Karnataka High Court
Tabrejulla vs Jaffar Khan on 26 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:49271
RSA No. 582 of 2025
C/W RSA No. 592 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 582 OF 2025 (INJ)
C/W
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 592 OF 2025 (INJ)
IN RSA No. 582/2025:
BETWEEN:
1. TABREJULLA
S/O. M. SANAULLA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
PROPRIETOR, MADANI WOOD
CRAFT BUSINESS, BADA ROAD,
SANTHEBENNURU VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 552.
Digitally signed ...APPELLANT
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. JAYAPRAKASH R.V., ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. JAFFAR KHAN
S/O. LIYAKATH ALI KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
OCC: MORTAR WORKER,
R/O MASJID MOHALLA,
NAYAKARA BEEDI, SANTHEBENNURU VIILLAGE
SANTHEBENNURU HOBLI-I
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 552.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:49271
RSA No. 582 of 2025
C/W RSA No. 592 of 2025
HC-KAR
...RESPONDENT
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED
02.12.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.38/2024 ON THE FILE OF
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.04.2024 PASSED IN
OS NO.120/2021 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, CHANNAGIRI.
IN RSA NO. 592/2025:
BETWEEN:
1. TABREJULLA
S/O. M. SANAULLA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
PROPRIETOR, MADANI WOOD
CRAFT BUSINESS, BADA ROAD,
SANTHEBENNURU VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 552.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. JAYAPRAKASH R.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. JAFFAR KHAN
S/O. LIYAKATH ALI KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
OCC: MORTAR WORKER,
R/O MASJID MOHALLA, NAYAKARA BEEDI,
SANTHEBENNURU VIILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 552.
...RESPONDENT
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:49271
RSA No. 582 of 2025
C/W RSA No. 592 of 2025
HC-KAR
02.12.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.39/2024 ON THE FILE
OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
CHANNAGIRI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
08.04.2024 PASSED IN OS.NO.120/2021 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
CHANNAGIRI.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. These matters are listed for admission. Heard
the learned counsel for the appellant in the respective
appeals. These two second appeals are filed against the
concurrent finding.
2. The factual matrix of case of appellant before
the Trial Court while seeking the relief of permanent
injunction, it is contended that the defendant is the owner
of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is licensee of
the said property by virtue of a license granted through
written document dated 11.02.2015 for a period of 6
years that comes to an end on 11.02.2021 and he is
NC: 2025:KHC:49271
HC-KAR
running wood craft business in the scheduled property. As
per the terms of license, the plaintiff constructed
permanent structure of building in the suit schedule
property for the purpose of wood craft business. It is also
stated that monthly rent was at Rs.701/- and same will
be enhanced from certain period and it is currently
Rs.1,500/- per month. The defendant agreed that he
would pay the cost of structure after the termination of
license period or completion of license period, to the
plaintiff. In view of the COVID-19 pandemic, the license
period was orally enhanced by the plaintiff and the
defendant. The plaintiff had paid the rent every month. It
is also contended that defendant without any reason
came to the suit property on 17.04.2021 with KEB person
in order to cut down the electricity supply which would
have been taken for the wood craft industry. The same
was done in order to harass him and thereby to see that
the plaintiff should vacate and handover the suit schedule
property to the defendant. The plaintiff invested an
NC: 2025:KHC:49271
HC-KAR
amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in the wood craft business and
due to COVID-19 pandemic, he had no earning in such
one year period. The defendant without taking care of
legal aspects gave pin prick to the plaintiff in order to
harass him and hence, filed the suit seeking the relief of
permanent injunction. In pursuance of the suit summons,
defendant appeared and filed written statement denying
the possession of plaintiff as tenant and also ownership to
"Madani Wood Craft Business", which was established in
the scheduled property. The defendant admitted that
there was a license amongst himself and plaintiff through
an agreement dated 11.02.2015 and the same is an
unregistered document and the same is covering the
period for rent more than 11 months. Therefore, said
document is of no legal consequences in the absence of
registration as it is compulsorily registrable document.
3. The other contention is taken in the written
statement that the structure which would left by the
plaintiff is temporary. The plaintiff had continued his wood
NC: 2025:KHC:49271
HC-KAR
craft business at his property bearing panchayath
property No.3588 of Santhebennuru Village and that too
after the date 11.02.2021, the plaintiff has purposefully
not produced the license in order to misguide the Court
and said property is situated nearby the suit property.
The plaintiff with an intention to gain wrongfully is
avoiding and handing over the vacant possession of the
suit property and remained in possession illegally. It is
also contended that in terms of the agreement dated
11.02.2015, that structure put up by the plaintiff has to
be left as it is to the defendant. The rate of rent was also
enhanced to Rs.1,500/- from 11.02.2018 and the plaintiff
paid Rs.3,000/- only on 15.05.2019. Thereafter, he had
stopped the payment of rent on the mutual understanding
that the rental amount has to be adjusted towards the
cost of structure which would be left by the plaintiff. The
plaintiff has also agreed to pay the remaining amount of
rent on 11.02.2021. The plaintiff filed the suit without any
cause of action and hence, prayed that plaintiff has no
NC: 2025:KHC:49271
HC-KAR
right to remain in the suit property as tenant and
therefore, the suit is not tenable in the eye of law.
4. The defendant also filed the counter claim
contending that the plaintiff had agreed to pay an amount
of Rs.1,500/- per month as rental amount. He had not
paid the said amount since 11.02.2018 till filing of the
suit and the counter claim. Even after the filing of the suit
also, the plaintiff has not paid the rental amount as
agreed. The defendant in need of suit schedule property
and as such he approached the plaintiff with a request for
vacant possession of the same. When the plaintiff has not
come forward to handover the vacant possession of the
property, got issued the termination of notice dated
06.09.2021 and thereby terminated the tenancy of
defendant from 01.10.2021 and said notice came to be
served upon the plaintiff. Even after also, the plaintiff has
not vacated and handed over the premises. After
terminating the tenancy of the plaintiff, he has no legal
right to continue the possession in and over the suit
NC: 2025:KHC:49271
HC-KAR
schedule property and he is in arrears of rent of
Rs.87,000/- from 11.02.2018 till filing of the counter
claim. Hence, prayed the Court to grant the counter
claim. When the counter claim was filed, the plaintiff also
filed the rejoinder and he denied the rental arrears since
from 11.02.2018 and the rental amount of Rs.1,500/- per
month and contended in the statement that term of lease
was for a period of 6 years and monthly rent was
Rs.701/-. The said rental amount was enhanced from
year to year. The current rate of rent per month is
Rs.1,500/-. The plaintiff has paid the rental amount since
11.02.2018 consistently. During the COVID-19 pandemic
lockdown, he had not paid the rental amount and after
lifting out the lockdown the plaintiff approached the
defendant for clearance of the rental arrears and amount.
However, the defendant refused to receive the rentals in
order to expel the plaintiff's possession from the suit
schedule property.
NC: 2025:KHC:49271
HC-KAR
5. The Trial Court taking into note of the pleadings
of the parties, i.e., plaint averment and written statement
averment and as well as the counter claim framed the
issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The
plaintiff examined one witness as P.W.1 and got marked
document Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17 and the respondent also
examined one witness as D.W.1 and got marked
document Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2. The Trial Court having
considered the oral and documentary evidence, answered
Issue Nos.1 and 2 as negative and answered Issue Nos.3
and 4 as affirmative and while answering Issue No.1 and
2, comes to the conclusion that the license period was
terminated by issuing the notice and hence, the
possession is not a legal possession and also comes to the
conclusion by taking into note of the admission on the
part of rate of rent and also deducted the amount of
Rs.3,000/- which was paid in the year 2019 and comes to
the conclusion that arrears of rent is Rs.87,000/- upto the
date of filing of counter claim and hence, answered Issue
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49271
HC-KAR
Nos.3 and 4 as affirmative and ordered to handover the
vacant possession of the property within 3 months.
6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and
decree, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court.
The First Appellate Court having re-assessed the material
available on the record and in keeping the grounds which
have been urged in the appeal memo, formulated the
point whether the appellant has established that the Trial
Court erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff and
decreeing the counter claim relief sought by the
defendant directing the plaintiff to hand over the vacant
possession of the suit property to the defendant and also
directing to pay the arrears of monthly rent of
Rs.87,000/- without appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence led by both the properties and
whether it requires interference of this Court.
7. The First Appellate Court having re-assessed
the material available on record comes to the conclusion
that there is a license and also the document which
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49271
HC-KAR
clearly discloses handing over the possession in favour of
the appellant and also the same is for a period of 6 years
and 6 years period has already been elapsed. Apart from
that taken note of non payment of rent and also the rate
of rent Rs.1,500/- was also admitted and only taken the
contention that during the COVID-19 period, could not
able to pay the arrears of rent and the same is calculated
and taking into note of the payment of Rs.3,000/- and the
same was deducted out of Rs.3,000/- and ordered to pay
the balance amount of Rs.87,000/-. The First Appellate
Court also taken note of the document Ex.P.1 is
unregistered rent agreement, for any rent agreement
covering more than a period of 1 year as per Section 17
of the Registration Act, such rent agreements shall be
registered in accordance with law. If any agreement not
registered, it will hit by Section 49 of the Registration Act
and also taken note of the plaintiff's claim as per Ex.P.1,
it is the defendant who has to pay the cost of permanent
structure put up by the plaintiff in the suit schedule
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49271
HC-KAR
property and also taken note of both oral and
documentary evidence comes to the conclusion that the
appellant has committed a default in payment of rent and
squatting on the property, illegally without payment of
rent, under these circumstances, not entitled for any
relief and hence, confirmed the order of The Trial Court.
8. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding,
present second appeal is filed before this Court. The main
contention of the counsel for the appellant before this
Court is that when the permanent structure was put up,
ought not to have terminated the contract between the
plaintiff and defendant. The counsel also would
vehemently contend that the same is irrevocable as
provided under Section 60(b) of Indian Easement Act,
1882, when the plaintiff has made construction of
permanent nature on the suit schedule property by
incurring expenditure after taking the vacant property on
license basis. The counsel also vehemently contend that
the First Appellate Court also committed an error in
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49271
HC-KAR
dismissing the appeal without looking into the pleadings
of the parties and particularly the fact that license
granted in favour of the plaintiff was irrevocable in view
of Section 60(b) of the Indian Easement Act, 1882 and
also committed an error in awarding Rs.87,000/- as rent
without considering the oral and documentary evidence
and hence, this Court has to admit and frame substantive
question of law.
9. The counsel in support of his argument relied
upon the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in (1987)
2 Supreme Court Cases 555 and brought to notice of
this Court paragraph No.9 wherein discussion was made
with regard to Section 60(a) and (b) and also brought to
notice of this Court, paragraph No.10 wherein also
discussed that the result is that the respondents acting
upon the license had executed works incurring expenses
which rendered the license irrevocable. As regards
evidence, we have perused the statement of Ganga
Prasad Dhayani, D.W. 1, Shanker Dutt, D.W.2 and Bhola
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49271
HC-KAR
D.W.3. Their testimony fully established that the school
had constructed three classrooms, latrines and the urinals
and the incurred expenses. Having taken note of the
same, it is held that it is difficult to believe that he had no
knowledge of the constructions, such defence which was
taken. Hence, counsel pressed into the service of the
principles laid down in the said judgment.
10. Having heard the appellant's counsel and also
on perusal of material available on record, very plaintiff
himself has pleaded in the plaint that there was a license
and the same is also for a period of 6 years from
11.02.2015 to 11.02.2021. It has to be noted that the
present suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction
after the period of 6 years and also it is emerged during
the course of evidence that the rent was not paid after
completion of 3 years i.e., from 11.02.2018 and there is
an admission on the part of the plaintiff also in the written
statement filed by the plaintiff when the counter claim
was made that the present current rate of rent is
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49271
HC-KAR
Rs.1,500/-. When such being the case, the defendant also
terminated the license period since period was already
completed, but not vacated the premises and also there
was an arrears of rent and claimed the arrears of rent at
the rate of Rs.1,500/- from 11.02.2018 and also due was
taken note upto the extent of Rs.87,000/- and also
terminated the tenancy and filed the counter claim.
Having taken note of all these materials before the Court,
the Trial Court answered the Issue Nos.1 and 2 as
negative and though the plaintiff is in possession of the
property and the possession is unauthorized possession
since the license is terminated by causing legal notice and
also material discloses that he did not pay the rent and
though it is admitted in the pleading also that due to
COVID-19, could not able to pay the rent, but, even for
having paid the rent subsequent to the COVID-19 also
nothing is placed on record. All these materials were
taken note of by the Trial Court and also the Appellate
Court while considering the grounds which have been
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49271
HC-KAR
urged and particularly taking into note of the document
Ex.P.1 is an unregistered document. However, the
defendant did not trouble the possession of the plaintiff
for the period for which he had agreed from 11.02.2015
to 11.02.2021 and immediately after the expiry of the
period of 6 years, the plaintiff only approached the Court
seeking for the relief of permanent injunction and
immediately the defendant also issued notice and filed
counter claim and also arrears of rent was also not paid
and taking into note of all these factors into consideration
when the termination was made and counter claim is
filed, both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court
considered the said fact into consideration.
11. No doubt the counsel appearing for the
appellant relied upon the judgment and pressed into the
service Section 60(b) Indian Easement Act,1882 but in
the case on hand, it is very clear that the vacant land is
given to the defendant and the same is also for a period
of 6 years, not for permanent period as contended by the
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49271
HC-KAR
plaintiff/appellant and when the document itself which is
not disputed and the said document is also very clear, the
same is for a period of 6 years and after the period of 6
years only, the plaintiff has approached the Court when
he did not vacate the premises and paid the rent.
Thereafter, legally terminated the tenancy and filed the
counter claim and counter claim is also entertained. When
such being the case, the very contentions and principles
laid down in the judgment will not comes to the aid of
appellant and appellant cannot squat on the property
without payment of rent as agreed and no dispute with
regard to even the rate of rent also and categorically
pleaded in the written statement filed by him to the
counter claim also the present rate of rent is Rs.1,500/-.
At the same rate of rent, the defendant also claimed the
arrears of rent and also the counter claim. When such
being the case, I do not find any ground to admit and
frame substantive question of law.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49271
HC-KAR
12. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
i) Both the Second Appeals are dismissed.
ii) In view of the dismissal of the appeals, I.As., if
any do not survive for consideration, the same
stands disposed of in both the appeals.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
RHS
