Bangalore District Court
Soundharya S vs M/S Homigo Realty Private Limited on 14 October, 2024
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
KABC010135992019
IN THE COURT OF V ADDL.CITY CIVIL COURT
AT BENGALURU
(CCH.No.13)
Present: Sri. ONKARAPPA.R, B.Sc., LL.B.
V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU
Dated this the 14th day of October, 2024
O.S. No.2994/2019
PLAINTIFFS: 1. Mrs. Soundharya.S
W/o Mr. Varun Khera,
Aged about 32 years
2. Mr. Varun Khera,
S/o Mr. Sunil Khera,
Aged about 29 years
3. Mr. Arun Singh.L
S/o Mr. Lakshman Singh,
Aged about 35 years
All are R/at Flat No.201,
Homigo Palatino, III Floor,
Independent Building,
Amarjyothi Layout, Domlur,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.SM., Advocate)
.Vs.
DEFENDANTS: 1. M/s Homigo Realty Private Ltd.,
Having its registered Office at
No.2-10/1, and No.2-10/1-1,
2
O.S.No.2994/2019
Ajay Plaza, 1st Main,
N.S., Palya Bannerghatta Road,
Bengaluru.
Rep. by its Director Mr. Jatin Mitruka
2. Kumari. Seerath Jehan,
D/o Late Mrs. H. Shameem Ajaz,
Aged about 42 years,
R/at No.204/4,
5th Cross, Byrasandra,
Jayanagar 1st Block,
Bengaluru.
(D.1- Ex-parte
D.2- By Sri. BNS, advocate)
Date of Institution of 1.
ENDANTS: the HOMIGO
suit REALTY PRIVATE LTD.,
15/04/2019
Nature of the suit Injunction Suit
Date of Commencement of recording of 10/03/2023
evidence
Date on which judgment was 14/10/2024
Pronounced
Total Duration Year Months Days
05 05 29
[ONKARAPPA.R]
V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU
******
3
O.S.No.2994/2019
:JUDGMENT:
The plaintiffs have filed the suit for permanent injunction by restrained the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment and dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property without adopting due process of law.
PLAINT SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of residential flat No.201, Homigo Palatino, III Floor, Independent building, No.123, 3 rd Main, Amarjyothi Layout, Domlur, Bengaluru comprising of 2 bedrooms, hall and kitchen partially furnished with wardrobes, kitchen cabinets, lift and generators.
2. Brief facts are as under:-
That, plaintiff No.1 and 2 are husband and wife and 3 rd plaintiff is close relative of other plaintiffs and all of them are working in Bengaluru for their livelihood. Three IIT Kanpur graduates had incorporated 1st defendant company engaged in the business of providing flats/apartments on rents to the tenants in need across Bengaluru and other cities. Owners of several residential houses always had the difficulty to search for tenants and thereafter had to deal with the issues related to tenancy. Encashing the same 1 st defendant company had come up with a one stop solution to the owners wherein the houses of the owners were taken on rent 4 O.S.No.2994/2019 by paying in advance to them and thereafter sub lease the same to whomsoever they want. The owners by entering in to an agreement with 1st defendant company had to deal only with them and not with others as the entire responsibility of the house would lie with them. One Mrs. H. Shameem Ajaz the mother of 2nd defendant is the sole and absolute owner of the apartment consisting of 8 flats situated at property bearing No.123, 3rd Main, Amarjyothi Layout, Domlur, Bengaluru. The said property was given on rent by the mother of 2nd defendant to 1st defendant by entering in to a lease deed dated 01/10/2016. As per the terms of the rent the mother of 2nd defendant had received a sum of Rs.11,50,000/- as advance and in addition was also entitled for monthly rent and in return 1 st defendant had the right and liberty to sub-lease the above property to whomsoever they deem fit. Further, 1st defendant post entering the above agreement had taken the physical possession of the entire apartment building and have offered the same on lease to general public and it is during this period the plaintiffs were in need of a flat for the accommodation and post discussions with 1st defendant the plaintiffs had paid a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- to 1st defendant and had entered in to an deed of sub lease dated 18/02/2018 and taken Flat bearing No.201 in the aforesaid apartment which is schedule 5 O.S.No.2994/2019 property on lease for a period of three years from 23/02/2018 till 23/02/2021. 1st defendant also had issued receipts to the plaintiffs for having received the advance amount towards the schedule property. Further the plaintiffs in addition to the advance amount were required to pay monthly maintenance charges of Rs.1,500/- towards the schedule property. The plaintiffs post entering in to the above deed of sub lease are in continuous physical possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. When this being the factual possession, during the first week of March 2019 2nd defendant claiming to be the heir of late Mrs. H. Shameem Ajaz and her associates had visited the apartment and informed 1st defendant company is not paying the rents and are not even contactable and since there is a default in payment of rents they intend to take back the physical possession and also threatened the plaintiffs to vacate the suit schedule property to avoid consequences. The plaintiffs also verified about the whereabouts of 1 st defendant company and learnt from various sources that the advance money paid by various tenants has been siphoned off and the company in deed has cheated several tenants. The plaintiffs unable to digest the fact that they have been cheated and not able to bear the harassment from 2 nd defendant had lodged a police complaint before the 6 O.S.No.2994/2019 jurisdictional police station on 16/03/2019 against defendant No.1 and 2. The jurisdictional police had informed defendant No.2 not to take the law in to their hands till they investigate the fraud played by 1 st defendant. The directors of 1st defendant company are absconding and even their anticipatory bail petition is rejected. The plaintiffs are in physical possession of the schedule property on the strength of a valid and subsisting deed of lease and cannot be evicted illegally by 1st defendant company other than by adopting due process of law. 2nd defendant is using all her clout with the police and local politicians and has even threatened the security that she would be taking the physical possession of the property and also the lift and the generator is already been locked and any interference would be dealt with iron hands. Thus interference of this court is very much required. Cause of action for the suit arouse when the plaintiffs entered in to an agreement dated 18/02/2018 with defendant No.1 company and other subsequent dates. The plaintiffs valued the suit as per the law for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. Paid court fee is sufficient. Hence, the plaintiffs sought for decreed the suit.
3. Suit summons was issued against defendant No.1. Despite service of suit summons to defendant No.1, defendant No.1 did not turned up before the court and 7 O.S.No.2994/2019 remained absent. Hence, defendant No.1 placed ex-parte vide order sheet dated 11/12/2019.
4. In against the suit summons, defendant No.2 has appeared through her choiced counsel and also chosen to filed her written statement. Wherein the written statement she specifically denied all the averments of plaint as false. The plaintiffs are not entitled for any of the relief sought in the plaint and suit contains false and vexatious claim, as such the suit liable to be dismissed. Suit of the plaintiff not maintainable either in law or on facts. But 2 nd defendant admitted the plaintiff have been in the possession of the suit schedule property. Further case of 2 nd defendant is, the suit filed by the plaintiffs for the relief of permanent injunction not maintainable as the plaintiffs have not approached the court with clean hands and have suppressed the material facts. The plaintiffs have filed the suit based on deed of sub lease dated 18/02/2018 alleged to have been executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiffs. The alleged sub lease executed for a period of three years commencing from 23/02/2018 to 23/02/2021 for more than 11 months. As such this document requires compulsory registration and the document is also not sufficiently stamped and is executed only on Rs.200/- stamp paper. Hence this court cannot look in to this document for any purpose as per the settled 8 O.S.No.2994/2019 principle of law pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court. As such the deed of sub lease be impounded before proceedings in to the matter. The true and real facts of the case are:-
The mother of defendant No.2 Smt. H.Shameem Ajaz was the absolute owner of the residential building bearing No.123, 3rd Main, Amarjyothi Layout, Domlur, Bangalore, consisting of Stilt, Ground, First, Second and third floors having 8 flats each comprising of two bedrooms, a hall, a kitchen and toilets along with wardrobes, kitchen cabinets, lift, generator, borewell, sump, overhead tank and sufficient covered parking space herein referred as Schedule Property. Smt. H. Shameem Ajaz mother of the defendant No.2 during her lifetime has transferred this property by a written HIBA (Gift Deed) in favour of defendant No.2 dated 14.05.2018 and based on the HIBA (Gift deed) the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike has transferred the revenue entries into the name of defendant No.2 who is presently the absolute owner of the Schedule Property. The mother of defendant No. 2 expired on 24.06.2018. Defendant No. 1 approached the mother of defendant No.2 requesting to rent out the entire building and the same was rented out under lease deed dated 01.10.2016 initially for a period of 11 months commencing from 01.10.2016 to 31.08.2017 and 9 O.S.No.2994/2019 subsequently extended for a further period of 22 months in two blocks of 11 months each as stated below and entire lease period shall come to an end on 30.06.2019 by efflux of time. The agreed terms and conditions of the lease were reduced into writing. As per the agreed terms of the lease deed the monthly rent was divided into three blocks which are as under:-
Block No. Block Period Agreed Rent 5% enhancement Total rent payable
1. 01.10.2016 Rs.2,40,000/- No enhancement Rs.2,40,000 to 31.08.2017
2. 01.09.2017 Rs.2,40,000/- Rs.12,000 Rs.2,52,000 to 31.08.2018
3. 01.09.2018 Rs.2,52,000/- Rs.2,64,600 to Rs.12,600/-
30.06.2019 Defendant No.1 had paid a sum of Rs. 11,50,000/- as refundable interest free security deposit to the mother of defendant No.2 with a liberty to deduct the damages if any as quantified at the time of vacating and handing over of the vacant possession of the property from the security deposit.
This refund of security deposit is only after defendant No.1 hands over the Schedule Property in vacant possession to defendant No. 2 and after deducting the damages if any as quantified. The property was allowed to be use only for 10 O.S.No.2994/2019 residential purposes with a liberty to sublease if any for residential purpose. The mother of defendant No.2 was depending on the income generated from the rents received from the Schedule Property for leading her life and presently defendant No.2 being an unmarried woman is solely depending on the rents of this building for her livelihood and for payment of property tax, income tax, clearance of loans and for other day to day maintenance of the Schedule Property. It was specifically agreed that the sublease is subject to condition that the period of sublease should not overlap or should not be beyond the period of tenancy agreed between the mother of defendant No.2 and defendant No. 1 and that the 'sublease should be on monthly rent and cannot be beyond 30.06.2019'. It was agreed that defendant No.2 was solely responsible for collection of monthly rents from the subleased tenants. It was also agreed in the lease deed dated 01.10.2016 that in the event of "non payment of rent for two months continuously shall be enough ground for the lessor (mother of defendant No.2) to get the schedule property vacated by terminating the lease without notice". Defendant No.1 was a chronic defaulter in payment monthly rents and has not paid the rents for a period from January-2019 to till date and thereby defendant No.1 has violated the terms of the lease deed. As 11 O.S.No.2994/2019 per the terms of the lease deed stated supra defendant No.2 was not required to issue any notice to terminate the lease agreement. However, she being a law abiding citizen has issued legal notice dated 01.04.2019 communicating defendant No.1 regarding the violations of the terms of the lease deed dated 01.10.2016 and as such the same was terminated due to willful default in payment of rents continuously over a period of more than two months and also the other violations of the terms of the lease deed by defendant No. 1. Defendant No.2 also met the each of the plaintiff (tenant) and explained the factual position that defendant No. 1 is absconding and defendant No. 2 effort to trace him has gone in vain and that the whereabouts of defendant No. 1 is not known. Subsequently defendant No. 2 has also lodged an FIR with Jeevanbhima Nagar Police Station against defendant No. 1. During the meeting with plaintiffs defendant No.2 had informed that, defendant No. 1 is due to her an amount of Rs. 13,23,000/- (Rs.2,64,600 x 5 months) being the arrears of rent and sum of Rs.3,02,400/- being the TDS amount (deducted but not deposited to the Income tax authorities). That in all an amount of Rs.16,25,400/- is due from defendant No. 1 to defendant No.2. The tenants including the plaintiff collectively behaved reluctantly and rudely with defendant No.2. Defendant No.2 12 O.S.No.2994/2019 has also sent the notices to the tenants including the plaintiff and so far no reply is received to the notice and the plaintiffs have approached this court even though there was no threat or forcible eviction from the property. The plaintiffs have joined hands with defendant No.1 in execution of the alleged sub lease deed contrary to the lease deed dated 01.10.2016 executed by the mother of defendant No.2. The plaintiffs are in possession of the property and defendant No.1 has collected the alleged money from the plaintiffs and it is only defendant No.2 who is the sufferer despite of having invested huge money. The plaintiffs were having the knowledge of the lease agreement between defendant No.1 and mother of defendant No.2 dated 01.10.2016 and was very well aware of the terms and conditions stipulated therein. Particularly the clause to the effect that this agreement shall expired on 30.06.2019, the plaintiffs despite having the knowledge of the same have deliberately entered into the deed of Sub-lease beyond the period of the lease i.e., 30.06.2019 which in contravention to the original terms. The relevant condition is extracted below for ready reference:- "Page 5 clause i) Purpose of leasing: The lessee shall use the schedule property for Residential purpose and may sub lease the schedule property exclusively for Residential purpose and the such sub-lease shall not be overlapping or beyond the period of tenancy agreed between the parties under this agreement." Hence, by reading this clause in the lease agreement dated 01.10.2016 13 O.S.No.2994/2019 it would become crystal clear that the sub-lease cannot be beyond 30.06.2019. The plaintiffs herein knowing fully well about this clause has taken the risk of entering the lease beyond 30.06.2019 as such the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief in the hands of this court and the claim open to the plaintiffs is only to proceed against defendant No.1 and not to harass defendant No. 2 by withholding the payment of rent from 01.01.2019 to till date although the plaintiffs are enjoying the possession of the property. Defendant No.1 had agreed to deliver the vacant possession of the entire building to defendant No.2 (Lessor) at expiration of 33 months lease (both initial and renewed) period in the same condition as it was handed over. The relevant condition of the lease agreement dated 1.10.2016 is extracted below for ready reference:- "page 7 clause q) The Lessee shall deliver the vacant possession to the lessor at expiration of 33 months lease (both initial and renewed) period in the same condition as it was handed over to the Lessee after the signing of Lease Agreement." Defendant No.2 is the custodian of the terrace area comprising of lift machine room, water tank, solar system etc., and the same was not part of the lease agreement. The relevant clause is extracted below:- page 6 para 6) Terrace Area: The terrace area comprising of Lift Machine room, water Tank, solar system etc., is not part of the lease agreement and shall be at the control and possession of the Lessor for the maintenance of the equipment installed in the terrace and for any other purpose. As per the terms of the lease deed dated 01/01/2016 such sub lease shall not be overlap or beyond period of tenancy 14 O.S.No.2994/2019 agreed between the parties. Hence the sub lease agreement of the plaintiffs dated 18/02/2018 is contrary to the lease agreement dated 01/10/2016. The plaintiffs before entering in to sub lease ought to have taken proper care and precautions to know the rights of 1 st defendant. There was no threat posed by her for forcible vacating of the property. In fact the tenants collectively threatened defendant No.2 that they can do anything but they will neither pay the rents nor vacate the house. The plaintiffs may be cheated by 1 st defendant but the same cannot be at the cost of defendant No.2. The plaintiffs should have been more careful and should have verified the documents regarding the legal rights of 1st defendant to sub lease before entering in to deed of sub lease. The plaintiffs and defendant No.1 were hand in glove and trying to play fraud on defendant No.2 who is a lady having no muscle power or money power. The deed of sub lease will not give the plaintiffs the right to sue the schedule property without payment of rents. The possession of the plaintiffs is illegal and opposed to law. There is no cause of action to maintain the present suit and the present suit filed just only to harass defendant No.2 and enjoy the property without payments of rents by taking shelter in the hands of this court. The plaintiffs are liable to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month from January 2019 till vacating the 15 O.S.No.2994/2019 schedule property for the occupation in the schedule property as the possession of the plaintiffs in the schedule property is not in manner known to law and in the event of the plaintiffs failing to pay the rents the above suit cannot be proceeded and liable to be rejected as it is settled principle of law that the tenant can hold the possession of the schedule property with the payment of rents regularly. On these grounds defendant No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the suit with exemplary.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, my predecessor in office has framed the issues in below:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property based on deed of sub lease dated 18/02/2018 as on the date of suit ?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove the alleged interference by the defendants ?16
O.S.No.2994/2019
3. Whether suit of the plaintiffs in the present form is maintainable?
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as sought for ?
5. What order or decree?
6. In order to prove the plaintiffs case, 2 nd plaintiff Mr. Varun Khera examined at before the court as P.W. 1 and he got marked Ex.P.1 and P.2. On the other hand despite an opportunity, defendant No.2 have not chosen examined herself as witness or any of the witnesses on her behalf. Accordingly evidence of defendant No.2 taken as nil vide order sheet dated 13/09/2024.
7. Heard argument on both sides. The learned counsel for defendant No.2 filed memo with one judgment copy passed in O.S.No.4553/2019. Perused the records.
8. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative Issue No.2 : In the affirmative Issue No.3 : Suit is maintainable Issue No.4 : In the affirmative Issue No.5 : As per final order for the following:17
O.S.No.2994/2019 :R E A S O N S:
9. Issue No.1 to 4 :- The plaintiffs sought for the relief of permanent injunction. Hence, issue No.1 to 4 have do interlinked with each other. Accordingly issue No.1 to 4 that I have taken for common discussion.
10. It could be seen in the deposition of P.W.1, basically mother of 2nd defendant by name Mrs. H. Shameem Ajaz was the absolute owner of the apartment consisting of 8 flats at property bearing No.123, 3 rd Main, Amarjyothi Layout, Domlur, Bengaluru. Wherein the apartment, suit schedule property have been carved out as one of the flat bearing its No.201. Suit schedule property is the flat bearing its No.201, Homigo Palatino, III Floor, Independent Building, Amarjyothi Layout, Domlur, Bengaluru, comprising of two bed rooms, hall and kitchen partially furnished with wardrobes, kitchen cabinets, lifts and generators. Mother of 2nd defendant was being the absolute owner of the property bearing its No.123 was given on rent to 1st defendant, as 1st defendant was one of the agency to traced out the suitable tenants to the flats available in the property bearing No.123. The same such of terms of contract in between 1st defendant and mother of 2 nd defendant have taken place by entering them in to lease 18 O.S.No.2994/2019 deed dated 01/10/2016. As per the terms of rent, mother of 2nd defendant had received Rs.11,50,000/- as advance and in addition 1st defendant agreed to pay monthly rent. Wherein the same lease agreement 1st defendant had the right and liberty to sub lease all the properties available in property No.123. On the basis of lease deed dated 01/10/2016 1 st defendant had taken the physical possession of entire apartment building. As 1st defendant being one of the agency to operate the building on rent basis 1 st defendant offered the same all flats on lease to general public. Since the plaintiffs in during that period badly in need of flat for their accommodation and they also post discussion with 1 st defendant he had paid sum of Rs.16,00,000/- to 1 st defendant by entered in to deed of Ex.P.2 sub lease dated 18/02/2018. As per Ex.P.2 sub lease deed the plaintiff have obtained the possession of the suit schedule property on lease for a period of three years commencing from 23/02/2028 to 23/02/2021. Further in addition to such of Ex.P.2 sub lease deed the plaintiff has also agreed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.1,500/- which incurred in towards to maintenance of the suit schedule property. Accordingly the plaintiff have been continued in the physical possession of suit schedule property on the basis of Ex.P.2 sub lease deed. When such being the case, in the first week of March 19 O.S.No.2994/2019 2019 2nd defendant who claimed to be the legal heir of late Mrs. H. Shameem Ajaz visited near the suit schedule property and informed the plaintiff 1 st defendant have fail to pay the agreed amount of rent upon the suit schedule property. Thereby 2nd defendant demanded the plaintiff to vacated the suit schedule property. As it make surprise the conduct of 1st defendant the plaintiff has lodged a complaint in against 1st defendant and published in one daily news paper as to know the whereabouts of 1 st defendant. Based on the complaint which lodged by the plaintiff the jurisdictional police have registered the case in against 1 st defendant and the police have took the issue for investigation. The plaintiff have been continued in the physical possession of the suit schedule property and since 2nd defendant and her men visited near the suit schedule property in often and often and demand the plaintiff to vacated the suit schedule property by attempt to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and also attempt to evict the plaintiff from the possession of suit schedule property without of the due course of law the cause of action to the present suit have been aroused in against the defendants.
11. On the contrary, 2 nd defendant have not disputed that her mother was be the absolute owner in possession of the property bearing No.123 having its 8 flats including the 20 O.S.No.2994/2019 suit schedule property. Further 2 nd defendant have also not much disputed mother of 2nd defendant offered to lease all the apartments available in property bearing No.123 to 1 st defendant as per lease agreement dated 01/10/2016. 2 nd defendant have also not much disputed mother of 2 nd defendant in terms of lease agreement dated 01/10/2016 that she has acknowledged sum of Rs.11,50,000/- from 1 st defendant and put 1st defendant in to physical possession of entire property bearing its No.123 including suit schedule property. 2nd defendant have also not much disputed as per lease agreement dated 01/10/2016 mother of 2 nd defendant gave consent to 1st defendant to sub lease suit schedule property to the needy tenants. Further 2nd defendant have not much disputed the plaintiff is in physical possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of suit. The same that is specifically averred in para No.2(i) of her written statement. But case of the defendants is, 1 st defendant be the chronic defaulter in payment of the rent upon the suit schedule property. As per 2nd defendant, 1st defendant is due to an arrears rent of Rs.13,23,000/- and sum of Rs.3,02,400/- being the TDS amount that in all an amount of Rs.16,25,400/- due by 1st defendant to 2nd defendant for total 5 months period. Further case of 2 nd defendant is, the sublease in between 1st defendant and plaintiff be subject to 21 O.S.No.2994/2019 the condition period of sub lease should not overlap or should not be beyond the period of tenancy as agreed. 1 st defendant was solely responsible for collection of monthly rents from sub lease tenants. Non payment of rent for two months continuously shall be enough ground for the lessor to get the schedule property vacated by terminating the lease without notice. 1st defendant was the chronic defaulter in payment of monthly rents and he has not paid rent for a period of January 2019 till date. Hence, 1 st defendant has violated the terms of lease deed. 2 nd defendant met each of the plaintiff/tenants and explained factual position that 1 st defendant is absconding and 2nd defendant effort to trace 1 st defendant the same went on vain and whereabouts of 1 st defendant not known to 2nd defendant. In this regard, 2 nd defendant lodged a complaint at before the jurisdictional police in against 1st defendant. Hence, 2nd defendant issued notice to the plaintiff and demanded the plaintiff to vacated the suit schedule property. Also case of 2 nd defendant is, 2nd defendant at no point of time make any threat or forcible act to evicted the plaintiff from the suit schedule property.
12. On assimilating the controversy in between the parties, there is no dispute in relationship of the plaintiffs with 1st defendant and 1st defendant with 2nd defendant. Admittedly mother of 2nd defendant was be the absolute 22 O.S.No.2994/2019 owner in possession of property No.123 of Domolur village, Bengaluru-71. Suit schedule property is one of the flat have been available in the property No.123. Not in dispute, mother of 2nd defendant put 1st defendant in to physical possession of entire property bearing No.123 including suit schedule property based on lease agreement dated 01/10/2016 by acknowledging amount of Rs.11,50,000/-. Further not in dispute the plaintiffs have been put in to the possession of the suit schedule property based on Ex.P.2 sub lease deed. As could be seen at Ex.P.2 sub lease deed 1st defendant was been in the possession of the suit schedule property he offered to lease the suit schedule property in to plaintiffs for a period of 36 months commencing from 23/02/2018 to 23/02/2021 by acknowledging sum of Rs.16,00,000/-. Further at Ex.P.2 sub lease deed it also could be seen the plaintiffs have been agreed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.1,500/- to 1st defendant. Ex.P.2 sub lease deed is for the period of 36 months from the date of its commencement. Ex.P.2 sub lease deed though it shall compulsory registrable document, but it has not been registered. As per the case of plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have been in the possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. With respect to that much of the case of the plaintiffs have remains as unchallenged, as since 23 O.S.No.2994/2019 2nd defendant herself admitted that at particularly para No.2(i) of the written statement, the plaintiffs have been in the possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Suit of the plaintiff one for permanent injunction. Based on Ex.P.2 sub lease the plaintiffs have been sought the relief of permanent injunction in against the defendants. True Ex.P.2 sub lease deed have not been registered though it shall compulsorily registrable document. But upon Ex.P.2 sub lease deed the plaintiffs have paid duty and penalty as per Ex.P.1 receipt. As the plaintiffs just to seek for the relief of permanent injunction and since the plaintiffs have paid duty and penalty upon Ex.P.2 sub lease deed to the government no reason remains to say suit of the plaintiffs not maintainable since Ex.P.2 sub lease deed have been act as collateral purpose. Further case of the plaintiffs is, 2nd defendant and her men have an habit to visit near the suit schedule property in often and often and make threat to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property and also threat to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs in suit schedule property. The same case of the plaintiffs though not disputed, that neither 2 nd defendant nor her men never attempt to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs or dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property, the very act and conduct as well as steps that 2 nd defendant 24 O.S.No.2994/2019 at during the course of cross-examination of P.W. 1 have been make it confirmed the case of plaintiffs. Further the steps taken by 2nd defendant in the cross-examination of P.W. 1 have also make it obvious alleged threat of 2 nd defendant in against the peaceful possession of the property of plaintiffs. From this much of observation make it concrete the plaintiffs have been in the possession of the suit schedule property and they have such apprehension of alleged interference and dispossession from the possession of the suit schedule property by 2 nd defendant. Law is very much settled rank of trespasser can entitled for the injunction till he evicted as per the law. The plaintiffs have the present suit for permanent injunction in against the defendants stated, in due course of law he shall not be evicted from the suit schedule property. With the background of above all observation that I am of the view that the plaintiffs have been otherwise successfully proved their case by placed an cogent, documentary and oral evidence in against the defendants. Accordingly, I answer issue No.1, 2 and 4 are in the affirmative and Issue No.3 suit is maintainable.
13. Issue No.5:- For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following;
25O.S.No.2994/2019 :ORDER:
Suit of the plaintiffs hereby decreed with cost.
Until the plaintiffs have been evicted as per the law, the defendants and their henchmen have been hereby permanently restrained from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment and dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property.
Draw decree accordingly.
In view of disposal of the suit,
pending interlocutory
applications if any do not survive
for consideration and they
stands disposed off.
(Dictated directly to the Stenographer on computer typed by her, corrected and then signed by me and pronounced in the open Court on this the 14th day of October, 2024) [ ONKARAPPA.R] V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU ***** :ANNEXURE:
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
PW.1 : Mr. Varun Khera
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
NIL
26
O.S.No.2994/2019
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.P1 Receipt Ex.P2 Deed of sub-lease
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:-
NIL [ ONKARAPPA.R ] V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU ***** 27 O.S.No.2994/2019 Operative portion of the judgment pronounced in open court vide separate judgment:-
ORDER Suit of the plaintiffs hereby decreed with cost.
Until the plaintiffs have been evicted as per the law, the defendants and their henchmen have been hereby permanently restrained from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment and dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property. Draw decree accordingly. In view of disposal of the suit, pending interlocutory applications if any do not survive for consideration and they stands disposed off.
[ ONKARAPPA.R ] V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU 28 O.S.No.2994/2019