Bangalore District Court
Sri C. Raja vs Smt. Kamar Taj on 5 July, 2018
Govt. of Karnataka
C.R.P.67]
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENT IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
Form No.9 MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE
(Civil)
Title sheet for
Judgment in Present: Sri. B.NARAYANAPPA, M.A, LL.B.,
suits (R.P.91)
(Name of the Presiding Judge)
OS NO. 25769 / 2015
(CCH-22)
Plaintiff:- Sri C. Raja
son of Chota Sab,
aged about 55 years No.18,
10th 'A' cross, unity Lane,
Ejipura, Viveknagar Post,
Bangalore 560 047.
(By Sri Janardhana G. Advocate)
V/s.
Defendant:- Smt. Kamar Taj,
wife of late Mohammed Yaseen,
aged about 45 years,
ground floor portion, No.28, Old No.4,
4th 'B' cross, Ejipura village,
Viveknagar, Bengaluru 560 047.
(By Sri K.N. Purushothaman, Advocate)
Date of Institution of the suit 26.08.2015
Nature of the (Suit or pro-note, suit for declaration and
possession, suit for injunction, etc.)
Ejectment
Date of the commencement of recording of the Evidence. 16.04.2016
Date on which the Judgment was pronounced. 05.07.2018
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration 2 10 9
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
Mayohall Unit : Bengaluru
.
2 O.S.No. 25769 / 2015
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit seeking direction to the defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and also to pay damages at Rs.50,000/- per month from the date of suit, till the defendant vacate and handover vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and for costs.
2) Brief facts of plaintiff's case are that:
The defendant was a tenant under Mr. Mohammed Sadiq Bantwal, who was owner of the property bearing No.28, Old No.4, 4th 'B' cross, Ejipura village, Viveknagar, Bengaluru 560 047, consisting of ground, first and second floors having 12 tenements. The defendant was a tenant under him in respect of the ground floor i.e., suit schedule premises under lease agreement dated 19.8.2008. The said Mr. Mohammed Sadiq Bantwal borrowed loan from Federal Bank by mortgaging the entire property including suit schedule property and since he has not repaid the loan amount the said Bank initiated recovery proceedings against 3 O.S.No. 25769 / 2015 him before D.R.T. and auctioned the same to the plaintiff in a court auction on 11.6.2013 and put him in symbolic possession of the entire property. All the tenants have delivered possession of their respective portions of the property to the plaintiff except the defendant who is in occupation of the suit schedule property. The defendant had borrowed loan of Rs.4,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.8.2013 agreeing to return the same within six months for construction of her own building. Once the plaintiff has become owner of the property, the tenancy of the defendant in respect of the suit schedule property automatically transfers on his name. The defendant not only failed to vacate the suit schedule premises, but also failed to return the money borrowed from the plaintiff. The defendant also failed to pay rents for the suit schedule property at Rs.17,000/- per month and also failed to pay water consumption charges amounting to Rs.18,500/- till date.
The plaintiff requires the suit schedule premises for his own use and occupation. The plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendant dated 30.7.2015 terminating the tenancy and also 4 O.S.No. 25769 / 2015 sought for damages at Rs.50,000/- per month. But the defendant sent untenable reply. The cause of action for the suit arose on 30.7.2015 and on subsequent dates. Hence the suit.
3) After registration of this suit, suit summons were issued to the defendant. In-response to the summons, the defendant appeared before this court through her counsel and filed written-statement denying all the material averments made in the plaint and further contended that the defendant was earlier owner of the entire residential building No.28, Old No.4, 4th B Cross, Ejipura, Viveknagara, Bengaluru - 560 047 comprised of ground, first and second floor and it was purchased by Mr. Mohammed Sadiq in the year 2008 for a sale consideration of Rs.82,00,000/-. After purchase the purchaser Mr. Mohammed Sadiq Bantwal leased out entire residential building to the defendant on payment of lease amount of Rs.37,50,000/- under lease agreement dated 19.8.2008. Thereafter Mr. Mohammed Sadiq Bantwal rented out other 5 O.S.No. 25769 / 2015 tenements in the building to different tenants and the advance collected from other tenants were paid over to the defendant being Rs.9,00,000/- towards part repayment of the lease amount, reducing the lease amount repayable to the defendant by the owner Mr. Mohammed Sadiq Bantwal to Rs.28,50,000/- for the premises in occupation of the defendant in the ground floor of the building i.e., suit schedule premises. The purchaser /owner had taken loan of Rs.84,00,000/- from the Federal Bank, Indiranagar Branch for purchase of the property by creating an equitable mortgage in favour of the bank with tenants including defendant in possession of their respective tenements. Since the owner Mr. Mohammed Sadiq Bantwal failed to repay the bank loan the bank proceeded to sell the property and recover its dues under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and proceeded to take possession of the mortgaged property. The bank thereafter on 22.1.2013 proceeded to sell the property with tenants in occupation. The plaintiff purchased the property for Rs.60,61,000/- from 6 O.S.No. 25769 / 2015 the bank. The property was worth more than Rs.90,00,000/- and the sale / purchase was subject to the existing tenants claims over the property. The defendant was occupying the suit schedule property as a lessee by paying lease amount of Rs.28,50,000/- to the previous owner Mr. Mohammed Sadiq Bantwal. Plaintiffs purchase was subject to the lease subsisting in favor of the defendant and other tenants. The plaintiff is bound to discharge the defendants lease by paying the lease amount. The plaintiff made only part payment of Rs.4,50,000/- to the defendant. The defendant filed O.S. No. 6258/2015 seeking injunction against the plaintiff. The defendant is not liable to pay any damages to the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not want to repay balance amount of Rs.24,00,000/- to the defendant and wants to avoid the payment and discharge the subsisting lease. For all these reasons, the defendant prays to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff.
4) On the basis of the above Pleadings, following Issues have been framed:-
7 O.S.No. 25769 / 2015
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and the defendant is the tenant under him?
(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has failed to pay the rents for the premises in her occupation?
(3) Whether the plaintiff proves that he has terminated the tenancy by issuing legal notice to the defendant dated 30.7.2015 and sought for damages?
(4) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in need of suit schedule property for his own use and occupation?
(5) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to the relief's of as sought for in the plaint?
(6) What order or decree?
5) The plaintiff in order to prove his case, got filed his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. The same was taken as PW1 and got marked documents Ex.P1 to 12 and 8 O.S.No. 25769 / 2015 closed his side. On the other hand, the defendant by name Smt Khamar Taj, has filed affidavit by way of examination-
in-chief and the same was taken as DW1 and also got examined one witness Mr. Adil Pasha, and the same was taken as DW2 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to 4 and closed side of the defendant.
6) I have heard the arguments of both the sides.
7) My findings to the above Issues are as follows:
Issue No.1) ........In the affirmative Issue No.2) ........ In the affirmative Issue No.3) ........ In the affirmative Issue No.4) ........ In the affirmative Issue No.5) ........ Partly in the affirmative Issue No.6) .......... As per the final orders for the following:
REASONS
8) Issue Nos. 1 to 5:- Since these issues are inter linked with each other they are taken up together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts.
PW1 in his affidavit evidence has reiterated and re-affirmed 9 O.S.No. 25769 / 2015 the contents of the plaint averments and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to P12. In the cross examination by the learned counsel for the defendant he has stated that the suit schedule premises sold to him by the bank under SARFAESI Act and the same was sold in public auction. The suit schedule premises is a residential building consisting of 1st, 2nd and 3rd floors and there were 12 tenaments in the said building, out of them nine portions were lying vacant. After purchase of the suit schedule property bank authority got vacated the three remaining tenants and handed over the vacant possession of the schedule premises except the suit schedule property and put him in symbolic possession of the entire building. He does not know that previous owner of the suit schedule property had inducted the defendant as tenant of the ground floor of the suit schedule property. On 30.7.2015 he got issued legal notice to the defendant as per Ex.P9. He denied the suggestion that market value of the suit schedule property was more than Rs.90 lakhs but he got it registered for only Rs.61,00,000/-. He denied the suggestion that in view of 10 O.S.No. 25769 / 2015 tenants were in possession of the suit premises the market value off the suit schedule premises was reduced to Rs.61,00,000/-. The defendant is still continuing as a tenant under him. He admits the suggestion that originally the suit schedule property belongs to the defendant. The previous owner had purchased the suit schedule property as per Ex.P2. He does not know that previous owner of the suit schedule property let out the entire building to the defendant for a sum of Rs.37,50,000/-. He does not know that previous owner let out some portions to other tenants by collecting Rs.9,00,000/- and paid the amount to defendant and therefore an amount of Rs.28,50,000/- remains with the original owner. He denied the suggestion that he has paid a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- to the defendant, therefore, remaining amount of Rs.24,00,000/- remains with him. The defendant was in occupation of the premises on monthly rent of Rs.17,000/- and she failed to pay the rents and also water charges amounting to Rs.18,500/-, but no documents are produced to show that the defendant was in occupation of the premises. In the notice it is stated that the defendant had 11 O.S.No. 25769 / 2015 borrowed an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- from him. He denied the suggestion that the defendant had not borrowed loan amount of Rs.4,50,000/- from him. He further denied the suggestion that an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- paid by him to the defendant is not towards loan but the same was paid towards part payment of lease agreement and he is liable to pay balance lease amount of Rs.24,00,000/- to the defendant as balance lease amount.
9) DW1-Smt. Khamar Taj, defendant in her affidavit evidence has reiterated and re-affirmed the contents of the written-statement and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D4. In her cross-examination led by the learned counsel for the plaintiff she has stated that, when lease agreement was entered in between her and Mr. Sadiq Bantwal in which Mr. Sadiq Bantwal agreed to pay an amount of Rs.37,50,000/- out of which he paid Rs.9,00,000/-. She does not know as to whether she has issued notice to Mr. Bantwal for payment of balance amount. After filing W.P. No.7011-17/11 she has not filed 12 O.S.No. 25769 / 2015 any case before D.R.T. She admits the suggestion that Federal Bank had sold the property standing in the name of Mr. Bantwal in public auction including the suit schedule property and the plaintiff has purchased the same and khatha transferred in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed rent and damages from her. She is ready to vacate the suit schedule premises if the balance lease amount is paid. She denied the suggestion that the plaintiff is not liable to pay balance lease amount. She denied the suggestion that the plaintiff asked her to vacate the suit schedule property, but she refused to vacate the same and continued to be in possession of the same, illegally. At present, suit schedule property fetches rent of Rs.20-25,000/- per month. She denied the suggestion that she is liable to pay damages of Rs.25,000/- per month from the date of termination of notice issued by the plaintiff.
10) DW2 Mr. Adil Pasha in his affidavit evidence has supported the affidavit evidence of DW1. In the cross examination led by the learned counsel for the plaintiff he 13 O.S.No. 25769 / 2015 has stated that in the year 2008 the defendant had sold property to Mr. Sadiq Bantwal. He does not know that Mr. Sadiq Bantwal had obtained loan on property from Federal Bank. He admits the suggestion that the plaintiff has purchased suit schedule property in public auction conducted by Federal Bank and sale deed has been executed in the name of the plaintiff. He is one of the attesting witness to the sale deed. He does not know that the plaintiff has executed lease agreement in favour of the defendant. The defendant had no transaction with the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. Even till today the defendant is continuing as a tenant in the suit schedule property.
11) It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant was a tenant under one Mr. Mohammed Sadiq Bantwal who was owner of property bearing No.28, Old No.4, 4th 'B' cross, Ejipura village, Viveknaggar, Bengaluru 560 047, consisting of ground, first and second floors having 12 tenements. The defendant was a tenant under him in respect of the ground 14 O.S.No. 25769 / 2015 floor i.e., suit schedule premises under lease agreement dated 19.8.2008 executed by Mr. Mohammed Sadiq Bantwal. It is further case of the plaintiff that Mr. Mohammed Sadiq Bantwal borrowed loan from Federal Bank by mortgaging the entire property including suit schedule property and since he has not repaid the loan amount the said Bank initiated recovery proceedings under SARFAESI Act against him and in terms of orders of D.R.T. auctioned the same to the plaintiff in a court auction on 11.6.2013 and put the plaintiff in symbolic possession of the entire property. All the tenants have delivered possession of their respective portions of the property to the plaintiff except the defendant who is in occupation of the suit schedule property. The defendant had borrowed loan of Rs.4,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.8.2013 for construction of her own building and completed construction of her house at Ejipura near Infant Jesus Church and kept one portion under lock and key and continued her occupation in the suit schedule property on monthly rent of Rs.17,000/-. It is further case of the 15 O.S.No. 25769 / 2015 plaintiff that he requires the suit schedule premises for his own use and occupation. The plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendant dated 30.7.2015 terminating the tenancy. Therefore the defendant is liable to pay damages at Rs.50,000/- per month till the date of handing over vacant possession. Therefore the plaintiff has constrained to file the present suit.
12) On the other hand it is the case of the defendant that she was earlier owner of the entire residential building at property bearing No.28, Old No.4, 4th 'B' cross, Ejipura village, Viveknaggar, Bengaluru 560 047, consisting of ground, first and second floors having 12 tenements and she sold the said property to Mr. Mohammed Sadiq Bantwal in the year 2008 for a sale consideration of Rs.82,00,000/-. The said Mr. Mohammed Sadiq Bantwal leased out entire residential building to the defendant under lease agreement dated 19.8.2008 and she paid lease amount of Rs.37,50,000/- to Mr. Mohammed Sadiq Bantwal. The said Mr. Mohammed Sadiq Bantwal rented out some portions in 16 O.S.No. 25769 / 2015 the building to different tenants and collected advance amount of Rs.9,00,000/- from other tenants and paid the same to the defendant towards part repayment of the lease amount and still an mount of Rs.28,50,000/- is due to her from Mr. Mohammed Sadiq Bantwal. The said Mr. Mohammed Sadiq Bantwal had taken loan of Rs.84,00,000/- from the Federal Bank, for purchase of the property and he became defaulter. Therefore, Federal Bank proceeded to recover its dues under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and sold the entire building in public auction. The plaintiff has purchased the same for Rs.60,61,000/-. The tenants filed W.P. 7011-7017/2011 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the Hon'ble High Court stayed dispossession of the tenants in the premises and directed tenants to move the D.R.T. under section 17 of the Securitization Act. It is further case of the defendant that the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property under public auction subject to the lease subsisting in favor of the defendant and other tenants. Therefore, the plaintiff is 17 O.S.No. 25769 / 2015 bound to discharge the lease amount. It is further case of the defendant that the plaintiff made only part payment of Rs.4,50,000/- to the defendant and still an amount of Rs.24,00,000/- is due to her by the plaintiff towards lease amount.
13) It is not in dispute that the defendant was the original owner of the property bearing No.28, Old No.4, 4th 'B' cross, Ejipura village, Viveknagar, Bengaluru 560 047, consisting of ground, first and second floors having 12 tenements and she sold the same to one Mr. Mohammed Sadiq Bantwal in the year 2008 for Rs.82,00,000/- and the said Mr. Mohammed Sadiq Bantwal executed lease agreement in favour of the defendant by receiving Rs.37,50,000/- from the defendant and he rented out some portions to the tenants and paid her Rs.9,00,000/-. Therefore, the said Mr. Mohammed Sadiq Bantwal is still due a sum of Rs.28,50,000/- to the defendant. It is also not in dispute that the said Mr. Mohammed Sadiq Bantwal has raised loan of Rs.84,00,000/- from the Federal Bank on 18 O.S.No. 25769 / 2015 mortgage of the said property and he became defaulter. Therefore Federal Bank auctioned the entire building under SARFAESI Act and sold the same to the plaintiff in public auction for Rs.60,61,000/- and executed registered sale deed in his favour and got vacated the tenants except the defendant.
14) It is the specific contention of the plaintiff that the defendant was the tenant under previous owner by name Mr. Mohammed Sadiq Bantwal and after he purchasing the entire building in public auction, the defendant continued as a tenant in the suit schedule property which is ground floor of the building on monthly rent of Rs.17,000/-. He is in need of the suit schedule property for his use and occupation. Therefore he issued legal notice dated 30.7.2015 terminating the tenancy of the defendant. Even then, the defendant continued her possession in the suit schedule property illegally / unauthorizedly. Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay damages of Rs.50,000/- per month till she handover vacant possession.
19 O.S.No. 25769 / 2015
15) As I have already stated above, it is the specific contention of the defendant that she was a tenant under the previous owner Mr. Mohammed Sadiq Bantwal who entered into lease agreement with her after obtaining lease amount of Rs.37,50,000/- and he paid a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- and still the previous owner was due to pay Rs.28,50,000/- to her. In the meanwhile the plaintiff purchased entire building consisting of ground, first and second floor including the suit schedule property in public auction. Therefore, the plaintiff is due to pay balance amount of Rs.24,00,000/- to her. If the plaintiff pays balance lease amount of Rs.24,00,000/- she is ready to vacate the suit schedule property. The said contention of the defendant cannot be taken in to consideration because the defendant was a tenant under the previous owner by name Mr. Mohammed Sadiq Bantwal and during the period of tenancy, the plaintiff has purchased suit schedule property under public auction conducted by Federal Bank. The defendant continued her possession as a tenant in the suit schedule property. Therefore, she claims that the previous 20 O.S.No. 25769 / 2015 owner Mr. Mohammed Sadiq Bantwal paid her Rs.9,00,000/- out of the total lease amount of Rs.37,50,000/- and still the previous owner was due in a sum of Rs.28,50,000/- and the defendant further contended that in view of her tenancy is continued under the present owner the plaintiff is liable to pay balance of lease amount of Rs.24,00,000/-. As I have already stated above, the said contention of the defendant cannot be considered because the defendant is not a tenant under the plaintiff, but she was a tenant under the previous owner and the plaintiff does not know anything about the lease entered in to between the previous owner and the defendant and receiving of lease amount of Rs.37,50,000/- from the defendant by the previous owner by name Mr. Mohammed Sadiq Bantwal and who repaid her a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- and still due in a sum of Rs.24,00,000/- etc. The alleged lease transaction entered in between the defendant and previous owner Mr. Mohammed Sadiq Bantwal is known to the defendant only, but the same is not known to the plaintiff. Because all these lease transactions said to have been entered by the 21 O.S.No. 25769 / 2015 defendant is within her knowledge, but the same is not within the knowledge of the plaintiff. Because, the plaintiff had purchased the entire building directly in the public auction conducted by Federal Bank under SARFAESI Act, by virtue of the orders passed by D.R.T. Therefore, the transaction i.e., the lease transaction held in between the defendant and the previous owner Mr. Mohammed Sadiq Bantwal is not at all concerned to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is not at all responsible for the said transaction held in between the defendant and previous owner Mr. Mohammed Sadiq Bantwal. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot be held responsible / liable to pay the alleged balance lease amount of Rs.24,00,000/- as claimed by the defendant. Moreover the defendant has not made any counter claim for recovery of alleged balance lease amount of Rs.24,00,000/- from the plaintiff.
16) As I have already stated above, in view of the plaintiff has purchased the property including the suit schedule property in public auction conducted by the 22 O.S.No. 25769 / 2015 Federal Bank and the Federal Bank executed registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, as per Ex.P3, it is crystal clear that the plaintiff has become owner of the suit schedule property. As stated by the plaintiff after purchase of the suit schedule property the defendant who was tenant under the previous owner continued as tenant under him [plaintiff] who is the present owner on monthly rent of Rs.17,000/-. Therefore the plaintiff has proved that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and the defendant is the tenant under him.
17) The plaintiff has contended that the defendant has failed to pay rents in respect of the suit schedule property. Therefore, he got issued legal notice to the defendant dated 30.7.2015 terminating the tenancy. Therefore, the tenancy of the defendant has become unauthorised. Hence, he has sought for damages at Rs.50,000/- per month from the date of suit till the defendant vacate and handover vacant possession of the suit schedule property. In view of issuance of notice to the 23 O.S.No. 25769 / 2015 defendant by the plaintiff dated 30.7.2015 as per Ex.P9 terminating the tenancy of the defendant, the tenancy of the defendant has come to an end and in view of the defendant failed to pay monthly rents of Rs.17,000/- the defendant is not entitle to continue as tenant in the suit schedule property and the defendant is liable to pay damages from the date of terminating the tenancy on 30.7.2015, till handing over vacant possession of the suit schedule property at the rate of Rs.17,000/- per month. But the plaintiff is not entitled to damages at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month as claimed. Hence the plaintiff has proved that he has terminated the tenancy by issuing legal notice.
18) The plaintiff has contended that he requires the suit schedule property for his own use and occupation. Since the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property the said contention of the plaintiff cannot be ruled out. The plaintiff being owner of the suit schedule property has got right to use the suit schedule property for his bonafide use and occupation. Therefore, the plaintiff has also proved that 24 O.S.No. 25769 / 2015 he is in need of the suit schedule property for his own use and occupation. The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant praying to direct the defendant to quit, vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule property and also for damages. In view of the plaintiff has proved issue No.1 to 4 he is entitled to the relief of possession of the suit schedule property and he is partly entitled for the relief of damages. Hence, I answer issue No.1 to 4 in the affirmative and issue No.5 partly in the affirmative.
19) ISSUE NO. 6:- In-view of the reasons stated on Issue Nos.1 to 5, above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed in part.
2) The defendant is hereby directed to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within three months from the date of this order.
3) The defendant is also hereby directed to pay an amount of Rs.17,000/- (Rupees seventeen thousand only) per month towards damages from the date of suit till the 25 O.S.No. 25769 / 2015 date of handing over vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff.
4) No order as to costs.
5) Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5th day of July, 2018).
(B.NARAYANAPPA) XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE.
SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of residential premises situated on the ground floor No.28, Old No.4, 4th 'B' cross, Ejipura village, Viveknagar, Bengaluru 560 047, consisting of two bedrooms, one of the bed rooms with attached bathroom, hall, kitchen and toilet with an open pace 15' x 8 Ft. between the gate and main road, total area about 900 Sq. Ft., bounded on the:
East by the gates and then the lane
West by other tenements in the ground floor
North by private property
South by private property
(B.NARAYANAPPA)
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE
26 O.S.No. 25769 / 2015
ANNEXURES:-
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
PW1 Sri C. Raja LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.P1 & 2 two sale deeds Ex.P3 deed of conveyance Ex.P4 to 6 three tax paid receipts Ex.P7 Khatha certificate Ex.P8 khatha extract Ex.P9 copy of legal notice Ex.P10 postal receipt Ex.P11 Postal Acknowledgement Ex.P12 Reply notice LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT/S:
DW1 Smt. Khamer Taj DW2 Adil Pasha
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANT/S:
Ex.D1 Legal notice
Ex.D2 Reply notice
Ex.D3 Copy of lease agreement
Ex.D4 Bank statement
(B.NARAYANAPPA)
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE.
27 O.S.No. 25769 / 2015
5.7.2018
Plaintiff by Sri JG Judgement pronounced in the open court
Defendant by Sri KNP (Vide separate detailed Judgement)
Judgment
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed in part.
2) The defendant is hereby directed to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within three months from the date of this order.
3) The defendant is also hereby directed to pay an amount of Rs.17,000/- (Rupees seventeen thousand only) per month towards damages from the date of suit till the date of handing over vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff.
4) No order as to costs.
5) Draw decree accordingly.
(B.NARAYANAPPA)
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALOR