Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore (CCH-5),
premises.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.
3. It is stated that the plaintiff is the owner of the
premises on payment of monthly rentals. But, the
defendant had defaulted himself to pay the rent amount.
the defendant for ejectment. The defendant has appeared
tenant and there was rental agreement. This is the sum
4. Based on pleadings, the trial Court has framed
1. Whether the plaintiff proves rent agreement dated
12.03.2007 entered between defendant and mother
of plaintiff and rent agreement dated 29.09.2010
entered into between defendant and plaintiff?
NC: 2025:KHC:44975
HC-KAR
2. Does he prove defendant has deposit of
Rs.10,000/- under rent agreement dated
12.03.2007?
3. Does he prove that defendant has deposited
Rs.30,000/- towards security deposit under rent
agreement dated 29.09.2010?
4. Does he prove the jural relationship of lessor and
lessee in respect of schedule premise?
5. Does he prove defendant is a chronic defaulter in
payment of rent is due a sum of Rs.40,000/- under
rent agreement dated 12.03.2007 and is due
Rs.72,000/- under rent agreement dated
29.09.2010 towards arrears of rent?
6. Does he prove the termination of valid tenancy in
respect of schedule premises?
7. Does he entitle for the relief to evict defendant from
schedule premises?
8. Does he entitle for damages at the rate of
Rs.6000/- per month in respect of schedule
premises?
9. Whether defendant proves that his possession has
to be protected under Section 53A of TP Act as
contended?
10. What order or decree?
5. In support of the case of the plaintiff, the
plaintiff has got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked
Exs.P1 to P18. The defendant has got examined himself as
D.W.1 and got marked Exs.D1 and D2.
NC: 2025:KHC:44975
HC-KAR
6. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence
on record had come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is
the owner of the suit schedule property and there was
rental agreement dated 12.03.2007 executed between the
mother of the plaintiff and defendant and also it is held
that the defendant has become defaulter in payment of
rent and termination of tenancy is valid one. Therefore,
decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff directing the
defendant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession
of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and also
decreed that the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent.
Thus, the trial Court has decreed the suit in favour of the
plaintiff that he is entitled for arrears of rent of
Rs.1,12,000/- and also damages at the rate of Rs.2,600/-
per month from the date of suit till the delivery of vacant
possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff.
7. Being aggrieved by the said order, defendant
has filed appeal by raising various grounds and learned
counsel for the appellant/defendant argued in consonance
NC: 2025:KHC:44975
HC-KAR
with the grounds raised and submitted that the defendant
is not defaulter in payment of rent. But, the plaintiff
himself has not accepted the said rent amount. Further, it
is submitted that there was an agreement of sale between
the plaintiff and defendant as per Exhibit.D2 and thus the
defendant has paid an amount of Rs.6,10,000/- to the
plaintiff. But, thereafter it was not culminated into sale
deed. Therefore, as per Section 53A of the TP Act, the
defendant is entitled for protection of his possession. First
and foremost, the defendant has never become defaulter
in payment of rent and the finding given in this regard is
not correct. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondents/plaintiff submitted that there was no
agreement of sale executed between the father of plaintiff
and defendant. If there was an agreement of sale, the
defendant could have instituted a suit for specific
performance, but that is not done, that itself shows that
there is no agreement of sale and the plaintiff has not
NC: 2025:KHC:44975
HC-KAR
received any amount from the defendant. Further, it is
submitted that the defendant himself has admitted that
the plaintiff is owner of the suit property. Therefore, upon
the valid termination of tenancy by issuing legal notice,
the tenancy is terminated and this is rightly considered by
the trial Court. Therefore, the order passed by the trial
Court is well-reasoned one. Hence, there is no need to
make any interference. Therefore, prays to dismiss the
appeal.
9. Heard the arguments from both sides and
perused the materials furnished in the appeal.
10. Upon the submission of the learned counsels,
the following points arises for consideration of this Court
are:
(i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of
the case, the plaintiff proves that the
defendant is defaulter in payment of arrears of
rent amount?
(ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of
the case, the plaintiff proves that there is valid
termination of tenancy and thus the plaintiff is
NC: 2025:KHC:44975
HC-KAR
entitled for decree of ejectment of defendant
from the suit schedule property?
(iii) Whether, the order passed by the trial Court
requires interference from this Court?
11. The suit is filed for ejectment. As per the plaint
averments, there was a rent agreement dated 12.03.2007
between the defendant and mother of plaintiff-Neelamma
and subsequently another rent agreement was executed
on 29.09.2010 between the defendant and plaintiff. It is
stated that the monthly rent was fixed at Rs.800/- per
month and Rs.1,800/- per month and the defendant had
paid deposit of Rs.10,000/- to the mother of plaintiff and
also paid Rs.30,000/- to the plaintiff towards security
deposit. The defendant admitted that the mother of the
plaintiff was the owner of the suit schedule property and
after her death, the plaintiff succeeded the suit schedule
property. Thus, the plaintiff is the owner of the suit
schedule property. Therefore, it is proved that there is
jural relationship of owner and tenant between the plaintiff
and defendant respectively.
NC: 2025:KHC:44975
HC-KAR
12. It is the averment in the plaint and evidence of
PW.1 - plaintiff that the defendant has stopped payment of
monthly rent to the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff has
issued legal notice as per Ex.P5 terminating the tenancy.
The defendant by his reply-Ex.P6 to legal notice though
denied his default in payment of rent, admittedly the
plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. The plaintiff has
not produced sufficient materials viz., what is the rate of
rent per month and from which period, the defendant had
become defaulter in payment of rent.
13. Though the defendant has contended that the
father of the plaintiff had executed an agreement of sale in
favour of defendant for total sale consideration amount of
Rs.8,00,000/- and paid an advance amount of
Rs.6,10,000/- to the plaintiff. But the plaintiff-Majunath
died. The defendant has not filed suit for specific
performance of Exhibit.D2 - agreement of sale itself do not
prove that the defendant is entitled for protection under
Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, since the said
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44975
HC-KAR
document is unregistered one. The defendant has not
taken any legal recourse either for specific performance or
claiming or getting refund of the amount stated to have
been paid as per agreement of sale deed.
14. Therefore, the plaintiff proves that he is entitled
for ejectment of the defendant from the suit premises as
he is the owner of the suit schedule property and at the
same time, the plaintiff has not produced positive
evidence, for which already the defendant had become
defaulter in payment of rent and what is the amount of
arrears of rent. Therefore, the judgment and decree so far
as directing the defendant to pay the arrears of rent of
Rs.1,12,000/- and damages at the rate of of Rs.2,600/-
per month is set-aside by confirming the decree of
ejectment. Therefore, my answer to point No.1 is in the
negative, point No.2 is in the affirmative and point No.3
is in the partly affirmative.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44975
HC-KAR
15. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed-in-part.
(ii) The judgment and decree so far as payment of
arrears of rent of Rs.1,12,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh Twelve Thousand only) and directing the
defendant to pay the damage at rate of
Rs.2,600/- (Rupees Two Thousand Six Hundred
Only) per month is set-aside and the decree of
ejectment directing the defendant to vacate and
hand over the vacant possession to the plaintiff
is confirmed.
(iii) Accordingly, the judgment and decree is
modified.
(iv) The defendant is given one year time to vacate
and hand over the vacant possession of suit
schedule property to the plaintiff from today.
The defendant is directed to file undertaking in
this regard within a period of four weeks from
today.
(v) Till handing over the possession of the property,
the defendant is directed to pay monthly rent of
Rs.5,000/- to the plaintiff.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44975
HC-KAR
(vi) In case the defendant fails to hand over the
vacant possession to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is
entitled to execute decree without seeking
notice to defendant.
(vii) Draw decree accordingly.
(viii) No costs.
SD/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
JUDGE
KA,
