and requesting the plaintiff Mutt to treat cheque
No.217157 dated 15.07.1987 for Rs.19,235/- as cancelled and
to return back the same. Ex.P12 is again the letter written by
the defendant to the plaintiff regarding payment due to the
plaintiff towards maintenance charges, where the defendant
has offered to pay Rs.20,000/- by 17.01.1998 towards the
outstanding dues against return of the cheque referred to
above and undertaking to pay every month Rs.20,000/-
towards the arrears. There is again a request to cancel the two
post-dated cheques issued in favour of the plaintiff, with a
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53966
RFA No. 1013 of 2010
C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010
RFA No. 1014 of 2010
HC-KAR
request not to present the same for encashment, as there is no
sufficient funds in the Bank to honour the cheque.
47. It is contented that the defendant had issued a
cheque for Rs.16,572/- dated 25.05.1996. According to the
learned counsel for the plaintiff, the cheque was dishonored
and returned. Ex.P11 is the document produced by the plaintiff
to evidence that the cheque issued by the defendant towards
payment of arrears of rent was not honored. It is not the
contention of the defendant that even thereafter, he paid the
amount towards arrears of rent.
48. Ex.P11 is the letter dated 02.01.1998 address to
the Mutt, regarding the payment that is due to the plaintiff,
requesting for grant of some more time to make payment of
Rs.19,235/- covered under the cheque referred to above, again
promising to pay the amount in instalments and informing that
they are making efforts to raise funds from financial
institutions. Ex.P13 is the letter addressed by the plaintiff to
the defendant dated 04.01.1994 informing it that legal notice
was issued on 05.05.1993 asking to pay the arrears of rent and
maintenance charges and also stating that only Rs.16,703/-
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53966
RFA No. 1013 of 2010
C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010
RFA No. 1014 of 2010
HC-KAR
was paid by the defendant. There is reference to several
assurances given by the defendant and highlighting that an
amount of Rs.60,194.90/- was due i.e., Rs.9,147.54/- towards
the arrears of rent and Rs.51,047.36/- towards maintenance
charges. Ex.P14 is one more notice issued by the plaintiff to the
defendant dated 25.01.1997, again there is reference to
arrears of rent and maintenance charges as agreed under the
lease deed and asking the defendant to quit and vacate the
schedule premises on his failure to pay the rent as well as the
arrears of maintenance. Ex.P15 is the reply given by the
defendant to the plaintiff dated 13.06.1997 again assuring to
settle all the outstanding arrears and also referring to issuance
of post-dated cheques to settle all dues and requesting to
withdraw the quit notice. Ex.P17 is the notice to quit dated
10.06.1998 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. Again
referring to pay arrears of rent and maintenance and asking the
defendant to vacate the premises by terminating his tenancy.
49. Ex.P18 is the copy of lease deed dated 19.03.1991
entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant.
Interestingly, the plaintiff's Mutt was represented by one Sri. M
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53966
RFA No. 1013 of 2010
C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010
RFA No. 1014 of 2010
HC-KAR
Umanath Rao, Chairman of Sub-Committee of Standing
Committee and the very same N. Muralidhar, the member of
Sub-Committee of the Standing committee, who is signatory to
the plaint. This document is an admitted document and the
defendant is bound by the terms of lease deed. As per Clause-
4 of the lease deed, the defendant has agreed to pay and
discharge all the cesses, taxes, outgoings such as electrical,
water and sanitation charges, expenses of routine maintenance
including painting, white washing, lift, lighting and other items
of common services, repairs, renewals, professional taxes or
any of other taxes that may be levied resulting from the use of
the premises. Defendant has agreed to pay maintenance and
service charges etc., promptly on the due date that is before
the end of the calendar month and agreed to pay penal interest
at 15% per annum on the amount that was kept due.
50. When defendant in unequivocal terms agreed to pay
the maintenance apart from the rent, he cannot be permitted
to raise untenable defence, that too, when under various letters
referred to above, he unconditionally undertook to pay such
arrears. The letters also disclose that the defendant had issued
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53966
RFA No. 1013 of 2010
C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010
RFA No. 1014 of 2010
HC-KAR
cheques towards payment of the arrears of rent and
maintenance, but later requested not to present the same for
encashment and had requested to return the same.
51. Even though, the defendants examined DWs.1 and
2 and got marked Exs.D1 to 95, learned counsel for the
appellant has not drawn the attention of the Court to any of
these documents in support of his contention, highlighting as to
why those documents were relied on by the defendants.
52. Even though, learned counsel to the appellant has
never addressed his arguments and sought for permission to
file his written submission and has filed a detailed submission
running into several pages, a strange contention is taken by the
appellants that the appellants have already paid the amount in
excess of the amount stipulated in the lease dead to the
plaintiff and contended that there is no basis for the plaintiff to
claim the maintenance charges on the ground that lease deed
Ex.P18 do not contain any such provision for computation of
the maintenance.
53. I have referred to various letters written by the
defendant addressed to the plaintiff promising to pay the
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53966
RFA No. 1013 of 2010
C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010
RFA No. 1014 of 2010
HC-KAR
amount that was due, including the maintenance charges and
issuance of cheques, and withdrawing the same as there was
no balance in the bank account. But the defendant has never
raised a contention that the plaintiff has to compute the
maintenance charges that is payable by the defendant in a
particular manner. It is only when the suit is filed, such
contention was taken by the defendant, which cannot be
entertained. If at all, it was the contention of the defendant
that the plaintiff is levying maintenance charges arbitrarily, it
could have been mentioned in any of the correspondences
referred to above. There is no explanation by the defendant as
to why for such a long period he has not demanded the plaintiff
to give accounts of such maintenance charges in any of the
correspondences, but he requested the plaintiff to
accommodate to pay the maintenance charges in instalments.
54. The defendant has contended that the plaintiff
deliberately failed to form an association and unilaterally levied
the maintenance charges without providing any basis. Even
though, PW.1 was cross-examined in that regard, he
categorically stated that it was the duty of the lessees to form
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53966
RFA No. 1013 of 2010
C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010
RFA No. 1014 of 2010
HC-KAR
an association which they have not made. On the other hand,
the maintenance charges for the common area was borne by
the plaintiff.
55. Admittedly, there were common areas referred to in
Clause-4 of the lease deed - Ex.P18 for which the defendant
agreed to pay the maintenance charges as referred to above.
The lease deed does not mandate the plaintiff to form an
association or to provide account of the maintenance charges
to the defendant, even otherwise the defendant never
demanded the plaintiff either to form such an association or to
provide the accounts. Under such circumstances, the contention
raised by the defendant in the written submission cannot be
accepted. The defence taken by the defendant in the written
submission is not supported either by oral or documentary
evidence.
56. Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on
the decision in Charanjit Singh Vs Kehar Singh1, to contend
that the admissions will have to be unambiguous, clear and
unconditional. The admission of facts is to be very clear from
1
2006 SCC Online Del 578
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53966
RFA No. 1013 of 2010
C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010
RFA No. 1014 of 2010
HC-KAR
records. It cannot be left to the interpretative determination by
the Court, unless it is supported by any evidence. This position
of law is very well settled and the same cannot be disputed.
57. He also referred to the decision in Chandradhar
Goswami and others Vs Gauhati Bank Ltd.,2 to contend
that no person can be charged with liability merely on the basis
of entries in books of account, even where such books of
account are kept in the regular course of business. The facts
and circumstances in the said case are entirely different when
compared to the facts of the present case. Here the terms of
agreement between the parties are reduced into writing in the
form of lease agreement. Execution of lease agreement is
admitted by the defendant. He has also admitted that he is
liable to pay maintenance to the plaintiff. Even though, the
defendant has taken a contention that such maintenance was
not quantified or apportioned between other lessees or that the
plaintiff has not formed the 'association of lessees' to enable
them to maintain common area, there are no such terms in the
lease agreement agreed between the parties. The discussions
held above disclose that the defendant has not raised his little
2
1966 SCC Online SC 255
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53966
RFA No. 1013 of 2010
C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010
RFA No. 1014 of 2010
HC-KAR
finger requesting the plaintiff to give him the accounts
regarding maintenance. Under such circumstances, the
decision relied on cannot be made applicable to the facts in the
present case.
58. He also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble
Apex Court in Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) by LRs. Vs Bishun
Narain Inter College and Others3 to contend that once it is
found that inspite of deficiency in pleadings and the parties
knew the case and proceed to trial on those issues by
producing evidence, it would not be open to the parties to raise
the question of absence of pleadings in the appeal. The
pleadings of the parties before the Trial Court are entirely
different from the grounds that are urged by the parties in the
appeal. When the defendant has never raised the plea before
the Trial Court, cannot be permitted to be raise before this
Court in the second appeal.
59. He also placed reliance on Smt Sumitra Bai Vs P
Siddesh and another4 in support of his contention that
weakness of the defendant's case would not strengthen the
3
(1987) 2 SCC 555
4
ILR 2014 KAR 1311
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53966
RFA No. 1013 of 2010
C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010
RFA No. 1014 of 2010
HC-KAR
plaintiff's case. The plaintiff will have to prove his contention
by placing cogent materials. This position is also not disputed
as the same is well settled.
60. In view of the discussions held above, I am of the
opinion that the defendant was in arrears of rent and also in
arrears of maintenance that was payable to the plaintiff, and
moreover his tenancy was terminated by issuing a valid notice
to quit. Therefore, he is liable to be evicted. When admittedly
the defendant is in arrears of rent and maintenance charges, he
has no right to be in possession of the schedule property.
61. I have gone through the impugned judgment and
decree passed by the Trial Court. It has taken into
consideration all the materials on record and has arrived at a
right conclusion. I do not find any reason to interfere with the
same. Hence, I answer to the above point in the 'Negative' and
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed with cost.
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53966
HC-KAR
Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court records
along with copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
PNV
CT:VS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25
