Karnataka High Court
M/S Sreenivasa Enterprises vs Sri B V Narayan on 13 October, 2025
-1-
RFA No. 816 of 2024
C/W RFA No. 648 of 2024
RFA No. 814 of 2024
AND 6 OTHERS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.816 OF 2024 (EJE)
CONNECTED WITH
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.648 OF 2024 (RES),
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.814 OF 2024 (RES),
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1057 OF 2024 (RES),
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1063 OF 2024 (RES),
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1065 OF 2024(RES),
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1078 OF 2024 (RES),
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1079 OF 2024 (RES),
AND
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1115 OF 2024 (RES)
IN R.F.A. No.816/2024:
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI B.K. RAJENDRA PRASAD
Digitally signed by
MOUNESHWARAPPA SON OF LATE B. KRISHNA SHETTY
NAGARATHNA
Location: High Court
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
of Karnataka RESIDING AT NO.31
11TH 'A' CROSS, 1ST FLOOR
SWIMMING POOL EXTENSION
SUDHINDRA NAGAR, MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU - 560 003.
2. SHRI B. N. RAMA MOHAN
SON OF LATE B. K. NARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.15, 13TH MAIN
JAGRUTHI COLONY, PUTTENAHALLI
J. P. NAGAR VII PHASE
BENGALURU-560 078.
-2-
RFA No. 816 of 2024
C/W RFA No. 648 of 2024
RFA No. 814 of 2024
AND 6 OTHERS
3. SHRI B. G. SHANKAR
SON OF LATE B. K. GOPAL
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.2069
EAST END 'B' MAIN
39TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR IX BLOCK
BENGALURU-560 069.
4. SHRI B.M. SREENATH
SON OF LATE B.K. MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.128/7
7TH MAIN ROAD, LAKKASANDRA EXTENSION
WILSON GARDEN
BENGALURU-560 030.
5. SHRI B. G. MAHESH
SON OF LATE B. K. GOVINDARAJ
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.69, EAST PARK ROAD
14TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BENGALURU - 560 003.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL, FOR
SRI VISWANATHA SHETTY V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S. SREENIVASA ENTERPRISES
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING PARTNERS:
SHRI K. R. RAVISHANKAR AND
SMT. ANITHA RAVISHANKAR
VITTOBA TEMPLE STREET
DODDABALLAPURA
DODDABALLAUPRA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
2. SHRI K. R. RAVISHANKAR
SON OF K. C. RUDRE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
MANAGING PARTNER
M/S. SREENIVASA ENTERPRISES
C/O. URVASHI THEATRE
NO.K-40, H. SIDDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU-560 027.
-3-
RFA No. 816 of 2024
C/W RFA No. 648 of 2024
RFA No. 814 of 2024
AND 6 OTHERS
4. SMT. ANITHA RAVISHANKAR
WIFE OF K. R. RAVISHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
M/S. SREENIVASA ENTERPRISES
C/O. URVASHI THEATRE
NO.K-40, H. SIDDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU- 560 027.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RUDRESHWAR SINGH, SENIOR COUNSEL, FOR
SRI T. SESHAGIRI RAO., ADVOCATE)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96
READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.02.2024 PASSED
IN O.S.NO.3841 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-7),
PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.
IN R.F.A. NO.648/2024:
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. BASETTY TRUST
REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.15
13TH MAIN, JAGRUTHI COLONY
PUTTENAHALLI, J.P. NAGAR VII PHASE
BENGALURU-560 078.
REPRESENTED BY:
2. THE PRESIDENT
SHRI B.N. RAM MOHAN
SON OF LATE B.K. NARAYAN
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.15, 13TH MAIN, JAGRUTHI COLONY
PUTTENAHALLI, JP NAGAR VII PHASE
BENGALURU-560 078.
3. THE SECRETARY
SHRI B.V. BADRINATH
SON OF LATE B.R. VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.512, ASHWATHAKATTE ROAD
V.V. PURAM
BENGALURU-560 004.
-4-
RFA No. 816 of 2024
C/W RFA No. 648 of 2024
RFA No. 814 of 2024
AND 6 OTHERS
TRUSTEES:
B.V. CHANDRASHEKAR
(DIED ON 14.11.2023)
SON OF LATE B.R. VENKATARAMANA SETTY
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.100/24
10TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST BLOCK
JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 011.
4. SMT. JALAJA SHEKAR
WIFE OF LATE B.V. CHANDRASEKAR
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.100/24
10TH D MAIN ROAD
I BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU 560 011.
5. SHRI S.K. KISHORE
SON OF LATE B.S. KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.33, 2ND FLOOR
OPP: GOVERNMENT MATERNITY HOSPITAL
SAJJAN RAO ROAD, V.V. PURAM
BENGALURU-560 004.
6. SMT. B.N. RAJESHWARI
WIFE OF V.B. KRISHNAIAH CHETTY
DAUGHTER OF LATE B.R. NAGARAJAN
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.593
21ST MAIN ROAD, 4TH 'T' BLOCK
JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 041.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL, FOR
SRI VISWANATHA SHETTY V., ADVOCATE)
-5-
RFA No. 816 of 2024
C/W RFA No. 648 of 2024
RFA No. 814 of 2024
AND 6 OTHERS
AND:
1. M/S. SREENIVASA ENTERPRISES
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING PARTNERS
SHRI K.R. RAVISHANKAR AND
SMT. ANITHA RAVISHANKAR
VITTOBA TEMPLE STREET
DODDABALLAPURA
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT - 561 203.
2. SHRI K.R. RAVISHANKAR
SON OF K.C. RUDRE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
MANAGING PARTNER
M/S. SREENIVASA ENTERPRISES
C/O. URVASHI THEATRE
NO.K-40, H. SIDDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
3. SMT. ANITHA RAVISHANKAR
WIFE OF K.R. RAVISHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
M/S. SREENIVASA ENTERPRISES
C/O. URVASHI THEATRE
NO.K-40, H. SIDDAIAH ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RUDRESHWAR SINGH, SENIOR COUNSEL, FOR
SRI T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE, FOR R-1 TO R3)
***
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96
READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.02.2024 PASSED
IN O.S. NO.3840 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF XXII ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, PARTLY
DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EVICTION AND DAMAGES.
-6-
RFA No. 816 of 2024
C/W RFA No. 648 of 2024
RFA No. 814 of 2024
AND 6 OTHERS
IN R.F.A. NO. 814/2024:
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI B.V. NARAYAN
SON OF LATE B. R. VENKATARAMANA SETTY
AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS
RESIDING AT 100/24
10th 'D' MAIN ROAD
I BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU 560 011.
SHRI B.V. CHANDRASEKAR
SINCE DECEASED, BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:
2. SMT. JALAJA SEKAR
WIFE OF LATE B. V. CHANDRASEKAR
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS.
3. SRI HEMANTH CHANDRASEKAR
SON OF LATE B. V. CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
4. SRI ANUP BANGALORE CHANDRASEKAR
SON OF LATE B. V. CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
APPELLANT NOS.2 TO 4 ARE
RESIDING AT 100/24
10th 'D' MAIN ROAD
1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 011.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL, FOR
SRI VISWANATHA SHETTY V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S. SREENIVASA ENTERPRISES
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING PARTNERS:
SHRI K. R. RAVISHANKAR AND
SMT. ANITHA RAVISHANKAR
VITTOBA TEMPLE STREET
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.
-7-
RFA No. 816 of 2024
C/W RFA No. 648 of 2024
RFA No. 814 of 2024
AND 6 OTHERS
2. SHRI K. R. RAVISHANKAR
SON OF K. C. RUDRE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
MANAGING PARTNER
M/S. SREENIVASA ENTERPRISES
C/O. URVASHI THEATRE
NO.K-40, H. SIDDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU 560 027.
3. SMT. ANITHA RAVISHANKAR
WIFE OF K. R. RAVISHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
M/S. SREENIVASA ENTERPRISES
C/O. URVASHI THEATRE
NO.K-40, H. SIDDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RUDRESHWAR SINGH, SENIOR COUNSEL, FOR
SRI T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)
***
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96
READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.02.2024
PASSED IN O.S. NO.3842 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY,
PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EVICTION.
IN R.F.A. NO. 1057/2024:
BETWEEN:
M/S. SREENIVASA ENTERPRISES
VITTOBHA TEMPLE STREET
DODDABALLAPURA
BENGALURU DISTRICT AND
M/S. URVASHI THEATRE
NO.40, H. SIDDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
SRI K. R. RAVISHANKAR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RUDRESHWAR SINGH, SENIOR COUNSEL, FOR
SRI T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)
-8-
RFA No. 816 of 2024
C/W RFA No. 648 of 2024
RFA No. 814 of 2024
AND 6 OTHERS
AND:
1. SMT. B. G. BHARATHI
WIFE OF LATE B. K. GOVINDARAJ
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS.
2. SRI B. G. MAHESH
SON OF LATE B. K. GOVINDARAJ
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
3. SMT. B. G. RAJESHWARI
DAUGHTER OF LATE B. K. GOVINDARAJ
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
4. SMT. B. G. TANUJA
DAUGHTER OF LATE B. K. GOVINDARAJ
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
5. SRI B. G. RAKESH
SON OF LATE B. K. GOVINDARAJ
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.69
EAST PARK ROAD
14TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BENGALURU - 560 003.
6. SRI B. R. RAJENDRA PRASAD
SON OF LATE B. KRISHNA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.31, 11TH 'A' CROSS
SUDHINDRA NAGAR, MALLESWARAM
BENGALURU - 560 003.
7. SRI B. N. RAM MOHAN
SON OF LATE B. K. NARAYAN
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.15, 13TH MAIN
JAGRUTHI COLONY, PUTTENAHALLI
J.P. NAGAR VII PHASE
BENGALURU - 560 078.
-9-
RFA No. 816 of 2024
C/W RFA No. 648 of 2024
RFA No. 814 of 2024
AND 6 OTHERS
8. SRI B. M. SRINATH
SON OF LATE B. K. MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.128/7
7TH MAIN ROAD, LAKKASANDRA EXTENSION
WILSON GARDEN
BENGALURU - 560 030.
9. SRI B. G. SHANKAR
SON OF LATE B. K. GOPAL
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.2069, EAST END 'B' MAIN
39TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR 9TH BLOCK
BENGALURU - 560 069.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL, FOR
SRI VISWANATH SHETTY V., ADVOCATE,
FOR R-2 AND R6 TO R9)
***
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96
READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.02.2024 PASSED
IN O.S. NO.3844 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF XXII ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, DISMISSING THE
SUIT FOR EXTENSION OF LEASE PERIOD.
IN R.F.A. NO. 1063/2024:
BETWEEN:
M/S. SREENIVASA ENTERPRISES
VITTOBHA TEMPLE STREET
DODDABALLAPURA
BENGALURU DISTRICT AND
M/S. URVASHI THEATRE, NO.40
H. SIDDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
SRI K. R. RAVISHANKAR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RUDRESHWAR SINGH, SENIOR COUNSEL, FOR
SRI T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)
- 10 -
RFA No. 816 of 2024
C/W RFA No. 648 of 2024
RFA No. 814 of 2024
AND 6 OTHERS
AND:
1. M/S. BASETTY TRUST
A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST
WITH ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.512, ASWATHAKATTE ROAD
V. V. PURAM
BENGALURU - 560 004
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY.
2. SRI B. N. RAM MOHAN
SON OF LATE B. K. NARAYAN
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.15, 13TH MAIN
JAGRUTHI COLONY, PUTTENAHALLI
J.P. NAGAR VII PHASE
BENGALURU - 560 078.
3. SRI B. V. BADRINATH
SON OF LATE B. R. VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.512
ASWATHAKATTE ROAD
V. V. PURAM
BENGALURU - 560 004.
4. SRI S. K. KISHORE
SON OF LATE B. S. KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.33, 2ND FLOOR
OPPOSITE GOVERNMENT MATERNITY HOSPITAL
SAJJAN RAO ROAD, V.V. PURAM
BENGALURU - 560 004.
5. SMT. B. N. RAJESHWARI
WIFE OF V. B. KRISHNAIAH CHETTY
DAUGHTER OF LATE B. R. NAGARAJAN
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.593, 21ST MAIN ROAD
4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 041.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL, FOR
SRI VISWANATHA SHETTY V., ADVOCATE)
- 11 -
RFA No. 816 of 2024
C/W RFA No. 648 of 2024
RFA No. 814 of 2024
AND 6 OTHERS
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96
READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.02.2024 PASSED
IN O.S. NO.3858 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF XXII ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, DISMISSING THE
SUIT FOR EXTENSION OF LEASE PERIOD.
IN R.F.A. NO.1065/2024:
BETWEEN:
M/S. SREENIVASA ENTERPRISES
VITTOBHA TEMPLE STREET
DODDABALLAPURA
BENGALURU DISTRICT AND
M/S. URVASHI THEATRE
NO.40, H. SIDDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
SRI K. R. RAVISHANKAR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RUDRESHWAR SINGH, SENIOR COUNSEL, FOR
SRI T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI B. V. NARAYAN
SON OF LATE B. R. VENKATARAMANA SETTY
AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.100/24
10TH 'D' MAIN ROAD
1ST BLOCK JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 011.
2. SMT. JALAJA SHEKAR
WIFE OF LATE B. V. CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS.
3. SRI HEMANTH CHANDRASHEKAR
SON OF LATE B. V. CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
- 12 -
RFA No. 816 of 2024
C/W RFA No. 648 of 2024
RFA No. 814 of 2024
AND 6 OTHERS
4. SRI ANUP BANGALORE CHANDRASHEKAR
SON OF LATE B. V. CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.100/24,
10TH 'D' MAIN ROAD
1ST BLOCK JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 011.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL, FOR
SRI VISWANATHA SHETTY V., ADVOCATE)
***
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96
READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.02.2024 PASSED
IN O.S. NO.3861 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE
SUIT FOR EVICTION.
IN R.F.A. NO.1078/2024:
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. SREENIVASA ENTERPRISES
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
SRI K. R. RAVISHANKAR AND
SMT. ANITHA RAVISHANKAR
VITTOBHA TEMPLE STREET
DODDABALLAPURA
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
2. SRI K. R. RAVISHANKAR
SON OF K. C. RUDREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
MANAGING PARTNER
M/S. SREENIVASA ENTERPRISES
C/O. URVASHI THEATRE, NO.K-40
H. SIDDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
- 13 -
RFA No. 816 of 2024
C/W RFA No. 648 of 2024
RFA No. 814 of 2024
AND 6 OTHERS
3. SMT. ANITHA RAVISHANKAR
WIFE OF K. R. RAVISHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
M/S. SREENIVASA ENTERPRISES
C/O. URAVASHI THEATRE
NO.K-40, H. SIDDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU-560 027.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI RUDRESHWAR SINGH, SENIOR COUNSEL, FOR
SRI T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI B. V. NARAYAN
SON OF LATE B. R. VENKATARAMANA SETTY
AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.100/24
10TH 'D' MAIN ROAD
1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 011.
2. SMT. JALAJA SHEKAR
WIFE OF LATE B. V. CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS.
3. SRI HEMANTH CHANDRASHEKAR
SON OF LATE B. V. CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
4. SRI ANUP BANGALORE CHANDRASHEKAR
SON OF LATE B. V. CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.100/24
10TH 'D' MAIN ROAD
1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 011.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P. P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI VISWANATHA SHETTY V., ADVOCATE)
***
- 14 -
RFA No. 816 of 2024
C/W RFA No. 648 of 2024
RFA No. 814 of 2024
AND 6 OTHERS
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96
READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.02.2024 PASSED
IN O.S. NO.3842 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF XXII ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, PARTLY
DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EVICTION.
IN R.F.A. NO.1079/2024:
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. SREENIVASA ENTERPRISES
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
SRI K. R. RAVISHANKAR AND
SMT. ANITHA RAVISHANKAR
VITTOBHA TEMPLE STREET, DODDABALLAPURA
BENGALURU DISTRICT - 561 203.
2. SRI K. R. RAVISHANKAR
SON OF K. C. RUDRE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
MANAGING PARTNER
M/S. SREENIVASA ENTERPRISES
C/O. URVASHI THEATRE
NO.K-40, H. SIDDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
3. SMT. ANITHA RAVISHANKAR
WIFE OF K. R. RAVISHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
M/S. SREENIVASA ENTERPRISES
C/O. URVASHI THEATRE
NO.K-40, H SIDDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI RUDRESHWAR SINGH, SENIOR COUNSEL, FOR
SRI T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S. BASETTY TRUST
REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.15
13TH MAIN, JAGRUTHI COLONY
PUTTENAHALLI, J. P. NAGAR VII PHASE
BENGALURU - 560 078.
- 15 -
RFA No. 816 of 2024
C/W RFA No. 648 of 2024
RFA No. 814 of 2024
AND 6 OTHERS
REPRESENTED BY:
2. THE PRESIDENT
SRI B. N. RAM MOHAN
SON OF LATE B. K. NARAYAN
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.15, 13TH MAIN
JAGRUTHI COLONY, PUTTENAHALLI
J. P. NAGAR VII PHASE
BENGALURU - 560 078.
3. THE SECRETARY
SHRI B. V. BADRINATH
SON OF LATE B. R. VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.512
ASHWATHAKATTE ROAD
V. V. PURAM
BENGALURU-560 004.
TRUSTEES:
4. SHRI S. K. KISHORE
SON OF LATE B. S. KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.33, 2ND FLOOR
OPPOSITE GOVERNMENT MATERNITY HOSPITAL
SAJJAN RAO ROAD
V. V. PURAM
BENGALURU - 560 004.
5. SMT. B. N. RAJESHWARI
WIFE OF V. B. KRISHNAIAH CHETTY
DAUGHTER OF LATE B. R. NAGARAJAN
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.593, 21ST MAIN ROAD
4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 041.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P. P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL, FOR
SRI VISWANATHA SHETTY V., ADVOCATE)
***
- 16 -
RFA No. 816 of 2024
C/W RFA No. 648 of 2024
RFA No. 814 of 2024
AND 6 OTHERS
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96
READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.02.2024 PASSED
IN O.S. NO.3840 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY, PARTLY
DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EVICTION AND DAMAGES.
IN R.F.A. NO.1115/2024:
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. SREENIVASA ENTERPRISES
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
SRI K. R. RAVISHANKAR AND
SMT. ANITHA RAVISHANKAR
VITTOBHA TEMPLE STREET
DODDABALLAPURA
BENGALURU DISTRICT - 561 203.
2. SRI K. R. RAVISHANKAR
SON OF K. C. RUDRE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
MANAGING PARTNER
M/S. SREENIVASA ENTERPRISES
C/O. URVASHI THEATRE
NO.K-40, H. SIDDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
3. SMT. ANITHA RAVISHANKAR
WIFE OF K. R. RAVISHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
M/S. SREENIVASA ENTERPRISES
C/O. URVASHI THEATRE
NO.K-40, H. SIDDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI RUDRESHWAR SINGH, SENIOR COUNSEL, FOR
SRI T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)
- 17 -
RFA No. 816 of 2024
C/W RFA No. 648 of 2024
RFA No. 814 of 2024
AND 6 OTHERS
AND:
1. SHRI B. K. RAJENDRA PRASAD
SON OF LATE B. KRISHNA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.31, 11TH 'A' CROSS
1ST FLOOR, SWIMMING POOL EXTENSION
SUDHINDRA NAGAR, MALLESWARAM
BENGALURU - 560 003.
2. SRI B. N. RAM MOHAN
SON OF LATE B. K. NARAYAN
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.15, 13TH MAIN
JAGRUTHI COLONY
PUTTENAHALLI, J. P. NAGAR VII PHASE
BENGALURU - 560 078.
3. SRI B. G. SHANKAR
SON OF LATE B. K. GOPAL
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.2069
EAST END 'B' MAIN, 39TH CROSS
JAYANAGAR IX BLOCK
BENGALURU - 560 069.
4. SHRI B. M. SRINATH
SON OF LATE B. K. MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.128/7
7TH MAIN ROAD, LAKKASANDRA EXTENSION
WILSON GARDEN
BENGALURU - 560 030.
5. SHRI B. G. MAHESH
SON OF LATE B. K. GOVINDARAJ
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.69, EAST PARK ROAD
14TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BENGALURU-560 003.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL, FOR
SRI VISWANATHA SHETTY V., ADVOCATE)
***
- 18 -
RFA No. 816 of 2024
C/W RFA No. 648 of 2024
RFA No. 814 of 2024
AND 6 OTHERS
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96
READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.02.2024 PASSED
IN O.S. NO.3841 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF XXII ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, PARTLY
DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.
THESE REGULAR FIRST APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 25.09.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, VENKATESH NAIK T., J, PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)
Regular First Appeal Nos.816 of 2024, 648 of 2024, and
814 of 2024 are filed by the landlords of the suit schedule
properties against the tenants being aggrieved by the
judgment and decree dated 15.02.2024 passed by the learned
XXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City
(CCH-7), (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court', for brevity)
challenging inadequacy of quantum of mesne profits/damages,
and ejectment of the tenants, in Original Suit Nos.3841 of 2018,
3840 of 2018 and 3842 of 2018, respectively.
- 19 -
AND 6 OTHERS
2. Whereas, the tenants of the suit schedule properties
have filed Regular First Appeal Nos.1057 of 2024, 1063 of 2024,
1065 of 2024, 1078 of 2024, 1079 of 2024 and 1115 of 2024
challenging the judgment and decree of eviction and rejection of
the suits for extension of lease, passed by the trial Court in
Original Suit Nos.3844 of 2016, 3858 of 2016, 3861 of 2016,
3842 of 2018, 3840 of 2018 and 3841 of 2018, respectively.
3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are
referred to as 'the landlords' and 'the tenants'.
4. The description of the original suits and the appeals
are as under:
RELIEFS
Sl. NATURE OF
RFA NOS. O.S. NOS. SOUGHT IN
NO. THE SUIT
THE APPEAL
1 816/2024 3841/2018 For eviction To enhance
and mesne mesne profits
profits and damages
2 648/2024 3840/2018 For eviction To enhance
and mesne mesne profits
profits and damages
3 814/2024 3842/2018 For eviction To enhance
and mesne mesne profits
profits and damages
4 1057/2024 3844/2016 For extension For extension
of lease of lease
5 1063/2024 3858/2016 For extension For extension
of lease of lease
- 20 -
AND 6 OTHERS
6 1065/2024 3861/2016 For extension For extension
of lease of lease
7 1078/2024 3842/2018 For eviction Challenging
and mesne the decree of
profits eviction
8 1079/2024 3840/2019 For eviction Challenging
and mesne the decree of
profits eviction
9 1115/2024 3841/2018 For eviction Challenging
and mesne the decree of
profits eviction
5. The brief facts in Regular First Appeal Nos.816 of
2024, 648 of 2024 and 814 of 2024 are that
Sri B.K. Govindaraj [since dead, represented by his legal
representatives (hereinafter referred to as 'landlords')] filed
the original suits for eviction against M/s. Sreenivasa
Enterprises and its partners (hereinafter referred to as
'tenants') in respect of the suit schedule properties, wherein,
the tenants are running a cinema theatre by name and style
"Urvashi Theatre", Lalbagh Road, Bengaluru, and to vacate the
suit schedule properties and also claimed damages from the
date of termination of tenancy, i.e. 24.04.2018, till handing
over the vacant possession of the suit schedule properties. The
subject matter of the suit schedule properties and its
measurements are as under:
- 21 -
AND 6 OTHERS
SL.
CASE NO. EXTENT OF PROPERTY
NO
RFA 816/2024 Property measuring 11,346
1.
(O.S. square feet (Situated at
No.3841/2018) H. Siddaiah Road, Bengaluru)
RFA 648/2024 Property measuring 23,738
2 (O.S. square feet (Situated at
No.3840/2018) H. Siddaiah Road, Bengaluru)
RFA 814/2024 Property measuring 11,430
3 (O.S. square feet (situated at
No.3842/2018) H. Siddaiah Road, Bengaluru).
TOTAL 46,514 square feet
The aforesaid suit schedule properties were given on
lease in favour of the tenants, i.e. M/s. Sreenivasa Enterprises
and its partners under Lease Deeds dated 29.01.1970,
wherein, the tenants constructed a theatre called 'Urvashi
Theatre' and the lease period commenced after construction of
the theatre. The lease period ended on 23.04.2018. Hence, the
landlords issued eviction notice calling upon the tenants to
demolish the building, to quit and vacate the suit schedule
properties. Though notice was served, the tenants did not
vacate the properties. Hence, the landlords filed the suits for
eviction of the suit schedule properties and for relief of mesne
profits/damages against the tenants for the tune of
Rs.25,00,000/- per month from 24.04.2018 till handing over
the vacant possession of the suit schedule properties.
- 22 -
AND 6 OTHERS
6. Per contra, the tenants also filed three suits in Original
Suit Nos.3844 of 2016, 3858 of 2016 and 3861 of 2016 for
extension of Lease Deeds dated 29.01.1970, which expired on
23.04.2018. According to the tenants, the suit schedule
properties were obtained under three Lease Deeds dated
29.01.1970. As per condition No.32 of the Lease Deeds, there
is a provision of extension of lease for another 90 years from
the inception of the lease, on terms and conditions to be
agreed upon at the time of extension. The construction of
Cinema Theatre was made by the tenants along with other
constructions. The landlords are not the owners of the
constructed portion of the building. Hence, there could be no
renewal of the buildings constructed by the tenants and
therefore, the relationship between the tenants and the
landlords is only in respect of the vacant land. In fact,
screening of the first film was commenced on 24.04.1976 and
from that day, the lease period was commenced and it is for a
period of 42 years. Further, the landlords offered the tenants
to sell the undivided shares of the suit schedule properties and
the landlords furnished report to the Income-Tax Department,
but the landlords instead of executing the Sale Deeds in favour
- 23 -
AND 6 OTHERS
of the tenants, had filed the suits for eviction and mesne
profits/damages. The lease period expired on 23.04.2018 and
hence, as per the above conditions of the Lease Deeds, the
tenants are entitled for renewal of lease for a further period of
45 years.
7. Based on the above pleadings in all the original suits,
the trial Court framed the following issues:
ISSUES IN O.S. NOS.3841 OF 2018
(re-casted issues)
1. Whether the plaintiffs/landlord prove that they
are entitled for possession of suit schedule property
as contended in the plaint?
2. Whether the plaintiffs/landlord prove that the
possession of the defendant/tenant over the suit
schedule property is unauthorized from 24-4-2018
and therefore, the plaintiffs/landlord entitled for
damages as claimed in the plaint amounting to
Rs.12,50,000/-?
3. Whether the plaintiffs/landlord prove that the
defendant/tenant Firm have not paid the agreed rent
regularly and security deposit has been adjusted
towards rent?
- 24 -
AND 6 OTHERS
4. Whether the plaintiffs/landlord prove that they are
entitled for the reliefs as claimed in the plaint?
5. What Order or Decree?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES IN O.S. NO.3841 OF 2018
1. Whether the defendants prove that, lease deed
does not include the Cinema Theatre constructed in
the schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, lease deed
includes Cinema Theatre?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the lease deed
has been terminated with respect to the property
leased and such notice is valid?
ISSUES IN O.S. NO.3840 OF 2018
(re-casted issues)
1. Whether the plaintiffs/landlord prove that they
are entitled for possession of suit schedule property
as contended in the plaint?
2. Whether the plaintiffs/landlord prove that the
possession of the defendant/tenant over the suit
schedule property is unauthorized from 24-4-2018
and therefore, the plaintiff/landlord entitled for
damages as claimed in the plaint to the extent of
Rs.25 lakhs?
- 25 -
AND 6 OTHERS
3. Whether the plaintiffs trust/landlord prove that
tenancy of the defendant has terminated as
required under Section 106 of Transfer of Property
Act?
4. Whether the defendant/tenant Firm proves that
the plaintiffs/landlord have no authority to
terminate the tenancy since they are not trustees of
the trust as contended in the written statement and
they have no authority to file the suit?
5. Whether the defendant/tenant proves that since
one of the trustee by name B.S. Krishnamurthy
sold his share in favour of the defendant/tenant,
the defendant Firm is entitled for
continuation/extension of lease for further period of
45 years as per clause 38 of the trust executed by
the trust?
6. Whether the plaintiffs/landlord prove that they
are entitled for the reliefs as claimed in the plaint?
7. What order or decree?
(ADDITIONAL ISSUES IN O.S. NO.3840 OF 2018)
1. Whether the defendants prove that, lease deed
does not include the Cinema Theatre constructed in
the schedule property?
- 26 -
AND 6 OTHERS
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, lease deed
includes Cinema Theatre?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the lease deed
has been terminated with respect to the property
leased and such notice is valid?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that boundaries
shown in the plaint is correct and whether the
identity of the property is established?
ISSUES IN O.S. NO.3842 OF 2018
(re-casted issues)
1. Whether the plaintiffs/landlord prove that they are
entitled for possession of suit schedule property as
contended in the plaint?
2. Whether the plaintiffs/landlord prove that the
possession of the defendant/tenant over the suit
schedule property is unauthorized from 24-4-2018
and therefore, the plaintiff/landlord entitled for
damages as claimed in the plaint to the extent of
Rs.12,50,000/-?
3. Whether the plaintiffs/landlord prove that the
defendant/tenant firm has not paid the agreed rent
regularly and security deposit has been adjusted
towards rent?
- 27 -
AND 6 OTHERS
4. Whether the plaintiffs/landlord prove that they are
entitled for the relief as claimed in the plaint?
5. What Order or Decree?
(ADDITIONAL ISSUES IN O.S. NO.3842 OF 2018)
1. Whether the defendants prove that, lease deed
does not include the Cinema Theatre constructed in
the schedule property ?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, lease deed
includes Cinema Theatre?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the lease deed
has been terminated with respect to the property
leased and such notice is valid?
ISSUES IN O.S. NO.3844 OF 2016
AND O.S. NO.3861 OF 2016
(re-casted issues)
1. Whether the plaintiff/tenant proves that the
defendant/landlord is liable to execute lease deed for
a period of 45 years from 24-4-2018 as contended in
the plaint?
2. Whether the plaintiff/tenant proves that there is a
condition/provision under registered lease deed
dated 29-3-1970 for further extension of lease
period as contended by the plaintiff/tenant?
- 28 -
AND 6 OTHERS
3. Whether the defendant/landlord proves that the
plaintiff/tenant has become chronic defaulter in
making payment of rent as contended in para No.6
of the written statement?
4. Whether the defendant/landlord proves that the
Court fee paid by the plaintiff/tenant is not proper?
5. Whether the plaintiff/tenant proves that the firm
is entitled for the relief as claimed in the plaint?
6. What Decree or Order?
(ADDITIONAL ISSUES IN O.S. NO.3844 OF 2016
AND O.S. NO.3861 OF 2016)
1. Whether the tenant proves that, Clause No.30 of
the lease deed is void under the Indian Contract Act?
ISSUES IN O.S. NO.3858 OF 2016
(re-casted issues)
1. Whether the plaintiff/Tenant proves that the
defendant/landlord is liable to execute lease deed for
a further period of 45 years from 24-4-2018 as
contended in the plaint?
2. Whether the plaintiff/tenant proves that there is a
condition/provision under registered lease deed
dated 29-3-1970 for further extension of lease
period as contended by the plaintiff/tenant?
- 29 -
AND 6 OTHERS
3. Whether the plaintiff/tenant proves that the
defendant trust has no authority to issue notice
under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, as
contended in the plaint?
4. Whether the plaintiff/tenant proves that the lease
deed executed by the trust mentioning condition
No.30 is against to the provision of the Indian
Contract Act?
5. Whether the plaintiff/tenant proves that the firm
is entitled for the relief as claimed in the plaint?
6. What Order or Decree?
(ADDITIONAL ISSUES IN O.S. NO.3858 OF 2016)
1. Whether the tenant proves that, Clause No.30 of
the lease deed is void under the Indian Contract Act?
8. In Original Suit Nos.3844 of 2016 connected with
3841 of 2018, the Managing Partner of M/s. Sreenivasa
Enterprises (tenants) by name, Sri K.R. Ravishankar, was
examined as PW1 and relied upon seven documents as per
Exs.P1 to P7. On behalf of the landlords, Sri B.G. Mahesh was
examined as DW1 and relied upon thirty-nine documents as
per Exs.D1 to D39.
- 30 -
AND 6 OTHERS
9. In Original Suit Nos.3858 of 2016 connected with
3840 of 2018, the Managing Partner of M/s. Sreenivasa
Enterprises (tenants) by name, Sri K.R. Ravishankar, was
examined as PW1 and relied upon fifty documents as per
Exs.P1 to P50. On behalf of the landlords, Sri B.N. Ram Mohan
was examined as DW1 and relied upon forty-one documents as
per Exs.D1 to 41.
10. In Original Suit Nos.3861 of 2016 connected with
3842 of 2018, the Managing Partner of
M/s. Sreenivasa Enterprises (tenants) by name,
Sri K.R. Ravishankar, was examined as PW1 and relied upon
eleven documents as per Exs.P1 to P11. On behalf of the
landlords, Sri B.V. Chandrashekar was examined as DW1 and
relied upon thirty-one documents as per Exs.D1 to D31.
11. The trial Court, after recording the oral and
documentary evidence on record, decreed the suits of the
landlords and directed the tenants to handover the vacant
possession of the suit schedule properties along with Urvashi
Theatre building within two and half-a-year from the date of
the decree. The trial Court, further ordered and decreed that
- 31 -
AND 6 OTHERS
the tenants to pay mesne profits/damages at the rate of
Rs.1,25,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.1,25,000/- per month
from 23.04.2018 till they handing over the vacant possession
of the suit schedule properties along with the theatre building.
The trial Court further ordered and decreed that while evicting
the building, the tenants shall strictly comply with the
condition/Clause No.30 of the Lease deeds, failing which, the
landlords are at liberty to claim damages from the tenants.
Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court,
the landlords and the tenants have filed the appeals (as
aforestated).
12. Heard Sri P.P. Hegde, learned senior counsel, along
with Sri Viswanatha Shetty V., learned counsel, appearing for
the landlords, and Sri Rudreshwar Singh, learned senior
counsel, along with Sri T. Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel,
appearing for the tenants.
13. Learned senior counsel for the landlords, supporting
the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, has
contended that the trial Court granted mesne profits/damages
at the rate of Rs.1,25,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.1,25,000/-
- 32 -
AND 6 OTHERS
per month, respectively, which is on lower side. The lease was
executed on 29.01.1970, but three years stipulation was
imposed for completion of theatre building and as such, the
lease was commenced from 24.04.1976 and it was ended on
23.04.2018. The tenants are in unlawful possession of the suit
schedule properties for a period of five years and ten months
as on the date of passing of the judgment by the trial Court.
Hence, they are liable to pay mesne profits/damages to the
suit schedule properties.
Learned senior counsel has further contended that, there
are three separate premises and hence, three separate
registered Lease Deeds were executed in respect of the
aforesaid suit schedule properties measuring 46,514 square
feet (total). Initially, the trial Court directed the tenants to pay
Rs.6,25,000/- per month towards mesne profits/damages as
interim relief for all the suit schedule properties. However,
while passing the impugned judgment and decree, the trial
Court awarded Rs.1,25,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/- and
Rs.1,25,000/- per month, respectively, towards mesne
profit/damages, without any basis. He has further contended
that the suit schedule properties are situated in a prime locality
- 33 -
AND 6 OTHERS
and it is of commercial nature. In similarly situated properties,
now, the rent fetching is Rs.150 per square feet. Hence, on
similar ground, the landlords are seeking Rs.150 per square
feet. On all these grounds, he prays to allow the appeals filed
by the landlords.
14. In support of his contentions, the learned senior
counsel for the landlords relied on the following judgments:
i. Bijay Kumar Manish Kumar HUF v. Ashwin
Bhanulal Desai reported in
(2024) 8 SCC 668.
ii. Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. Sudera
Realty Private Limited, reported in
(2023) 16 SCC 704.
iii. Mohammad Ahmad and Another v. Atma
Ram Chauhan and others, reported in
(2011) 7 SCC 755.
iv. Sumer Corporation v. Vijay Anant Gangan
and Others, reported in (2023) 11 SCC 495.
v. Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes and
Others v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira (Dead)
Through LRs. reported in (2012) 5 SCC 370.
- 34 -
AND 6 OTHERS
15. Per contra, the learned senior counsel for the tenants
has vehemently contended that, the landlords executed the
Lease Deeds in favour of the tenants in respect of the suit
schedule properties and the lease is for a period of 45 years
with a condition of renewal for a further period of 45 years.
Since the lease period was about to expire in the year 2018,
the tenants filed three separate Original Suits for extension of
lease, which was in the nature of specific performance of
contract. As per Clause No.30 of the registered Lease Deeds,
there is a provision for extension of lease, since the tenants
constructed Urvashi Theatre in the vacant land allotted by the
landlords and thereby, the tenants invested huge amount in
the suit schedule properties. Therefore, he contended that, if
lease is extended for further period of 45 years, no injustice or
prejudice would be caused to the landlords, and they are
entitled for suitable rents/damages. He further contended that
the trial Court, without appreciating the oral and documentary
evidence of the parties, more particularly, the contents of the
Lease Deeds has proceeded to decree the suits of the
landlords, instead of dismissing the suits filed by the landlords.
The trial Court ought to have extended the lease period and
- 35 -
AND 6 OTHERS
could have decreed the suits filed by the tenants. Hence, he
prayed to allow the appeals filed by the tenants and dismiss
the appeals filed by the landlords.
16. After hearing the learned senior counsel for both
parties, the points that arise for our consideration in these
appeals are:
i) Whether the tenants prove that their
possession is protected under registered
Lease Deeds dated 29.01.1970, as
contended by them, and hence, they are
entitled for extension of lease period?
ii) Whether the landlords prove that the mesne
profits/damages granted by the trial Court
is inadequate?
iii) Whether the judgment and decree passed
by the trial Court in the suits require
interference at the hands of this Court?
iv) What order and decree?
Point Nos.i and ii:
17. Since the subject matter of all the appeals are one
and the same, point Nos.i and ii are taken up together for
discussion.
- 36 -
AND 6 OTHERS
18. It is admitted fact that there is no dispute as to jural
relationship between the parties, such as, the landlords and
the tenants. The fact is that, the landlords and the tenants
entered into registered Lease Deeds dated 29.01.1970, and
the tenants constructed Urvashi Theatre in the suit schedule
properties and the lease period ended on 23.04.2018. The
disputed fact according to the landlords is that, though the
lease period ended on 23.04.2018, the tenants are in illegal
possession of the suit schedule properties and hence, the
landlords pray to quit, vacate and handover the suit schedule
properties, and also to pay mesne profits/damages. According
to the tenants, as per Clause No.30 of the registered Lease
Deeds, there is a provision for extension of lease for a further
period of 45 years. Invoking such provisions, the tenants have
preferred the Original Suits for extension of lease, which was in
the nature of the suits for specific performance of contract.
19. From perusal of the oral and documentary evidence
on record, it appears that the landlords and the tenants
entered into registered Lease Deeds in respect of the suit
schedule properties on 29.01.1970 and the lease expired on
23.04.2018 and therefore, the tenants' possession become
- 37 -
AND 6 OTHERS
unlawful, after expiry of the lease period. In this regard, the
landlords issued legal notice/eviction notice on 21.03.2018 to
the tenants by terminating the lease and called upon the
tenants to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of
the suit schedule properties.
20. In the instant case, the tenants have admitted the
ownership of the landlords in respect of the suit schedule
properties and they have also admitted issuance of legal
notice, however, they denied the notice of termination issued
by the landlords. Whereas, the tenants, in one breath, have
taken up the contention that, they are in possession of the suit
schedule properties by virtue of registered Lease Deeds dated
29.01.1970 and there is renewable Clause for another 45 years
and in another breath, they have taken up the contention that,
the landlords have agreed to sell the suit schedule properties
in favour of the tenants, but the landlords have failed to
execute the Sale Deeds in their favour.
21. From perusal of the contention of the tenants, it
clearly demonstrates that the tenants are in possession of the
suit schedule properties as lease holders. Further, the learned
- 38 -
AND 6 OTHERS
senior counsel for the tenants has vehemently contended that,
the tenants are in possession of the suit schedule properties by
virtue of oral Sale Agreement, which is permissive in nature.
22. Admittedly, the possession is an incidence of
ownership and can be transferred by the owner of an
immovable property to another, such as, in a lease. Possession
is important when there are no title documents and other
relevant records before the Court, but once the documents and
records of title come before the Court, it is the title, which has
to be looked into first and due weightage be given to it.
Possession cannot be considered in vacuum. Suit can be filed
by the title-holder for recovery of possession or it can be one
for ejectment of an ex-lessee or for mandatory injunction
requiring a person to remove himself or it can be a suit under
Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, to recover
possession. A title suit for possession has two parts, firstly,
adjudication of title, and secondly, Adjudication of possession.
If the title dispute is removed and the title is established by
one or the other party, then, in effect, it becomes a suit for
ejectment. In an action for recovery of possession of
immovable property, or for protecting possession thereof, upon
- 39 -
AND 6 OTHERS
the legal title to the property being established, the possession
or occupation of the property by a person other than the
holder of the legal title, will be presumed to have been under
and in subordination to the legal title, and it will be for the
person resisting a claim for recovery of possession or claiming
a right to continue in possession, to establish that he has such
a right. The person averring a right to continue in possession
shall, as far as possible, give a detailed particularised specific
pleading along with documents to support his claim and details
of subsequent conduct which establish his possession. It would
be imperative that one, who claims possession, must give all
such details as under:
(a) who is or are the owners of the property;
(b) title of the property;
(c) who is in possession of the title documents;
(d) identity of claimant or claimants to
possession;
(e) the date of entry into the possession;
(f) how he came into possession-whether he
purchased the property or inherited or got
the same in gift or by any other method;
(g) in case he purchased the property, what is
the consideration; if he has taken it on rent,
how much is the rent, license fee or lease
- 40 -
AND 6 OTHERS
amount;
(h) if he has taken on rent, license fee or lease-
then insist on rent deed, licence deed or
lease deed;
(i) who are the persons in
possession/occupation or otherwise living
with him, in what capacity; as family
members, friends or servants, etc.;
(j) subsequent conduct i.e. any event which
might have extinguished his entitlement to
possession or caused shift therein and;
(k) basis of his claim that not to deliver
possession but continue in possession.
23. Apart from these pleadings, the tenants must
furnish documentary proof in support of their pleadings and
contentions. All those proposed documents would be relevant,
which come into existence, after the transfer of title or
possession or the encumbrance as is claimed.
24. In the case on hand, the title of landlords is
admitted by the tenants. The tenants also admitted that the
lease period expired on 23.04.2018 and the tenants now set
up the contention that there was oral Sale Agreement between
the landlords and the tenants. As the lease period was not
- 41 -
AND 6 OTHERS
extended, possession of the tenants become unlawful. Though
there is renewable Clause in the registered Lease Deeds for
another 45 years, but there is clear recital that, such renewal
of lease may be extended, with the consent of the landlords
only and not at the option or discretion of the tenants, as per
their whims and fancies. It clearly makes out that, after
23.04.2018, the landlords have not consented for renewal of
lease, rather they have terminated the tenancy by issuing legal
notice to the tenants.
25. Further, the suit schedule properties in question was
given by the landlords to the tenants by registered Lease
Deeds dated 29.01.1970, wherein, the tenants constructed
'Urvashi Theatre' and it was agreed to vacate the suit schedule
properties on or before 23.04.2018, if the lease is not
renewed. Now, the tenants have taken contention that, the
landlords are owners of the vacant land only and the tenants
are owners of the theatre building constructed on the suit
schedule properties. In fact, possession of the tenants over
the suit schedule properties, after lease period is over,
becomes illegal possession or it is permissive possession.
- 42 -
AND 6 OTHERS
26. Whereas, the tenants have not placed any
documents to substantiate their contentions that there was
oral agreement between the parties for sale of the suit
schedule properties in their favour.
27. "Clause 30 of the registered Lease deeds clearly
demonstrates that lessee shall be liable to surrender possession
of the demised property on or before 23.04.2018 and the lease
can be extended for further 45 years, with the consent of the
lessors." The renewal of lease has to be extended only with the
consent of the landlords. If the landlords deny extending the
lease, under such circumstances, lease cannot be extended.
28. Having regard to the fact that the landlords wants to
exploit the properties of commercial nature, whereas the
tenants want to utilise the properties to run Urvashi Theatre.
The trial Court, considering all the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, has rightly exercised discretion to reject the
relief of specific performance of contract. There is no
arbitrariness or illegality in the said order of the trial Court.
29. Further, the landlords issued notice of termination
calling upon the tenants to quit, vacate and handover the suit
- 43 -
AND 6 OTHERS
schedule properties. Thus, the tenants have issued reply
notices seeking time. It shows that the landlords intended to
terminate the lease period and till date, they have not
expressed their inclination to extend the existing lease for a
further period of 45 years. In the registered Lease Deeds, no
date was fixed for specific performance or extension of lease.
Therefore, the landlords are not interested in getting into a
fresh lease deed agreement with the tenants.
Reg. Mesne Profits:
30. The trial Court directed the tenants to pay mesne
profits/damages to the landlords in the following manner:
Sl. RFA OS
Measurements Mesne profit/damages
No. No. No.
1 816 3841 11,346 square 1,25,000/- per month from
of of feet 23.04.2018 till handing
2024 2018 over the vacant possession
of the land along with the
theatre building.
2 648 3840 23,738 square 3,00,000/- per month from
of of feet 23.04.2018 till handing
2024 2018 over the vacant possession
of the land along with the
theatre building.
3 814 3842 11,430 square 1,25,000/- per month from
of of feet 23.04.2018 till handing
2024 2018 over the vacant possession
of the land along with the
theatre building.
- 44 -
AND 6 OTHERS
31. The landlords have taken the contention that the trial
Court has granted mesne profits/damages in the aforesaid
manner without any inquiry. In fact, as per Order XX, Rule
12(1)(ba) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, separate
inquiry to assess mesne profits is mandatory and the trial
Court ought to have ordered for inquiry, which reads as
follows:
"12. Decree for possession and mesne profits.-
(1) Where a suit is for the recovery of possession of
immoveable property and for rent or mesne profits,
the Court may pass a decree-
xxx xxx xxx
(ba) for the mesne profits or directing an inquiry as
to such mesne profits."
Reading of the above provision does not indicate that the
said provision in anyway bars the Court from passing decree of
mesne profits/damages and option is for the Court to direct
inquiry regarding mesne profits. Therefore, there is no merit in
the contention of the landlords that the Court has no
jurisdiction to decide mesne profits on itself and directing the
inquiry is mandatory. Then, this Court has to see whether
there was material before the trial Court to decide mesne
profits/damages.
- 45 -
AND 6 OTHERS
32. Admittedly, during pendency of the suits, the
landlords had filed an application under Section 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which was numbered as I.A.
No.13 to direct the tenants to deposit interim damages at the
rate of Rs.12,50,000/- per month. Thus, the trial Court
directed the tenants to pay a sum of Rs.6,25,000/- per month
as interim damages pending disposal of the suits by taking into
consideration of the fact that the tenants' possession over the
suit schedule properties is illegal and unauthorised, on
termination of their tenancy.
33. In turn, the tenants preferred Writ Petitions before
this Court in Writ Petition Nos.2248 of 2022 (GM-CPC)
connected with 2179 of 2022 and 2216 of 2022 and the same
came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated
28.09.2022. While dismissing the said Writ Petitions, this Court
had taken into consideration of the fact that as on the date of
filing of the suits, the ground rent in respect of neighbouring
and opposite properties was Rs.79.50 paise per square feet.
Thus, the calculation arrived by the trial Court awarding
mesne profit/damages at Rs.6,25,000/- was at the rate of
Rs.53.74 paise per square feet.
- 46 -
AND 6 OTHERS
34. The landlords to substantiate their claims, with
regard to enhancement of the mesne profits/damages, relied
upon the certified copies of the Lease Deeds dated 01.07.2018,
20.12.2019 and 02.04.2022, wherein, the rent is increased to
an extent of Rs.126 per square feet.
35. It is contended that even if the damages is calculated
minimum at the rate of Rs.126/- per square feet, the damages
in respect of the suit schedule properties would be around
Rs.58,60,764/- per month [46,514 (total square feet) x Rs.126
per square feet], which is on higher side and is without any
material.
36. Admittedly, the documents relied upon by the
landlords clearly demonstrates that the original owners, i.e.
lessors, have constructed the building and thereafter, given on
rent to the tenants. Whereas, in the instant case, the landlords
have given the vacant land on lease to the tenants and the
tenants constructed Urvashi Theatre building in the suit
schedule properties. Therefore, the landlords cannot expect
more rent as that of the owners/lessors, who constructed their
own building. If the landlords had constructed building in the
- 47 -
AND 6 OTHERS
vacant land, they would have incurred more expenses, which
runs into crore of rupees, but the tenants have constructed the
theatre and hence, the grounds urged that they are also
entitled for similar mesne profits/damages as that of other
neighbouring owners are not justifiable, as the issues involved
in the Lease Deeds of neighbouring landlords and the present
issues are different.
37. The trial Court granted the mesne profits/damages at
the rate of Rs.1,25,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.1,25,000/-,
respectively, is on lower side. The total measurement of the
entire suit schedule properties is 46,514 square feet. The trial
Court awarded mesne profits/damages at Rs.6,25,000/- per
month for the total measurement of 46,514 square feet as
interim measures during the pendency of the suits at Rs.11.82
paise per square feet, which is on lower side. If Rs.43/- per
square feet is taken into consideration for entire suit schedule
properties, it comes to Rs.20,00,102/- (46,514 X 43) and the
same is rounded off to Rs.20,00,000/- per month. Hence, the
landlords are entitled to the following mesne profits/damages:
- 48 -
AND 6 OTHERS
Sl. RFA OS Mesne
Measurements
No. No. No. profit/damages
1 816 3841 11,346 square 4,87,878/- per month
of of feet x 43 per from 23.04.2018 till
2024 2018 square feet handing over the
vacant possession of
the land along with
the theatre building.
2 648 3840 23,738 square 10,20,734/- per
of of feet x 43 per month from
2024 2018 square feet 23.04.2018 till
handing over the
vacant possession of
the land along with
the theatre building.
3 814 3842 11,430 square 4,91,490/- per month
of of feet x 43 per from 23.04.2018 till
2024 2018 square feet handing over the
vacant possession of
the land along with
the theatre building.
Reg: Handing over of possession:
38. The trial Court directed the tenants to handover the
vacant possession of the suit schedule properties along with
Urvashi Theatre building within two and half-a-year from the
date of the decree. Admittedly, the tenants are in possession
of the suit schedule properties from 29.01.1970, till date. The
Lease Deeds expired on 23.04.2018 and thus, the tenants are
in unlawful possession after termination of notice. The trial
Court, considering the fact that in the suit schedule properties
there is existing theatre building, granted sufficient time to the
- 49 -
AND 6 OTHERS
tenants, i.e. two and half-a-year, which according to us, is not
fair and reasonable one. If the stipulation as enumerated in the
decree of the trial Court is reduced to two years from two and
half-a-year, it would meet the ends of justice. Thus, the time
to vacate the suit schedule properties would end on
15.02.2026, as the decree was passed on 15.02.2024 by the
trial Court. Thus, the tenants have to commence the process
of demolition of the theatre building at least four months prior
to the expiry date, in order to clear all debris in the suit
schedule properties. Hence, we answer point Nos.i in the
negative holding that the tenants are not entitled for any
reliefs, as sought for. Insofar as point No.ii is concerned, we
answer it in partly affirmative holding that the tenants are
liable to pay mesne profits/damages at Rs.20,00,000/- per
month for the entire suit schedule properties from 24.04.2018
till handing over the suit schedule properties to the landlords.
39. With regard to point Nos.iii and iv are concerned, we
do not find any merits in the appeals filed by the tenants and
same are liable to be dismissed. The appeals filed by the
landlords deserve to be partly allowed. Hence, we proceed to
pass the following:
- 50 -
AND 6 OTHERS
ORDER
i. Regular First Appeal Nos.816 of 2024, 648 of
2024, and 814 of 2024 are partly allowed. The
judgment and decree dated 15.02.2024 passed by
the learned XXII Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-7) in Original Suit
Nos.3841 of 2018, 3840 of 2018 and 3842 of 2018
are modified to the extent stated hereinabove.
ii. The landlords are entitled to mesne
profits/damages at Rs.20,00,000/- per month for
the entire suit schedule properties.
iii. The tenants are directed to handover the vacant
possession of the suit schedule properties in favour
of the landlords within four months, i.e. on or
before 15.02.2026 (two years from the date of the
decree).
iv. The attachment of the properties to continue till
deposit of entire mesne profits/damages before the
trial Court.
- 51 -
AND 6 OTHERS
v. Regular First Appeal Nos.1057 of 2024, 1063 of
2024, 1065 of 2024, 1078 of 2024, 1079 of 2024
and 1115 of 2024 are dismissed. The judgment
and decree passed by the trial Court in Original
Suit Nos.3844 of 2016, 3858 of 2016 and 3861 of
2016, are hereby confirmed.
vi. Draw a modified decree, accordingly.
vii. No order as to costs.
Registry is directed to send the trial Court records
with copy of this judgment, forthwith.
In view of the disposal of the main appeals,
pending applications, if any, stand disposed off.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
KVK
