Bangalore District Court
Rashmi Panda vs Jabm Onesource Pvt Ltd on 22 August, 2025
1 OS.No. 2804/2022
KABC010113032022
Presented on : 20-04-2022
Registered on : 20-04-2022
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, AT
BENGALURU
Dated this the 22nd day of August 2025
PRESENT: SMT. G.S.PRASEELA KUMARI, B.A.L,LLB.,
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
(CCH.No.27), BENGALURU.
O.S.No.2804/2022
PLAINTIFF : Mrs. Rashmi Panda,
W/o. Asish Panda,
Aged about 48 years,
Residing at House No.4/6,
J.S.W. Steel Township,
Vidyanagar,
Tornagulla,
Bellary District - 623 135
(By Sri.KMN, advocate)
AND:
DEFENDANTs : 1. JABM ONESOURCE PVT. LTD.,
a company registered under The
Indian Companies Act Rep. by its
Director/s Mr. Ram TejaArigela & Mr.
Ram TejaArigela Sunil More Shivaji
Rao Regd. Office at No.254/185/26,
2nd Main, "BaswerSannidhi", Achi
2 OS.No. 2804/2022
Ashirvad-2, Neeladri Layout,
Doodathoguru Road, Bengaluru -
And also at:
2nd Floor, 2nd Mai Road, Nila
Investment Layout, Bettasandra,
Electronic City Phase 1, Bengaluru
560 100.
2. Mrs. Nikashini V.
W/o. Madan Kumar,
Aged About 30 Years,
R/at. No. Flat No.33043, Building-3,
Prestige Falcon City, Plot No.1182,
Road No.1, Kanakapura Road,
Bengaluru 560 078
(D1 - exparte, D2 - decreed)
Date of Institution of the suit : 20-04-2022
Nature of the suit : Ejectment
Date of commencement of : 20/02/2024
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 22/08/2025
was pronounced
Total Duration Years Months Days
03 04 02
(G.S.PRASEELA KUMARI)
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY
3 OS.No. 2804/2022
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for ejectment by directing the defendants to put the plaintiff in vacant physical possession of schedule premises with damages /mesne profits at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month from the date of filing the suit till realization of the suit schedule property and to hold enquiry under Order XX Rule 12 of CPC with the direction to the defendant No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.2,05,461/- towards maintenance charges paid by the plaintif. Further, direction to the defendant No.1, to pay the interest towards delayed payment towards CAM charges for a sum of Rs.71,272/-, with such other reliefs.
2. Brief facts of the plaintiff's case is as follows:-
In the plaint, it is submitted by the plaintiff that she along with her husband are the joint owners of the Residential Apartment. She had taken the schedule property for rent and entered into the rental agreement dated 12-09-2019 and at the inception of the tenancy the 1st defendant paid an interest free security deposit of Rs.2,50,000/- to be returnable at the time of handing over the vacant possession of the schedule premises on a monthly rental of Rs.33,000/- excluding maintenance charges of Rs.7,000/- per month, 4 OS.No. 2804/2022 payment of Rent on or before 10th day of every month excluding water, electricity and association charges and further agreed to enhancing rent by 5% every year and maintenance charges to be paid as actual after every 11 months. At the inception of the tenancy, the rental agreement was entered for a period of every two years with the minimum lock-in-period of (1) year with the mutual understanding to renew the agreement. First defendant had sub-let the scheduled premises and inducted the 2nd defendant as tenant under the first defendant without any prior permission of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, 1st defendant was chronic defaulter in the payments of rent and maintenance charges towards the use and occupation of the schedule premises and with regard to the same there were several email communications being exchanged between the plaintiff and 1st defendant for clearing the rental arrears.
3. According to the plaintiff, the tenancy came to be ceased starting September 2021 and that tenancy was not renewed and also communication was sent by the plaintiff, not to renew the tenancy and stopped paying the monthly rental, and maintenance charges from October 2021 till 10-03-2022 pertaining to the occupation of the schedule premises. Defendant without paying any rent continued his possession and 5 OS.No. 2804/2022 enjoyment in the suit schedule premises as a tenant. The defendant is due for payment of rent of Rs.2,40,000/- for a period of six months, out of security deposit of Rs.2,50,000/-, Rs.2,40,000/- was deducted and balance payable by the plaintiff to the 1 st defendant was Rs.10,000/-.
4. According to the plaintiff as per Clause-9 of the aforesaid Rental agreement dated 12-09-2019, if any default to pay the rent or maintenance charge or both regularly on due dates or commit any default to perform any of the terms here to agreed, the lessor reserves the right to terminate the contract and take over the possession of the schedule premises. Defendant No.1 not paid cam charges /maintenance charges as well as the rent in terms of the Rental Agreement. According to the plaintiff, defendant No.1 not paid cam charges from October 2021 to March 2024 to the tune of Rs.2,05,461/-. The plaintiff himself is making such payment to the concerned, as such he is entitled to recover from the defendant. As per clause 4 of the rental agreement:
"Maintenance Charge: Maintenance charge is already paid by the Lessor in advance. Till that time (will be communicated the monthly later) JABM/Sub-tenant will pay the same to the Lessor. Thereafter, 6 OS.No. 2804/2022 JABM/Sub-tenant will maintenance directly to the society,"
5. As such, the association has charged an interest to the tune of Rs.71,272/- towards delayed payment of the cam charges and it has been regularly updated with Association, demanding the payment of the interest towards delayed payment of cam charges. The defendant No.1 is liable to pay the interest on the late payment. According to the plaintiff, first defendant was a chronic defaulter in payment of the rent and maintenance charges with respect to the premises. Defendant had stopped paying the rents and when the interest charged from October 2021 to March 2022, Plaintiff after deducting the rent from the security deposit, by invoking clause 9 of the rental agreement & delivered the vacant possession of the schedule premises by terminating the tenancy by giving 15 days notice as per legal notice dated 15th day of March 2022. Defendant not claimed such a notice issued through RPAD or neither complied. In anticipation of that the defendant will clear the dues and deliver the vacant possession of the schedule premises, the plaintiff has effectively terminated the tenancy from 23-03-2022 and also wait for mandatory waiting period of 15 days. Defendants are in illegal occupation and possession of the schedule premises and defendants 7 OS.No. 2804/2022 are depriving the monthly rentals, which will easily fetch a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month. Plaintiff is entitled to recover the damages from defendant.
6. The cause of action for the suit arose on 21-10-2021 and when the agreement ceases to be extended and 23-03-2022 when the plaintiff has terminated the tenancy by legal notice and on a subsequent dates when the defendants have illegally occupied premises. The suit is filed well within time and also the Hon'ble court has jurisdiction to try the matter. The plaintiff has paid the court fee as per Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, hence prays for the disposal of the suit against the defendants in accordance with law.
7. On perusal of the order sheet and record, it reflects that summons to defendant No.1 duly served but defendant not appeared before the court. Hence, defendant No.1 placed exparte as per order dated 16-09-2022. Summons to the defendant No.2 also served in person but not appeared before the court. Hence placed exparte. The summons to the defendants No.1 and 2 are taken as they deemed served in person. Called the defendants in open court, they remained absent, thus defendants No.1 and 2 are placed exparte. But on 16-11-2022 the defendant No.2 appeared before 8 OS.No. 2804/2022 the court through his counsel and filed a written statement which is taken on record on 07-01-2023 on payment of costs. Thereafter, issues framed on 21-12-2023 but 14-03-2024 defendant No.2 entered into compromise and also filed compromise petition on 14-03-2024 under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC. By virtue of that compromise petition this court ordered to draw partial decree with respect to the suit schedule premises and compromise petition also part and parcel of the decree. Even though, defendant No.2 filed written statement and issues framed on 21-12-2023 but both parties entered into compromise on 14-03-2024. As such at the time of disposal of the present suit against the Defendant No.1, no relief against the defendant No.2. Defendant No.1 already placed exparte and claim of the plaintiff only against the defendant No.1 remain for consideration.
8. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff against the defendant No.1 himself examined as PW.1 and also got marked Ex.P1 to P13. The evidence of PW.1 and documents got marked through PW.1 is unchallenged and undisputed.
9. By keeping in mind the plaint averments, the point for consideration is:-
9 OS.No. 2804/20221. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the possession of the schedule premises as prayed for?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that as per the Quit Notice dated 15-03-2022, validly terminated the tenancy of the defendant No.1?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the 1st defendant had inducted the 2nd defendant as a tenant in the suit schedule property without prior permission of the plaintiff and intimation to the plaintiff?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that plaintiff herself and her husband Mr.Ashish panda are the joint owners of the suit schedule property and they have let out the premises in favour of defendant No.1 by executing the rental agreement dated 12-09-2019 on monthly rent of Rs.33,000/- and 7,000/- as maintenance charges to the Apartment Owners Association and defendant No.1 is liable to pay 5% enhanced rent on every year?
5. Whether the plaintiff has to prove that 1st defendant became a chronic defaulter of payment of rent and maintenance charges as on the date of filing of the suit for a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- and plaintiff adjusted the 10 OS.No. 2804/2022 deposit amount out of the security deposit of Rs.2,50,000/- paid by the defendant No.1 and remaining balance is only Rs.10,000/- ?
6. Whether the plaintiff has to prove that she is entitle for damages / mesne profits at the rate of 50,000/- per month from the date of filing of suit till the recovery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property?
7. What order or decree?
10. My finding on the above said points are as under:-
POINT No.1:- In Negative;
POINT No.2:- As Affirmative;
POINT No.3:- In Negative;
POINT NO.4:- As Affirmative;
POINT NO.5:- As Affirmative;
POINT NO.6:- Partly in the Affirmative; POINT NO.7:- As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
11. POINT NO.1:
After appearance of the defendant No.2 he has filed the written statement, on the basis of that 11 OS.No. 2804/2022 pleadings, this court has framed issues on 21-12-2023 but defendant No.2 as well as the plaintiff have jointly filed application under Order 23 Rule 3 r/w Sec.151 CPC and compromised the dispute between the plaintiff and defendant No.2 amicably. By virtue of that compromise petition, this court already drawn partial decree. The terms and conditions of the Compromise decree filed by the plaintiff and defendant No.2 reflect that:-
(iii) The Defendant No. 2 has agreed and undertaken to quit and deliver the vacant physical possession of the suit schedule property to the Plaintiff on or before 24/04/2024.
(iv) The plaintiff has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) by way of Demand Draft in favour of 2nd Defendant.
(v) The Defendant No.2 undertakes to deliver/hand over the keys before this Hon'ble court on 24/04/2024 and the Plaintiff under takes to hand over the Demand Daft on receipt of Keys.12 OS.No. 2804/2022
(vi) The Defendant No.2 further agrees and undertakes to clear Water and Electricity charges due if any.
(vii) The Defendant No.2 further agrees to keep the schedule property under tenable condition with normal wear and tare, in case of any major damages the Defendant No.2 bounds to undertake the said repairs at own cost, failing which the Plaintiff can deduct the said charges with the agreed amount.
(viii) The Defendant No.2 further agreed and undertakes to return the aforesaid amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) to the Plaintiff if in case the Defendant No.2 recovers the same from the 1st Defendant Company i.e M/s JABM ONE SOURCE PRIVATE LIMITED.
(xiii) The Defendant No.2 has no objection to continue the suit against the Defendant No.1.
(xiv) The suit against the Defendant No.2 may be decreed as per the term of compromise petition as agreed.13 OS.No. 2804/2022
12. By virtue of the above said terms and conditions as well as other conditions this court already drawn partial decree. As per terms and conditions of the compromise petition and also partial decree in between the plaintiff and defendant No.2, defendant No.2 agreed to deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises along with the key on 24-04-2024 to the plaintiff and also agreed to received a sum of Rs.10 lakhs by the plaintiff by way of demand draft on 24-04-2024 itself. When the plaintiff already taken the possession of the suit schedule property from the defendant No.2 as per the terms and conditions of the compromise petition then eject the defendants from the suit schedule property and hand over of the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the plaintiff does not arise at the time of disposal of the present suit on merits against the defendant No.1. In view of the terms and conditions of the compromise petition, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.
13. POINT NO.2:- In this point plaintiff has to prove that by way of quit notice dated 15.03.2022 sent on 23.03.2022 had validly terminated the 14 OS.No. 2804/2022 tenancy of the Defendant No.1 herein with respect to the suit schedule property. In order to prove it the plaintiff got marked Ex.P1 notice dated 15-03-2022. In this notice in para No.7 in clear cut wordings informed the defendant No.1 that:-
It is further informed that invoking clause 9 of the Rental Agreement the tenancy stands terminate for not payment of rents and maintenance charges and hence our client hereby effectively terminate the tenancy from this day and the 1st and the 2nd of you are treated as illegal occupants and hence by this notice our client call upon you to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the schedule property within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of this notice failing which our clients will be constrained to take legal recourse as provided under law and you are also liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.50,000/- p.m., from the date of this notice till delivering vacant physical possession of the schedule property to our clients.15 OS.No. 2804/2022
14. This notice is issued as per Clause-9 of rental agreement. Ex.P2 is the 5 postal receipts also reflect that plaintiff herein got issued a legal notice / quit notice to the defendant through RPAD. On perusal of the unserved postal cover Ex.P4, Ex.P5, Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 reflects that it addressed to the defendant No.1 but all these RPAD returned with SHARA as 'DOOR LOCKED' 1st and 2nd intimation served to the defendant No.1 it reflect in the RPAD covers. Legal notice address to the defendant No.1 and 2 through RPAD and Ex.P2 is one and the same. Even though two intimations served upon the defendant No.1 not claimed the RPAD covers. Apart from that on perusal of the postal authority shara in the above said RPAD cover, returned to the sender as unclaimed.
[ Section 27 of the General Clause Act 1897 establishes a legal presumption that service of a document by post is effective at the time the letter would normally be delivered provided it was properly addressed, prepaid, and sent by registered post. This is a double rebuttable presumption, meaning the recipient can present evidence to prove, they did not receive the letter, - thus disproving the service. For the presumption to arise, the 16 OS.No. 2804/2022 letter containing the document must be properly addressed, prepaid and posted by registered post. The service is deemed to have occurred unless the contrary is proved. The recipient can provide evidence to show they did not receive the letter. The burden of proof shifts to the centre to establish that the letter was in indeed delivered, if the presumption is challenge. Section 27 of the act provides legal mechanism to ensure that documents can be legally served by post, which is crucial in many legal processes. It creates a legal fiction of service and the burden then falls on the recipient to demonstrate that the service was not effective. In a case on hand, exhibit P2 legal notice addressed to the defendant No.1 and also intimation delivered twice in spite of that Defendant No.1 not received notice. Hence, quit notice as per exhibit P2 duly served upon the defendant No.1.
As per Section 27 of the General Clause Act, if RPAD Cover returned with shara as unclaimed it is deemed as served on the addressee. In spite of issuance of legal notice the defendant No.1 not vacated the suit schedule premises, but notice to the defendant No.2 also issued as per Ex.P3 but defendant No.2 appeared before this court and entered into compromise with the plaintiff and also vacated the schedule premises and handed 17 OS.No. 2804/2022 over the key and possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff. But the plaintiff in accordance with the provisions of the transfer of Property Act got issued Quit notice to the defendant No.1 and terminated the tenancy. The conduct and approach of the defendant No.1 itself is sufficient to draw adverse inference against him. At this juncture it is useful to refer the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in AIR, 1999 Supreme court 1441 in between Vidyadhar V/s Manikrao and another wherein Hon'ble supreme court held in para No.16 of the order reads as under:
Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S-
114-Adverse inference-party to suit- Not entering the witness box-give rise to inference adverse against him".
Where a party to the suit does not appear in to the witness box and states n is own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct"
The Ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme court in AIR, 1999 Supreme court 1441 in between Vidhyadhar V/s Manikrao and another's case is that where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case 18 OS.No. 2804/2022 on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct. In the present case also the defendant have not entered into the witness box in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme court in AIR, 1999 Supreme court 1441 in between Vidhyadhar V/s Manikrao and another's case so an adverse inference has to be drawn as against the present defendants".
14. In a ruling reported in ILR 1998 KAR 2655 Shirajasab, HusenSab Exambi V/s Ashok Pandithappa Kaddimani;
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act No.5 of 1908) Order VI rule 1(a), Order VII Rule 11, Order VIII Rule 10 and Order XVII Rule 3 - its it permissable for the court to go in to the merits and other factual allegations when the defendant and other factual allegations when the defendant does not appear inspite of the service of the suit summons ? HELD - Court shall have to pass a decree as prayed for, unless the relief itself is, prima facie barred by limitation (para 3).
A Cumulative reading of these provisions clearly go to show that once a claim is made by the plaintiff and such claim is not barred by any law for the 19 OS.No. 2804/2022 time being in force then the court must pass a decree in favour of the defendant. These salient feature have not been followed. Therefore, it has become necessary for me to hold that (1) when the defendants do not appear and the court is satisfied that the summons have been duly served, the court shall pass a decree as prayed for by the plaintiff unless the relief itself is prima facie barred by limitation or unknown to law. But when it involves a factual allegation, it is not duty of the court to go into such factual allegations and find out whether factual allegations are true or not."
15. And another ruling reported in ILR 2001 KAR page 546 Smt.Aisha Bi and Anotehr V/s M.Shamsher Khan.
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (CENTRAL ACT NO.V OF 1908) ORDER VIII RULE 5(2) AND RULE 10 In all cases where no written statement has been filed, by the defendants, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to direct the plaintiff to adduce evidence in support of the facts pleaded by him in an indiscriminate manner. The court has to pronounce the judgment, and decree the suit, if the facts pleaded do not admit of any in built inconsistency-giving rise to two different version of the fundamental facts. But even for doing so, the court 20 OS.No. 2804/2022 has to pass the judgment containing the relevant facts and the reasons for granting the relief.
The decision of the Supreme Court reported in Balraj Taneja and Another V/s Mader and another 1999(8) SCC 396 Followed.
Two decisions of Karnataka High court are reported in Mahant Swamigalu Guru V/s Chairman Gram Panchayath of Managolt I.L.R. 1999 karnataka 1942 and another and reported in Sri.Syed Ismail and Another V/s Smt.Shamshila Begum and Another ILR 2000 KAR 1338 OVER RULED."
In view of the above said discussions, I answer Point No.2 in the Affirmative.
15. POINT NO.3:-
According to this point which cast burden upon the plaintiff to prove that whether the plaintiff is entitle for a sum of Rs.2,05,461/- towards maintenance charges and also interest of Rs.71,272/- towards delayed payment of CAM charges. Regarding this aspect on careful perusal of the terms and conditions of rental agreement dated 12-09-2019 which executed between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 21 OS.No. 2804/2022 in condition No.17 which reflect that :-
17. Lessor shall agree to sub-let the premises to sub-tenant (Rent/Lease), with proper tenant verification is done and after collecting valid ID proofs like PAN, Aadhaar, Permanent Address.
19. JABM will let out the schedule property only to the Families. In case, the schedule property is rented out to Bachelor or used for any commercial purpose, the Lessor demand more rent (or) has the right to terminate the contract immediately. In such cases, Lessor need not to pay any charges and May further seek for legal action against JABM.
On careful perusal of the entire terms and conditions of the agreement executed by the plaintiff and 1st defendant there is no restrictions regarding the sub-let of the suit schedule property to the sub- tenant. Prior permission or prior intimation to the plaintiff is in no way reflect in the rental agreement. Plaintiff has not produced any relevant documents to prove that prior permission and intimation to the plaintiff before sub-letting the schedule premises 22 OS.No. 2804/2022 from the 1st and 2nd defendant is mandatory. In the absence of the terms and conditions in the rental agreement and also in the absence of the relevant documents only on the basis of oral evidence of PW.1 and on the basis of the averments in the plaint it is not possible for this court to believe the version of the plaintiff. In the absence of terms and conditions in a rental agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, without any hesitation I answer point No.3 in the Negative.
16. POINT NO.4, 5 AND 6- These three issues are interrelated with each other. Hence, I have taken up together for discussions in order to repetitions of facts and circumstances of the case.
In POINT No.4 plaintiff has to prove that she and her husband Mr.Ashish panda are the joint owners of the suit schedule property, and they have let out the same in favor of Defendant No.1 by executing the rental agreement dated 12.09.2019 on the monthly rental of Rs.33,000/- with liability to pay Rs.7000/- maintenance charges to the Apartment Owners Association, and the Defendant No.1 was liable to pay 5% enhanced rent on every year. In Point No.5 plaintiff has to 23 OS.No. 2804/2022 prove that the 1st Defendant became the chronic defaulter of payments of rents and maintenance charges thus as on the date of filing of the suit, the Defendant No.1 was liable to pay Rs.2.40,000/- as arrears of rents and maintenance charges, but she adjusted the said amount in the security deposit of Rs.2,50,000/- paid by the Defendant No.1 and the balance payable is Rs.10,000/-, and in point No.6 plaintiff has to prove that she is entitle for grant of damages/mesne profits at the rate of 50,000/- per month from the date of filing of suit till the recovery of vacant possession of the suit property. In order to prove these points plaintiff herself examined as PW.1 and also got marked Ex.P1 to P16.
17. After the receipt of suit summons and on careful perusal of the order sheet defendant No.1 not appeared before this court and not filed any written statement and not contested the suit. As per order dated 16-09-2022 defendant No.1 placed exparte. On that day itself the defendant No.2 also placed exparte but on 16-11-2022 defendant No.2 appeared before this court through his counsel and thereafter entered into compromise with the plaintiff by way of filing the application 24 OS.No. 2804/2022 under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC on 14-03-2024. That compromise petition was allowed and suit against the defendant No.2 compromised and partial decree also drawn, in view of the terms and conditions of the compromise petition. From the date of receipt of notice, defendant No.1 intentionally remained absent and also placed exparte. When such being the case, the evidence of PW.1 as well as the case of the plaintiff regarding landlord and tenant relationship between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 is believed as true and genuine. On careful reading of the evidence of PW.1 she has contended that suit schedule property was purchased by herself along with her husband as per the registered sale deed. Both of them are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property but defendant No.1 had taken the schedule premises on rental agreement dated 12-09-2019 and agreed to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- security deposit be returnable at the time of handing over of the vacant possession of the schedule premises on a monthly rent of Rs.33,000/- and also Rs.7000/- maintenance charges to the Apartment owners Association. The payment of rent and maintenance charges on or before 10th of every 25 OS.No. 2804/2022 month excluding water, electricity and association charges and further agreeing to enhance the rent by 5% every year and maintenance charges to be paid as actual after every 11 months. This evidence of PW.1 is in no way disputed or challenged by the defendant No.1.
18. Ex.P9 is the certified copy of the Registered sale deed reflect that plaintiff herein as well as her husband have purchased the suit schedule premises from vendor for valid consideration as shown in the sale deed itself. On careful perusal of the schedule as shown in the sale deed it is nothing but the plaint schedule property. When the plaintiff and her husband have purchased the suit schedule premises on the strength of the registered sale deed, it is crystal clear that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property along with her husband.
19. Regarding the rental agreement executed between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 on perusal of the rental agreement dated 12-09-2019 it reflects that the lessee has paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as an advance amount towards security deposit to the lessor. Apart from that 26 OS.No. 2804/2022 defendant No.1 agrees to pay monthly rent of Rs.33,000/- and Rs.7,000/- towards the monthly maintenance charges. The defendant No.1 is also liable to pay the same to the Apartment owners Association. In condition No.4 it reflects that the maintenance charges already paid by the lessor in advance till that time 1st defendant or sub-tenant will pay the same to the lessor. Thereafter 1 st defendant or sub-tenant will pay the monthly maintenance directly to the society. The terms and conditions as shown in the lease agreement is in no way disputed by the defendant No.1, on the strength of the lease agreement the plaintiff has to prove that defendant No.1 has agreed to pay monthly rent of Rs.33,000/- and Rs.7,000/- towards monthly maintenance. When the terms and conditions is not denied by the defendant No.1 and also plaint averments and evidence of PW.1 is not denied by the defendant No.1 by way of filing the written statement or cross- examination. There is no other option except to believe the evidence of PW.1 and contents of lease agreement.
20. According to the plaintiff, defendant No.1 was liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,05,461/- as arrears of rent and maintenance charges.
27 OS.No. 2804/2022Regarding it in the evidence of PW.1 as well as in the plaint, the plaintiff has contended that from October 2021 till March 2022 defendant No.1 not paid any rental charges and also maintenance charges to the plaintiff. By virtue of that default on the part of defendant No.1 the plaintiff got issued quit notice on 12-09-2019 and that notice served upon the defendant. Inspite of that not vacated the schedule premises within 15 days from the date of service of legal notice. Due to the non payment of rent and maintenance charges the plaintiff has deducted Rs.2,40,000/-in term of the rental agreement. Regarding it on careful perusal of the Ex.P1 notice dated 15-03-2022, it reflect that on 15-03-2022 the plaintiff herein got issued the legal notice to the plaintiff and called upon to pay the entire arrears of rent with maintenance charges. In para No.6 of the notice the plaintiff informed to the defendant No.1 which reads thus:-
Rent Agreement was for a period of two (2) years and the same ceased to continue from September 2021 and starting October 2021 the 1st of you have stopped paying the rents and maintenance charges towards the occupation and possession of the schedule property and the 1st of you are due to our clients from October 28 OS.No. 2804/2022 2021 till date i.e., 10/03/2022 and in-total the 1st of you are due for a period of Six (6) months amounting to Rs.2,40,000/- towards the rents and maintenance charges and after deducting the sum of Rs.2,40,000/- the balance of Rs. 10,000/- out of the security deposit remains and our clients are ready to pay the said amount of Rs. 10,000/-.
21. By virtue of this notice it is crystal clear that defendant No.1 is due for rent and maintenance charges from October 2021 till 10- 03-2022 rent at the rate of Rs.33,000/- and maintenance charges at the rate of Rs.7,000/- till 10-03-2022 is not paid, in total amount of Rs.240000/- is due. As per the evidence of PW.1, plaint averments and Ex.P2 notice the 1 st defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- due with respect to the arrears of rent and damages from the date of filing of the suit, ie., from 20-04-2022 till 24-04-2024.
22. According to the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 is liable to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as damages but not even a single document is produced before this court regarding the damages at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month. In the 29 OS.No. 2804/2022 absence of relevant documents only on the basis of evidence of PW.1 it is not possible for this court to award damages at the rate of Rs.50,000/-. But on the other hand, the plaintiff is entitle for damages at the rate of 33,000/- per month from the date of filing the suit till 24-04-2024. Apart from that the defendant No.1 as per the terms and conditions of the lease agreement is liable to pay maintenance charges to the plaintiff. Regarding the arrears of rent and maintenance charges on perusal of the evidence of PW.1 herself deposed that defendant No.1 not paid the maintenance charges to the Apartment owners. As such the plaintiff herself paid the maintenance charges to the Apartment owners association. Regarding it plaintiff has produced Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 i.e., Statement of account of the plaintiff as well as the email dated 04-10-2020. She has also produced the certificate under Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act. On perusal of these 3 documents, itself goes to show that the plaintiff herein has paid the maintenance charges with respect to the suit schedule property to the Apartment Owners Association. Ex.P15 in a description column it reflects that on 21-12-2021, Rs.18659/- CAM charges paid to the Apartment owners Association.
30 OS.No. 2804/2022On every month maintenance charges paid by the plaintiff also reflect in the statements. Receipt issued from the Prestige Falcon City Apartments Owners Association is also produced by the plaintiff along with Ex.P15. These receipts are pertaining to the payment of maintenance charges. These statement and invoices are not denied by the defendant No.1 because defendant No.1 already placed exparte. Mail dated 04-10-2020 which got marked as Ex.P12 reflect that defendant No.1 sent mail to the plaintiff and informed that:
This is inform you that due to COVID-19 Lockdown. We are unable to proceed any of the payments. All support us in this hard times.
23. This mail sent on 14-10-2020 to the plaintiff herein. Another mail dated 9-10-2020 also reflect that defendant No.1 sent mail, which reads thus:
We're extremely sorry that your experience with us was not up to par. Thank you for bringing this to the attention of management. Due to COVID-19, there have been certain limitations placed on our business, and 31 OS.No. 2804/2022 our team has had to adapt to many changes. We hope that you will give us another opportunity. We'd love to make it up to you.We ensure to clear all the pending dues by this month end. We regret for the inconvenience caused and highly appreciate your patience.
24. Another mail dated 29-09-2020 regarding delay in payment sent by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff also reflect that 1st defend not cleared the dues as on 29-09-2020. Apart from that requested to co-operate with the defendant No.1 for delay time pertaining to the payment of rent and maintenance charges. In the mail it is requested the plaintiff for 10-15 days time to clear the entire dues on 11-09-2020. Another mail from the defendant No.1 reflect that maintenance charges not paid by the defendant No.1. Ex.P11 is the statement of accounts stands in the name of the plaintiff and her husband which also reflect that CAM charges and maintenance charges paid by the plaintiff to the owners Association. On the basis of the relevant statement of accounts, invoice and mail plaintiff has clearly proved that defendant No.1 not paid the rent as well as maintenance charges to the plaintiff as per the 32 OS.No. 2804/2022 terms and conditions of the rent agreement but plaintiff is not entitle to Rs.50,000/- as damages from the date of filing the suit till 24-04-2024. On the other hand, the plaintiff is entitle for Rs.33,000/- as rent p.m and Rs.7,000/- as maintenance charges from the date of filing the suit till 20-04-2024. In view of the above discussions I answer Point No.4 in the Affirmative, Point No.5 in the Affirmative, Point No.6 partly in the Affirmative.
25. POINT NO.7:- In view of my findings on POINT NOs.1 to 6, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff against the defendant No.1 is partly decreed.
The defendant No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,05,461/- towards maintenance charges to the plaintiff.
Defendant No.1 is hereby directed to pay the interest on the delayed time towards CAM charges for the sum of Rs.71,272/-.
Defendant No.1 is directed to pay a sum 33 OS.No. 2804/2022 of Rs.33,000/- per month as damages from the date of suit till March 2024.
Office is to draw the decree, accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in open Court, on this the 22nd day of AUGUST, 2025.) (G.S.PRASEELAKUMARI) XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of:
(a) Plaintiff' side :
P.W.1: Rashmi Panda
(b) Defendant's side :
DW.1: Nil
II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff' side :
Ex.P.1 Notice dated 15-03-2022
Ex.P.2 5 postal receipts together marked.
34 OS.No. 2804/2022
Ex.P.3 5 unserved RPAD consignments.
to 7
Ex.P.8 The power of attorney of Mr. Asish
Panda executed in favour of his wife the witness herein.
Ex.P.9 The digitally certified sale deed dated 27-11-2019 Ex.P.10 Tax paid receipts.
Ex.P.11 Statement of account of the plaintiff and his wife maintained with SBI.
Ex.P.12 Mail dated 04-10-2020 and trial mails consisting on all 7 pages together marked.
Ex.P.13 Certificate under section 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act.
Ex.P.14 Lease/ Rental agreement dt 02.12.2024 which is for the period of 11 months.
Ex.P15 Prestige Falcon City Apartment Owners association Maintenance charge receipts Ex.P16 Declaration affidavit in compliance of Sec.65B of Evidence Act.
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
35 OS.No. 2804/2022 36 OS.No. 2804/2022Judgment pronounced in open court vide separate & detailed:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff against the defendant No.1 is partly decreed.
The defendant No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,05,461/- towards maintenance charges to the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 is hereby directed to pay the interest on the delayed 37 OS.No. 2804/2022 time towards CAM charges for the sum of Rs.71,272/-.
Defendant No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.33,000/- per month as damages from the date of suit till March 2024.
Office is to draw the decree, accordingly.
XII ACC & SJ., B'LURU.38 OS.No. 2804/2022