Bangalore District Court
O.S./6765/2017 on 4 January, 2020
THE COURT OF XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, (CCH-40), BANGALORE CITY.
Dated on this the 4th day of January, 2020.
-: Present :-
Sri.Khadarsab, B.A, LL.M.,
XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore City.
ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 6765/2017
Plaintiff :-
N.Mukeshchand S/o.Nathmal Jain, 54
Years, R/o.No.274, Akkamahadevi
Road, Bengaluru - 560 053.
Also at : Shop No.23, SKR Minor
Market, Gandhi Nagar Market Road
Shop, Bengaluru.
[By Sri. V.B.Shivakumar, Advocate]
/ VERSUS /
Defendants :-
1. The Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara
Palike, Corporation Offices,
N.R.Square, J.C.Road, Bengaluru
Represented by its Commissioner.
2. The Revenue Officer, Market West
Zone, K.R.Market Building,
Bengaluru - 560 002.
3. The Assistant Revenue Officer,
Market West Zone, K.R.Market
Building, Bengaluru - 560 002.
[By T.P.M., Advocate]
Date of Institution of the suit : 06.10.2017
Suit for permanent &
Nature of suit :
mandatory injunctions
Date of commencement of : 13.12.2018
evidence
Date on which the judgment : 04.01.2020
is pronounced
Years Months Days
Duration taken for disposal :
02 02 29
***
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants or anybody claiming under them from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to accept and remit the cheque submitted towards the rents in terms of the receipts or in the alternative permit the plaintiff to deposit the rents.
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as under :
That, plaintiff is in occupation of Shop bearing No.23 of S.K.R. Minor Market, Gandhi Nagar Market Shop, Bengaluru i.e., suit schedule property. The defendants have leased out the said property to the plaintiff. The defendants have leased out the suit schedule property in order to accommodate unemployed persons and to own and possess the premises to do petty businesses and make a livelihood.
The premises that was given makes an earning of hand-to-
mouth and the business that is done in the said premises was not a profitable business. The defendants have granted the lease of suit schedule property, collected security deposit amount for use and occupation of the premises. The plaintiff had been carrying on the avocation by doing business in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is paying the rent in respect of the suit schedule property regularly.
3. This being the case, the plaintiff was called upon to pay enhanced rents. Accordingly enhanced rents from 23.2.2016 to 22.3.2017 have been paid for the use and occupation of the premises. The plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property. It is neither unauthorised nor illegal. The plaintiff has been prompt in payment of rents, the plaintiff never defaulted for outstanding payment. Whenever notified by the defendants to the plaintiff or in the alternative in the event defendants do not notify, the plaintiff would make voluntary payments to avoid any defaults for the use and occupation of the premises. That, at the intervention of certain mischievous persons politically motivated and monetarily bigwig, apart from being bigwig, monetarily well-established muscle men who intend to make possible demands of dispossession manipulated certain documents of dispossession, but had miserably failed. The plaintiff further contended that the defendants who have acknowledged the receipt of the cheque, have failed to present the cheque for encashment. The defendants have caused hassles in regard to the issuing computerized acknowledgment for having received the cheque. It is the obligation of the defendant - Corporation to issue computerized receipts. One of the tenants in occupation adjacent to the premises has been issued computerized receipts. The plaintiff is running the business in the suit schedule property and also obtained licence from the concerned authorities. The defendants are trying to cause immense mental harassment and are also attempting to evict the plaintiff unauthorisedly. The defendants in the first week of July 2017 made an attempt to dispossess the plaintiff. The act of the defendants is illegal and high handed. Hence, he prayed for decreeing the suit.
4. In response to suit summons, defendants appeared through their counsel and filed their common written statement. The defendants have denied the plaint averments and contended that the plaintiff is an unauthorised occupant and hence, he is not entitled for the relief. The defendants further contended that the plaintiff has filed the present suit with an intention to harass the defendants and to coerce them. The suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the eye of law. The plaintiff is guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi in as much as plaintiff has deliberately made false and fraudulent misrepresentation. The plaintiff is not at all in possession of the suit schedule property and hence, evicting or dispossessing does not arise. The question of mandatory injunction for accepting the cheque for rents, etc., does not arise at all. The defendants further contended that some of the shops constructed on storm water drain in majestic area besides the Sangam Underpass, there runs a storm water drain which is very deep. On the top of the storm water drain, shops are running and in case of any breakage of the top slab as the drain is at a depth of about 20 to 25 Feet and causalities may occur resulting to a cost of public life the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka passed an order in W.P.No.58723/2015 dated 18.4.2016. As per the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka the defendants have issued notice to the shop keepers to vacate the same. Therefore, the defendants have taken necessary legal action under the K.M.C. Act in dismantling the construction constructed on the storm water drain in majestic area. That, on the basis of false and baseless information and without any manner of right or interest over the property, the plaintiff has approached this Court by suppressing the material facts. The defendants further contended that the plaintiff filed the present suit without complying Section 482 of K.M.C. Act, hence, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. Hence, defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. On the basis of the pleadings and documents produced by both the parties, this Court has framed following issues:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in possession of suit schedule property as on the date of suit ?
(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property ?
(3) Whether the defendants No.1 to 3 prove that the suit is barred under Section 482 of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 ?
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ?
(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for ?
(6) What Order or Decree?
6. Plaintiff has examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.24. In order to establish the defence of the defendants, the representative of the defendants i.e., T.Ramadas, Assistant Revenue Officer has been examined as D.W.1 and got marked the documents Exs.D.1 to D.3.
7. Heard both sides.
8. My findings to the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative.
Issue No.2 : In the negative.
Issue No.3 : In the negative.
Issue No.4 : In the negative.
Issue No.5 : In the negative.
Issue No.6 : As per final order, for the
following:
REASONS
9. Issue No.1 :- That, the plaintiff filed the
present suit for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants or anybody claiming under them from interfering his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to receive the rent.
10. In order to establish his case, plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents Exs.P.1 to P.24. The examination-in-chief of P.W.1 is nothing but replica of plaint averments. P.W.1 deposed that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property i.e., Shop bearing No.23, of S.K.R.Minor Market, Gandhi Nagar Market, Bengaluru measuring 120 Sq.Ft. The defendants have leased out the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and the lease has been renewed from time to time. The plaintiff has paid the enhanced rent upto 22.3.2017. The plaintiff obtained the necessary licence from the competent authority in order to run the shop in the suit schedule property. The defendants are obstructing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and also trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. The defendants have also failed to issue computerized receipts for having received the rents. Hence, he prayed for decreeing the suit. The counsel for the defendants cross-examined P.W.1 in full length, nothing worth has been elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 to prove that plaintiff is not in possession of suit schedule property. The counsel for the defendants while cross-examining P.W.1 made specific suggestions that, the defendants have issued notice to the plaintiff on 6.8.2016 for vacating the suit schedule property. The counsel for the defendants further made a suggestion to the witness that, "¥Àæw 11 wAUÀ½UÉ MAzÀÄ ¸Áj ¨ÁrUÉ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß £À«ÃPÀgÀtUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀ ¥ÀvÀæªÁVvÀÄÛ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d.", which clearly goes to show that plaintiff is in possession of suit schedule property.
11. In order to establish their defence, one T.R.Ramadas, Assistant Revenue Officer has been examined as D.W.1 and relied on Exs.D.1 to D.3. The examination-in- chief of D.W.1 is nothing but replica of written statement averments. D.W.1 deposed that the plaintiff is not at all in possession of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff has filed the present suit only with an intention to harass the defendants. Further deposed that, "The shop constructed on storm water drain in majestic area besides the Sangam Underpass, there runs a storm water drain which is very deep. On the top of the storm water drain the shops are situated and in case of any breakage of the top slabs as the drain is at depth of about 20 to 25 Feets and casualty may occur resulting to a cost of public life. Therefore, the defendants have issued notice to the plaintiff for vacating the premises. The plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit against the BBMP since there is no relationship of lessor and lessee." Hence, he prayed for dismissal of suit. Though the defendants denied the possession of plaintiff over the suit schedule property, but D.W.1 in his cross-examination at page No.4 clearly admitted that plaintiff is running business in the suit schedule property and further admitted that the suit schedule property has been let out to the plaintiff. D.W.1 further admitted that the plaintiff has paid rent upto 2014. D.W.1 in his cross-examination at page No.5 clearly admitted that, the plaintiff is running a shop in the suit schedule property, which clearly goes to show that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. As per Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act facts admitted need not be proved. In this case also D.W.1 himself admitted that plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property.
12. The plaintiff has relied on the documents i.e., Ex.P.1 - Endorsement issued by Joint Revenue Office, BBMP dated 3.7.1998. Ex.P.2 - Deed of Licence executed by defendants in favour of plaintiff dated 9.2.1999. Ex.P.3 is the Endorsement issued by BBMP dated 26.6.2001. Ex.P.4 is the Notice issued by BBMP dated 10.4.2001. Ex.P.5 is the No Objection Certificate issued by BBMP dated 29.1.2003. Ex.P.6 is the Notice issued by BBMP. Ex.P.7 is the Letter issued by plaintiff. Ex.P.8 is the Letter issued by BBMP. Ex.P.9 is the Final Notice issued by BBMP dated 24.2.2014. Ex.P.10 is the Inspection Report issued by BESCOM dated 6.11.2002. Ex.P.11 is the letter issued by plaintiff. Exs.P.12 are the 88 Receipts issued by BBMP. Ex.P.13 and 14 are the 48 Postal Receipts and 41 Postal Acknowledgments. Ex.P.15 are the 7 Bank Challans. Ex.P.16 is the Electricity Bill. Ex.P.17 is the Electricity Receipt. Ex.P.18 is the C/c of Property Card. Ex.P.19 is the C/c of Field Book of detail mapping City of Bengaluru issued by ADLR, Bengaluru. Ex.P.20 is the C/c of City Survey Enquiry Register issued by ADLR, Bengaluru. Ex.P.21 is the C/c of PTC issued by ADLR. Exs.P.22 and 23 are the photographs of the suit schedule property and Ex.P.24 is the C.D. of Exs.P.22 and 23. On perusal of the Exs.P.1 to P.9, P.11, 12, 22 and 23 and evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1, it clearly reveals that as on the date of suit the plaintiff is in possession of suit schedule property. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 in the affirmative.
13. Issue No.2 : - The plaintiff in his plaint at para No.10 pleaded that during the first week of July 2017 the defendants made an attempt to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. The defendants have denied the allegation made by the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff pleaded in his plaint regarding interference, but P.W.1 in his cross- examination at page No.9 clearly deposed that, "2017 dÆ£ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ dįÉÊ wAUÀ¼À°è ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä CAUÀrAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀ §AzÀÄ UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £À£Àß CAUÀr ºÀwÛgÀ §AzÀÄ UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁrzÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼À ºÉ¸gÀ ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è." P.W.1 himself does not know the persons who allegedly interfered with his possession. Even then he filed the suit against the defendants on imaginary cause of action. In order to claim injunction, plaintiff ought to have proved the alleged interference along with date, time and the persons who have interfered with his possession. But, in this case the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove the same. That, mere asking to vacate the premises will not amount to interference. Admittedly, the defendants have issued Notice as per Ex.D.3 to the plaintiff and adjoining shop keepers. The plaintiff and adjoining shop owners have challenged the validity of the said notice before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.44002-44035 of 2016 (LB - BBMP). The present plaintiff is the petitioner No.25 in the said writ petition. The said writ petition came to be dismissed on 18.8.2016 as per Ex.D.1. In the said writ petition the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka clearly made an observation that, "The petitioners are the unauthorised occupants and for the said reasons Annexure A is issued to vacate the premises to clear the storm water drain on which the construction is put up which is bad in law." Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the present plaintiff and others have preferred a writ appeal in W.A.No.3747-3780/2016 (LB-BMP) on the file of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The plaintiff suppressed the said fact and has filed the suit. The plaintiff has made bald allegations against the defendants. There is no clear pleadings and evidence as regards to the interference. No case for interference is made out. That, on perusal of the entire material available on record, the plaintiff with an intention to by-pass the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.44002-44035/2016 (LB-BBMP) has filed the present suit which is not permissible under law. Hence, the plaintiff has failed to prove Issue No.2. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 in the negative.
14. Issue No.3 : - The defendants contended that the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Section 482 of the K.M.C. Act. Section 482 of K.M.C. Act reads thus :
"Institution of suits against municipal authority, officers and agents : (1) No suit [xxxxx] shall be instituted against the Corporation or any municipal authority, Corporation Officer or servant, or any person acting under the direction of the same, in respect of any act done in pursuance or in execution, or intended execution of this Act or any rule, bye- law, regulation or order made under it or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of this Act or any rule, bye-law, regulation or order made under it until the expiration of [sixty days] after a notice has been delivered or left at the Corporation office or at the place of abode of such officer, servant or person, stating the cause of action, the relief sought, and the name and place of abode of the intending plaintiff, and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left.
1-A : A suit to obtain an urgent or immediate relief against the Corporation or any municipal authority, Corporation Officer or servant in respect of any act done or purporting to be done by such officer or servant in his official capacity, may be instituted with the lieu of the Court, without serving notice as required by sub- sec.(1), but the Court shall not grant relief in the suit, whether interim or otherwise except after giving to the Corporation officer or servant, as the case may be, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause in respect of the relief prayed for in the suit."
15. That, at the time of filing the suit the plaintiff has filed I.A.No.I under Section 482(1-A) of the K.M.C. Act seeking leave to institute the suit without issuing prior notice as contemplated under Section 482(1) of K.M.C. Act. The said I.A.No.I came to be allowed on 9.10.2017 itself. The defendants have not challenged the said order. The order passed by this Court attained finality. Hence, the contention of the defendants is not sustainable. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.3 in the negative.
16. Issue No.4 :- The counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff is in possession of suit schedule property and he should not be evicted except under due process of law and also he relied upon a following decisions :
1) ILR 1995 KAR 183 - C. Bhaskara Vs. State of Karnataka.
2) AIR 2004 S.C. 4609 - Ramegowda (D) by L.Rs Vs. Varadappa Naidu (D) by L.Rs and another.
3) AIR 1974 KER 100 - Maravakulath Alavi Vs. Palarakkat Kallinga Mohammed Kutty Haji and others.
4) AIR (SCW) 2010 page 3967 - Pinninti Kistamma and others Vs., Duvvada Parushuram Chowdary and others.
In the above decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Hon'ble High Court of Kerala held that, 'the person in settled possession cannot be dispossessed without recourse of law'.
17. Per contra, the counsel for the defendants argued that the defendants issued notice as per Ex.D.3 and the plaintiff has filed the present suit by suppressing the material facts and further argued that the plaintiff has challenged the validity of notice issued by the defendants in W.P.No.44002- 44035 of 2016 (LB - BBMP). The present plaintiff is the petitioner No.25 in the said writ petition. The said writ petitions came to be dismissed on 18.8.2016 as per Ex.D.1. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present plaintiff and others have preferred writ appeals in W.A.No.3747- 3780/2016 (LB-BMP) on the file of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and subsequently they have withdrawn the said writ appeals on 29.3.2019. In the said writ appeals, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka clearly held that, "Respondents are at liberty to prosecute the notice issued by them by the impugned orders." The plaintiffs by suppressing the material facts have filed the suit. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.
18. It is well settled law that, the relief of injunction is an equitable and discretionary remedy proceedings for grant of injunction are always discretionary and a Court of law shall not grant permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff against the right owner if he is a mere trespasser. The plaintiff must establish his legal right and also his exclusive possession to have the relief of permanent injunction. The Court may exercise its judicial discretion and grant a permanent injunction if the relief is not barred by Section of 41 of Specific Relief Act to prevent the breach of an obligation which is in existence. It is also well settled law that "he who seeks equity must do equity". The said principle is applicable to the case in which an equitable remedy is prayed for. Moreover, the plaintiff seeking such relief should be able to show that he has come to the Court with clean hands. In this case the plaintiff filed the suit by suppressing the material facts that the defendants have already issued notice for vacating the premises as per Ex.D.3, same has been challenged by the plaintiff and others by filing the writ petition Nos. 44002-44035/2016 on the file of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the said writ petitions came to be dismissed as per Ex.D.1. In Ex.D.1 the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka clearly held that, "The plaintiff and other shop owners are the trespassers". The present plaintiff and others have challenged the order passed in the said writ petitions by filing Writ Appeal No.3747-3780/2016. In the said writ appeal the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka granted liberty to the respondents i.e., the present defendants to prosecute the notice issued by them. The plaintiff being an unsuccessful litigant in the above said W.P. has filed the present suit by suppressing the material facts. The plaintiff neither in his plaint nor in his evidence has disclosed about the said writ petitions and writ appeals. The plaintiff is making an attempt to by-pass the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka as per Ex.D.1 which is not permissible under law.
19. Defendants being the statutory body, they ought to have taken utmost care of public health and safety in order to protect the public lives and to avoid casualty, the defendants issued notice as per Ex.D.3. By suppressing the material facts, the plaintiff has filed the present suit, which is not permissible under law.
20. Admittedly, the tenancy of plaintiff has come to an end. It is settled law that, once the tenancy period is over, the tenant becomes the trespasser. The trespasser is not entitled for any protective orders like injunction against the true owner. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff is not sustainable.
21. In decision reported in (2012) 5 SCC 370 (Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and others Vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria [dead] through L.Rs), the Hon'ble Apex Court in its Judgment at para No.97 held that :-
"Principles of law which emerge in this case respective crystallized as under : -
(1) No one acquires title to the property if he or she was allowed to say in the premises gratuitously. Even by long possession of years or decades such person would not acquire any right or interest in the said property.
(2) Caretaker, watchman or servant can never acquire interest in the property irrespective of his long possession. The caretaker or servant has to give possession forthwith on demand.
(3) The Courts are not justified in protecting the possession of a caretaker, servant or any person who was allowed to live in the premises for some time either as a friend, relative, caretaker or as a servant.
(4) The protection of the Court can only be granted or extended to the person who has valid subsisting rent agreement, lease agreement or license agreement in his favour.
(5) The caretaker or agent holds property of the principal only on behalf of the principal.
He acquires no right or interest whatsoever for himself in such property irrespective of his long stay or possession."
22. In another decision reported in (2012) 6 Supreme Court Cases 430 [A.Shanmugam Vs. Ariva Khshatriya Rajakula Vamshasta Madilaya Nandhava Paripalalai Sangama and others] in which the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "A person in wrongful possession is not entitled to be protected against lawful owner by an order of injunction and further held that, the protection of the Court can be granted or extended to the person who has a valid subsisting rent agreement, lease agreement or licence agreement in his favour."
In this case also, the plaintiff has failed to produce any valid subsisting rent/lease/licence agreement. The above said decisions are aptly applicable to the case in hand.
23. The counsel for the plaintiff argued that the cause of action to file writ petition No.44002-44035 of 2016 and cause of action to file this suit are altogether different, hence, he prays for decreeing the suit. The counsel for the plaintiff further argued that the adjoining shop owners have filed O.S.No.6764/2017 and 6394/2017 on the file of Additional City Civil Judge Court, Bengaluru and the said suits came to be partly decreed and relief of permanent injunction has been granted against the defendants. The subject matter involved in the present suit and the subject matter involved in the above said two suits are one and the same, hence, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief. It is well settled law that, once the defendants have initiated the proceedings for eviction as per law, the plaintiff cannot claim the relief. Besides, as discussed supra in Writ Appeal No.3747- 3780/2016 (LB-BMP) dated 29.3.2019, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka clearly held that "the respondents are at liberty to prosecute the notice issued by them". Hence, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the defendants are at liberty to evict the plaintiff in accordance with law. The counsel for plaintiff contended that O.S.No.6764/17 and 6394/17 came to be decreed and subject matter of the present suit and subject matter of the above said suits are one and the same. Hence, he prayed for decreeing the suit. But, on careful perusal of the Judgment and Decree passed in the above said suits, it reveals that the reasons best known to the defendants they have not produced the Order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No. 44002-44035 of 2016 and Writ Appeal No.3747-3780/2016 (LB-BMP) dated 29.3.2019 on the file of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. If they have produced the said orders in the said suits, the matter would have been different. Hence, the contention raised by the counsel for the plaintiff is not sustainable one.
24. In order to claim the relief of permanent injunction the plaintiff has to establish his lawful possession over the suit schedule property and alleged interference. Here in the instant case, the plaintiff has not at all produced any oral or documentary evidence in order to prove the alleged interference. Besides, he is a trespasser. As per decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the trespasser is not entitled for an injunction. Hence, as discussed above, the plaintiff has failed to prove Issue No.4. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.4 in the negative.
25. Issue No.5 : - That, the plaintiff claimed another relief of mandatory injunction to direct the defendants to accept the rents. This Court cannot compel the defendants to receive the rents in respect of the suit schedule property. It is discretion of the defendant to continue the lease of the plaintiff and to receive the rent in respect of suit schedule property. It is well settled law that, the relief of mandatory injunction cannot be granted by mere asking, but there should be necessary pleadings and supporting evidence. As per Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, in order to claim the relief of mandatory injunction the plaintiff has to establish his rights over the suit schedule property. Besides, mandatory injunction is an order requiring the defendants to do some positive act for the purpose of putting an end to wrongful state of things created by them or otherwise in fulfillment of their legal obligation. In this case the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove the fact that the defendants are under a legal obligation to accept the rent as contended by him. The plaintiff has utterly failed to prove Issue No.5. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.5 in the negative.
26. Issue No.6 :- Since main suit itself is disposed off, I.A.No.2 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 does not survive. Hence, I.A.No.2 is also dismissed.
27. In view of my findings to Issue No.1 to 5, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, typed directly on computer, script corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court, this the 4th day of January, 2020.) (KHADARSAB) XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
*** ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for plaintiff :
P.W.1 : N.Mukeshchand
2. List of documents exhibited for plaintiff :
Ex.P1 Endorsement issued by joint revenue officer BBMP dated 3/7/1998 Ex.P2 Deed of licence executed by defendants in favour of Plaintiff dated 9/2/1999 Ex.P3 Endorsement issued by BBMP dated 26/6/2001 Ex.P4 Notice issued by BBMP dated 10/4/2001 Ex.P5 No objection certificate issued by BBMP dated 29/1/2003 Ex.P6 Notice issued by BBMP Ex.P7 Letter issued by the Plaintiff Ex.P8 Letter issued by the BBMP Ex.P9 Final notice issued by BBMP dated 24/2/2014 Ex.P10 Inspection report issued by BESCOM 6/11/2002 Ex.P11 Letter issued by Plaintiff Ex.P12 88 Receipts Ex.P13 48 postal receipts Ex.P14 41 acknowledgements Ex.P15 7 Bank challans Ex.P16 Electricity bill Ex.P17 Electricity receipt Ex.P18 C/c property card Ex.P19 C/c field book of detail mapping city of Bangalore issued by ADLR Bangalore Ex.P20 C/c city survey enquiry register issued by ADLR Bangalore Ex.P21 C/c PTC issued by ADLR Ex.P22 2 photos & 23 Ex.24 CD of Exs.P.22 and 23
3. List of witnesses examined for defendants :-
D.W.1 : T.Ramadas
4. List of documents exhibited for defendants :-
Ex.D.1 : C/c of Order passed in W.P.No.44002- 44035/2016(LB-BBMP) dated 18.8.2016.
Ex.D.2 : Copy of Notice dated 9.8.2016 Ex.D.3 : Copy of Notice issued U/s.288(d) of K.M.C. Act dated 6.8.2016.
(KHADARSAB), XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
***