Karnataka High Court
Mr P Gopal vs Mr P Vasu on 3 November, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44101
CRP No. 102 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.102 OF 2020 (SC)
BETWEEN:
MR. P. GOPAL,
S/O PARASURAM SHETTIAR,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.276,
(PORTION IN 1ST FLOOR)
BEHIND SRINIVAS THEATRE,
2ND MAIN, GOWDANAPALYA,
UTTARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 061.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVI PRAKASH V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
MR. P. VASU,
S/O. PARASURAM SHETTIAR,
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
by SOWMYA RESIDNG AT NO.20,
DODDAMARAIAH
Location: HIGH FLAT NO.101, S.V.P. RESIDENCY,
COURT OF GROUND FLOOR, RANGAPPA LANE,
KARNATAKA
CHIKKAMAVALLI,
BANGALORE-560 004.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B.N. KRISHNAPPA, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
04.01.2020 PASSED IN SC.NO.15149/2019 ON THE
FILE OF THE XVII ADDL.JUDGE COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU PARTLY
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44101
CRP No. 102 of 2020
HC-KAR
DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT AND
DAMAGES.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Defendant is the revision petitioner challenging
the decree passed by the 17th Additional Judge, Court of
Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCC-21) on 04.01.2020 in SC
No.15149/2019.
2. Operative portion of the trial court order
reads as under:
"Suit is decreed in part with cost.
Defendant is directed to quit and deliver
the vacant possession of the suit schedule
premises to the plaintiff within 30 days from
today.
Plaintiff is entitled for arrears of rent in
respect of suit schedule premises amounting to
Rs.1,05,000/- and for mesne profits @
Rs.5,000/- p.m. from date of filing of the suit till
NC: 2025:KHC:44101
HC-KAR
the delivery of vacant possession of the suit
schedule premises.
On failure of the defendant to vacate and
deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule
premises, the plaintiff is at liberty to get the
vacant possession of the suit schedule premises
by the process of court.
Draw decree accordingly."
3. Heard Sri.Ravi Prakash for revision
petitioner. None appears for the respondent.
4. Facts which are utmost necessary for
disposal of the present revision petition are as under:
4.1. Plaintiff being the brother of the respondent,
filed a suit against the defendant for ejectment, arrears
of rent to the tune of Rs.1,05,000/- and damages at the
rate of Rs.500/- per day from the date of suit till
delivery of the vacant possession of the suit property.
4.2. Plaint averments further revealed that
plaintiff purchased the residential property bearing
No.1, Katha No.31/1, New No.276, situated behind
Srinivasa Theatre, 2nd Main, Gowdanapalay,
NC: 2025:KHC:44101
HC-KAR
Kadirenahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru, under
the registered sale deed from its earlier vendor
Smt.Nirmala.
4.3. Defendant being the brother of the plaintiff,
approached the plaintiff for emergency accommodation
for a short period in the suit premises consisting of two
bedrooms, a hall with attached bathroom and kitchen.
Defendant agreed to pay monthly rent of Rs.5,000/-
from the month of May 2017 and plaintiff agreed for the
same. Defendant also paid rents for three months at
the rate of Rs.5,000 from May 2017 to July 2017, but
abruptly stopped paying the rents.
4.4. Therefore, a legal notice came to be issued
on 01.04.2019 by the plaintiff to the defendant claiming
arrears of rent. Despite service of notice, there was no
reply nor compliance. Therefore, suit came to be filed.
5. Pursuant to the suit summons defendant
entered appearance through his advocate and filed
detailed written statement inter-alia denying the
landlord and tenant relationship and also denied that he
occupied the premises on monthly rental basis.
NC: 2025:KHC:44101
HC-KAR
6. Defendant maintained that he had paid a
sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintiff as security deposit
and he contended that he is ready to vacate the suit
property if plaintiff repays a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.
7. Learned trial judge conducted the trial and
decreed the suit as referred to supra.
8. After the impugned order came to be
passed, defendant vacated the premises on 11.03.2020
pursuant to the delivery warrant issued by the
Executing Court.
9. Therefore, the present revision petition is
now restricted to decree of payment of arrears of rent
in a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- and mesne profit at the rate
of Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of filing of the
suit till delivery of the vacant possession.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Ravi
Prakash vehemently contended that there was a
security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- and therefore there
was no arrears of rent as claimed by the plaintiff which
NC: 2025:KHC:44101
HC-KAR
has not been properly considered by the trial Court and
therefore question of payment of arrears of rent would
not arise, so also grant of Rs.5,000/- per month as
mesne profit.
11. In the light of the argument put-forth on
behalf of the plaintiff, this Court perused the material
on record meticulously.
12. On such perusal of the material on record,
there is no dispute that plaintiff is the owner of the suit
property. All that the defendant has maintained is that
he had paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as security deposit.
To substantiate said contention, there is no document
placed on record.
13. Further, in the cross-examination of the
defendant, he has specifically admitted that he has paid
the rents at the rate of Rs.5,000/- for a period of three
months. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that
defendant paid rents for three months and abruptly
stopped from July 2017 onwards.
NC: 2025:KHC:44101
HC-KAR
14. DW1 also admitted in cross-examination
that there is no document to show that he had paid
security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/-.
15. Taking note of these aspects of the matter,
learned trial judge not only decreed the suit for
ejectment, but also arrears of rent in a sum of
Rs.1,05,000/- and sum of Rs.5,000/- per month as the
damages from the date of termination of the notice till
the vacant possession.
16. It is pertinent to note that decree of the trial
Court has been executed by filing the execution petition
and it was not voluntary act of the defendant. Pursuant
to the delivery warrant issued, the vacant possession is
obtained by the plaintiff.
17. Under such circumstances, decreeing of the
suit by the trial Court ordering arrears of rent and the
mesne profit at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month is just
and proper and requires no further interference in this
revision.
NC: 2025:KHC:44101
HC-KAR
18. Accordingly, the following
ORDER
Revision petition is merit-less and hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
AP
