Bangalore District Court
Dasegowda vs Armugam on 4 August, 2025
KABC010234502020
IN THE COURT OF LXVII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE; BENGALURU CITY (CCH.No.68)
PRESENT
SMT.RASHMI.M.
BA.LL.B., LL.M.
LXVII ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
Dated this the 4th day of August 2025.
O.S.No.16/2021
PLAINTIFFS : 1. Sri.Dasegowda,
S/o.Singraiah,
Aged about 70 years.
2. Smt.Manjuladevi.M.R.
W/o.Dasegowda,
Aged about 62 years.,
3. Dr.Roopa Devi,
D/o.Dasegowda,
Aged about 41 years.
All are residing at :
No.82, 4th Cross, UAS Layout,
Opp. BSNL, Bhoopasandra,
Sanjay Nagar,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.R.C., Advocate)
O.S.No.16/2021
2
.Vs.
DEFENDANT : Sri.Armugam,
S/o.Ramappa,
Aged about 33 years,
Shop No.1, 'Roopa Complex',
In Premises No.54, 2nd Cross,
Near Hosahalli Metro Station,
Manuvana, Vijayanagar,
Bengaluru.
And also running shop
"New Classic", No.51,
20th Main Road,
Marenahalli,
Vijayanagar,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.S.G.A., Advocate)
Date of institution of suit : 23.12.2020
Date of Registration of suit : 02.01.2021
Nature of Suit : Suit for Ejectment
Date of commencement of
23.03.2022
evidence :
Date on which the judgment 04.08.2025
is pronounced:
Duration taken for disposal : Year/s Month/s Day/s
4 7 2
(RASHMI.M)
LXVII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge,
BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant to direct him to quit, vacate and hand over O.S.No.16/2021 3 vacant possession of the suit schedule property along with payment of arrears of rents and common area maintenance charges amounting in all Rs.5,15,650/- together with interest thereon, from the date of the suit till its realization along with costs and to grant such other reliefs.
2. The plaint averments in brief :
The plaintiffs have contended that they are the absolute owners of commercial building bearing No.54, "Roopa Complex", situated at 2nd Cross, Near Hosahalli Metro Station, Manuvana, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru and the same was being purchased by the plaintiff No.1 from the City Corporation under a registered Sale Deed dated:15.11.1979. They had let out shop No.1 in the Ground Floor of the building to the defendant on monthly rent of Rs.18,000/- vide lease agreement dated:30.08.2017. The defendant had also agreed to pay a sum of Rs.350/- per month towards common area maintenance charges and also to pay the electricity charges as per the separate meter installed in the schedule property. He is also liable to pay water and sanitary charges along with other tenants of the said building. At page No.2 of the Lease Agreement, the property given to the defendant on lease is mentioned as Shop No.1 in the Ground Floor, but in the Lease Agreement (Ex.P.1), due to typographical mistake it has O.S.No.16/2021 4 been mentioned as Shop No.5. The defendant is not a tenant in respect of any other shop under the plaintiffs, but he is only a tenant in respect of the suit schedule property i.e., shop No.1. The defendant had paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintiffs as security deposit, which is refundable to the defendant at the time of his vacating and handing over the vacant possession of the schedule property to the plaintiff after deducting monthly rents and other charges due and liable to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff as on that date. Ever since the date of his occupation to the suit schedule property as a tenant i.e., from 1.09.2017, the defendant had not paid any rents and common area maintenance charges, in spite of repeated requests and demands made by the plaintiffs. The defendant had assured that he will pay the arrears of rents and also common area maintenance charges at the earliest, but failed to do so. Thus, in all the defendant is due a total sum of Rs.6,42,250/- to the plaintiffs towards the arrears of rent and common area maintenance charges from 1.09.2017 to 31.07.2020. Hence the plaintiffs were constrained to issue a legal notice dated:12.08.2020 to the defendant calling upon him to pay the said arrears of rents apart from terminating the tenancy of the defendant and called upon him to hand over the vacant possession of the schedule property along with the payment of the arrears of rent within 15 days from the receipt of the said legal notice. Despite service of legal O.S.No.16/2021 5 notice, the defendant has neither complied with the demands made in the legal notice nor replied to the said notice. The defendant is due Rs.7,02,000/- towards rent from 1.09.2017 up to 30.11.2020 and common area maintenance charges of Rs.13,650/- i.e., in all Rs.7,15,650/-. After deducting the security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/-, the defendant is held liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,15,650/- to the plaintiffs. The defendant is also liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on Rs.5,15,650/- from the date of suit till its realization. Hence this suit.
3. The defendant in his written statement has specifically denied the plaint averments. It is his contention that the plaintiffs have let out Shop No.1 situated in Roopa Complex to him to set up his his hair dressing saloon/Men's Beauty Parlour. After mutual discussions between the parties, the said shop was let out to him for a period of 11 months on a monthly rent of Rs.18,000/- and he had to pay a refundable security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/-. Apart from the rent, the defendant had to pay a sum of Rs.350/- per month towards common area maintenance charges. Initially on 30.08.2017 the defendant had paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and on 4.09.2017 he had paid balance of Rs.50,000/-, in all Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintiffs towards refundable security deposit by way of cash. Subsequent to taking the possession of the outlet, the O.S.No.16/2021 6 defendant started the interior works and by the time, the interior works got completed almost more than 2½ months had lapsed. Since the defendant had not commenced the business, he requested the plaintiffs to waive off the rent for the period of interior works, but the plaintiffs did not heed to his requests and started harassing him for payment of the rent for the period starting from 1.09.2017 as per the agreed terms of lease agreement. The defendant had made several attempts to generate funds from his known sources to pay the rent of three months although he had not commenced his business and had only completed the interior works which had cost him to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. Upon completion of the interior works, on 4.12.2017 the defendant had commenced his business. On the said date, the plaintiff No.1 came to the shop along with his henchmen, pulled the defendant out of the shop and locked the shop without showing any mercy on him, despite his requests and attempts to persuade the plaintiff No.1 to grant some time for making payment towards the pending rent for a period of 3 months starting from 1.09.2017 to 30.11.2017. The defendant struggled hard to accumulate funds from his known sources and to get the possession of the shop to continue his business. When the defendant went to meet the plaintiff No.1 with 2 months rent of Rs.36,000/-, the plaintiff had refused to receive the same and insisted on payment of O.S.No.16/2021 7 the entire 3 months pending rent and the defendant was asked to go out of the plaintiffs house without giving him the keys of the rolling shutter of the suit schedule property to recommence his business. As the defendant failed to mobilize funds, so having no other option he once again visited the plaintiff No.1 and requested him to deduct three months rent and return the balance amount out of refundable security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/-, but the plaintiff No.1 refused to refund the balance amount stating that he had terminated the lease and he has forfeited the remaining amount towards the future rent towards the suit schedule property, since the terms of the agreement is for a period of 11 months. The plaintiff No.1 being an influential person in the locality, as the defendant is a Barber coming from a backward community and having no external support in the locality, also he had permanent resident of Tamil Nadu. Hence he was not able to lodge police complaint fearing threat to his life. When such being the fact, the defendant had received a court summons issued for his appearance pursuant to this current recovery suit filed by the plaintiff. The defendant is not liable to pay any rent as claimed by the plaintiffs. On the contrary, the plaintiffs are liable to pay Rs.6,44,950/- after deduction of 3 months rent from the refundable security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- to the defendant, which is admittedly received by the plaintiff along with the cost of interiors spent by him to O.S.No.16/2021 8 the extent of Rs.5,00,000/-. Further the suit is barred by law of limitation. The plaintiffs are relying on unregistered lease agreement which cannot be admissible as valid evidence since the plaintiffs have not paid the stamp duty as applicable under law before filing this suit. The defendant is not liable to pay any rent to the plaintiffs from December 2017 onwards because the lease was terminated by the plaintiff in accordance with the lease deed dated:30.08.2017 in inhumanely manner, without even heeding to the multiple requests of the defendant to grant him some time to pay the rent. The plaintiffs have not entitled to the relief prayed. Hence the suit be dismissed.
4. Further in his additional written statement the defendant has contended that the present suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation as the cause of action if any arose on or before 4.12.2017, whereas the suit was filed on 21.12.2020. The lease agreement dated:30.08.2017 was entered into between the plaintiffs and defendant for shop No.5 in the premises at No.54, 2nd Cross, Hosahalli, Manuvana, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru-40. The plaintiffs have forfeited the security deposit amount of Rs.2,00,000/- without any basis though the defendant was forcibly evicted from Shop No.5 on 4.12.2017 itself. The act of plaintiffs evicting the defendant without officially terminating the lease agreement is illegal and contrary to the provisions of O.S.No.16/2021 9 the Transfer of Property Act. However, the relationship of Lessee and Lessor got terminated on the said date as the plaintiff forcibly took the possession of the property from the defendant as per Clause 17 of the lease agreement (Ex.P.1). The forfeiture of the security deposit by the plaintiffs is illegal and unjustified, as the lease was unofficially terminated and there was no breach of contract by the defendant. Based on Clause 17 of the lease agreement, the plaintiffs have forcibly evicted the defendant on 4.12.2017 with the help of their henchmen after the defendant allegedly failed to pay the rent for 3 continuous months. The defendant asserts that he is not liable to pay any rent post eviction and the question of possession does not arise. Since shop No.5 is already rented out now, the plaintiffs have come up a new contention that the defendant was occupying shop No.1 at para No.2(a) of the plaint, which is vacant, to make an undue gain from the defendant. The plaintiffs claim of a typographical error in the lease agreement (Ex.P.1) is an afterthought and is an attempt to cover up the plaintiffs illegal acts as the same is contended only at the fag end of the suit proceedings. This issue of typographical error was never raised starting from the date of signing the lease agreement (Ex.P.1). The defendant was illegally dispossessed by the plaintiffs and his henchmen on 4.12.2017 without due process of law. The defendant has not been in possession of the suit property since O.S.No.16/2021 10 that date and hence the plaintiffs' claim for possession is baseless. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit.
5. The plaintiff No.1 got examined himself as P.W.1 and marked 4 documents from Exs.P.1 to 4. The defendant got examined himself as D.W.1 and marked 6 documents from Exs.D.1 to 6.
6. Heard.
7. My learned Predecessor has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant is still in possession of suit schedule property as tenant ?
2. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that they duly terminated the tenancy of the defendant ?
3. Whether the defendant proves that on 4.12.2017 he was dispossessed by plaintiff from suit schedule property ?
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for reliefs sought for ?
5. What Order or Decree ?
8. My findings to the above issues are as under:
ISSUE No.1 - Affirmative,
ISSUE No.2 - Affirmative,
O.S.No.16/2021
11
ISSUE No.3 - Negative,
ISSUE No.4 - Affirmative,
ISSUE No.5 - As per the final order,
for the following :
REASONS
9. ISSUE Nos.1 & 3: Since both these issues are
interconnected to each other, they have been taken up together for discussion in order to avoid the repetition of facts and evidence.
10. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are absolute owners of the suit schedule property having purchased the same under the registered Sale Deed dated:15.11.1979. As per the lease agreement dated:30.08.2017 entered into between the plaintiffs and defendant, they had let out shop No.1 situated in the ground floor of the schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs.18,000/-. The defendant had agreed to pay Rs.350/- per month towards common area maintenance charges, electricity, water and sanitary charges along with other tenants. The defendant had paid Rs.2,00,000/- towards the refundable security deposit, but the defendant had not paid the rents and common area maintenance charges since his date of occupation as a tenant on 1.09.2017. Even after repeated requests the defendant failed to pay the same. As such a legal notice was sent to the defendant asking him to O.S.No.16/2021 12 handover the vacant possession of the schedule property and to make payment towards the arrears of rent within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The notice was sent to the address of the schedule property which was returned with a postal shara "not claimed, returned to the sendor", however the notice sent to the defendant to his Marenahalli address as shown in the cause title was duly served on him, but the defendant did not reply to the notice nor comply with the demands in the legal notice. The defendant has to pay arrears of rent and maintenance charges of total sum of Rs.7,15,650/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till its realization. It is first necessary to note that the plaintiff in the original plaint had stated that he had let out Shop No.1 in the ground floor of the suit schedule property. But when the case was posted for arguments on the main, the plaintiff filed an application to add paragraph 2(a) of the plaint stating that in Ex.P.1 in page No.2 of the lease agreement (Ex.P.1) property given on lease to the defendant is mentioned as "Shop No.5" instead of "Shop No.1". The said amendment application was allowed by this court vide order dated:20.06.2024. The plaintiffs have amended the plaint accordingly.
11. On the other hand, the defendant has admitted in his written statement about the tenancy and the O.S.No.16/2021 13 lease agreement dated:30.08.2017 entered between him and the plaintiffs, also about refundable security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/-, monthly rent of Rs.18,000/- and Rs.350/- towards the maintenance charges. It is his contention that Shop No.1 in the suit schedule property was let out to him to set up his Men's Beauty Parlor. He has stated that he had paid refundable security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintiff No.1 in cash. On taking possession of the property he started with the interior works of the outlet, which took more than 2½ months. As he had not commenced his business, he requested the plaintiff to waive off the rent for a period of interior works, but the plaintiff did not agree for the same and started harassing him to pay the rent starting from 1.09.2017 as per the terms and conditions of the lease agreement. He had made several attempts to generate funds to pay rent of 3 months, although he had not commenced the business and had spent Rs.5,00,000/- towards the interior work. On 4.12.2017 he commenced his business and on the same day, the plaintiff No.1 came along with henchmen pulled the defendant out of the shop and locked it without showing any mercy on him. The repeated requests of the defendant to grant him time to pay the arrears of rent of 3 months from 1.09.2017 to 30.11.2017 was not considered by the plaintiffs. The defendant was ready to pay 2 months rent of Rs.36,000/- but the same was refused by the plaintiff No.1 and insisted for payment O.S.No.16/2021 14 of 3 months rent. The plaintiff did not give him the keys of the rolling shutter to re-commence the business. The defendant was not able to gather the balance arrears of rent of 3 months. Having no other option he requested the plaintiff No.1 to deduct 3 months rent out of the refundable security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/-, but the plaintiff No.1 failed to repay the balance amount stating that he had terminated the lease and had forfeited the remaining amount for future rent towards the suit schedule property as the term of agreement is 11 months. As the plaintiff is a localite and an influential person, he did not approach the police and he kept away from the shop and he is working in his old shop. As the defendant is not in possession of the suit schedule property and as he was thrown out from the suit schedule property within 3 months from the date of signing the lease agreement, so he is not due to pay arrears of rent of Rs.6,44,000/- with interest of 12% per annum.
12. In his additional written statement he has contended that the suit is barred by limitation as the cause of action arose on or before 4.12.2017, but the present suit is filed on 21.12.2020. The lease agreement dated:30.08.2017 was entered with respect to Shop No.5 and the defendant was thrown out of Shop No.5 on 4.12.2017. The plaintiffs act of forcibly evicting the defendant without officially terminating the lease O.S.No.16/2021 15 agreement is illegal and contrary to the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff has wrongly forfeited the security deposit. Since shop No.5 is already rented out, the plaintiffs have come up with a new contention that the defendant was occupying shop No.1 which is vacant with an intention to make unlawful gain from the defendant. Hence prayed that the suit be dismissed with costs.
13. The plaintiff No.1 has got examined himself as P.W.1, he has filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief wherein he has reiterated the facts stated in the plaint. P.W.1 has produced four documents namely Lease Agreement (Ex.P.1), Postal Acknowledgment (Ex.P.2), Copy of legal notice (Ex.P.3), Returned postal cover (Ex.P.4) and the notice in the postal cover (Ex.P.4(a). He has also filed additional affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief wherein he has reiterated the facts stated in the amended plaint and has stated that by typographical error in Ex.P.1, Shop No.1 is mentioned as Shop No.5. The defendant is the tenant only with respect to Shop No.1.
14. In his cross examination by the learned advocate for the defendant, it is elicited that the lease deed (Ex.P.1) was prepared by him and the suit schedule property is a building in which there were 8 outlets, but now there were 5 outlets. He has denied the O.S.No.16/2021 16 suggestion that all the outlets are vacant. He stated that 2 outlets are occupied, out of which one is occupied by the defendant and another is occupied by one Ravishankar. It is elicited that the defendant is running his business in one outlet. He has denied the suggestion that the defendant is not in possession of the suit schedule property and he is not running his business. He also denied the suggestion that during the month of December 2017 he had dispossessed the defendant from the suit schedule property as he had not paid the monthly rents. He has denied the suggestion that since December 2017 the defendant is not in possession of the suit schedule property and from that period he is possession of the suit schedule property. It is elicited that since the date on which the defendant came in possession of the suit schedule property he had not paid the rents and he had sent a notice to the defendant to pay the rent. He has stated that in the year 2020 he had issued a legal notice to the defendant to vacant the premises and the notice is served on the defendant and its acknowledgment is at Ex.P.2. He admitted that the acknowledgment does not have the signature of the defendant. He has denied the suggestion that in the year 2020 no legal notice was served on the defendant. It is elicited that there is a Clause in the agreement (Ex.P.1) that if the lessee fails to pay the rent continuously for 3 months he can terminate his tenancy. He has denied the suggestion O.S.No.16/2021 17 that as the defendant failed to pay the rent for 3 months he had forcibly dispossessed him from the suit schedule property. He admitted that other than Ex.P.1 there is no other lease agreement between him and the defendant. He has denied the suggestion that as he dispossessed the defendant from the suit schedule property, the defendant is not liable to pay the present rent as claimed by him. Further he admitted that the defendant had taken his shop in his premises to run a Men's Parlor. When he was suggested that the defendant had got done the interior work to his shop to run a Men's Parlor to which he stated that other than two chairs no interior work was being done. He has denied the suggestion that a mirror, fan, AC and chairs were put in the shop. He has denied the suggestion that a special chair was put for the customer who had come for hair cut and stated that only an ordinary chair was put. He admitted that only at the time of arguments he got the amendment in respect to the shop number. He admitted that Exs.D.1 to 6 are the photographs of his shop. He admitted that none of the shop have a number above it. It is elicited that only if he tells the shop number to the tenant, they will come to know about it. He admitted that there is a tenant in Shop No.5. He has denied the suggestion that Shop No.1 is vacant. He has denied the suggestion that till the defendant was dispossessed from shop No.5, he O.S.No.16/2021 18 was in its possession and now he is falsely stating that the defendant was in possession of Shop No.1.
15. On the other hand, the defendant has got himself examined as D.W.1, he has filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief wherein he has reiterated the facts stated in the written statement. He has produced six photographs from Exs.D.1 to 6. In his cross examination by the learned advocate for the plaintiff, he admitted that the place where he is residing, he is running a saloon shop. He admitted that since 4.09.2017 he is in possession of the suit schedule property as a tenant and he has made interior decoration to the suit schedule property. He stated that he does not know the name of the Carpenter and he does not have documents to show that he had spent Rs.5,00,000/- for interior decoration of the shop. He has denied the suggestion that he has not spent Rs.5,00,000/- for the interior decoration of the suit schedule property and he has just put table and chairs. He has denied the suggestion that from the day he came in possession of the suit schedule property he has been running a business. It is elicited that he has not lodged a complaint against the plaintiff No.1 alleging that he has been dispossessed from the suit schedule property on 4.12.2017. It is elicited that on that day at 6-00 p.m., the plaintiff No.1 came to the schedule property and at that time other shops were closed in O.S.No.16/2021 19 the complex and no other tenants were present. He has denied the suggestion that other tenants were running the businesses in the shop. He admitted that Coffee Day shop was running in the complex. He has stated that after 10 days from 4.12.2017 in the Yeshwanthpur house of the plaintiff he had met him to pay 2 months rent which was refused by him and the plaintiff asked him to pay 4 months rent. He stated that he does not know the said house number. He stated that he does not know that the plaintiff is residing in RMV 2nd Stage, MLA Layout and not in Yeshwanthpur. He has denied the suggestion that on 4.12.2017 the plaintiff did not dispossess him from the schedule property. It is elicited that he has not issued notice to the plaintiff asking him to receive 2 months rent and put him in possession of the schedule property. Also he has not issued notice to the plaintiff asking him to return the balance advance amount after he was dispossessed from the schedule property. He has denied the suggestion that till date he is in possession of the suit schedule property. He has denied the suggestion that the plaintiff have issued termination notice to his residential address and the same was received by his family members. He stated that there is no Clause in the rent agreement that the owner of the schedule property has to reimburse the amount spent for interior decoration of the suit schedule property. He has denied the suggestion that he is liable to pay O.S.No.16/2021 20 arrears of rent of Rs.5,15,650/-. It is elicited that from his friend, he got the name of the carpenter and photographs of the schedule property. He stated that he does not know that during Covid-19 the shops were closed. He has denied the suggestion that he is in possession of the suit schedule property and he is liable to pay arrears of rent and to vacate the premises.
16. On considering the oral and documentary evidence placed before the court, it is at first necessary to note that the defendant does not dispute that he was a tenant under the plaintiffs as per the Lease Agreement dated:30.08.2021 (Ex.P.1). Here itself it is pertinent to note that as the plaintiffs chose to amend the plaint on the ground that the schedule to the lease agreement (Ex.P.1) due to typographical error, it was wrongly mentioned schedule property as Shop No.5, but the correct Shop No. is 1 as per page No.2 of the agreement (Ex.P.1). The defendant in his written statement had not disputed that he had taken Shop No.1 for rent. Also before the amendment, he has cross examined the P.W.1 and led the defendant evidence wherein no contention was taken that he is a tenant with respect to Shop No.5. He had stated that he is a tenant in Shop No.1. It is only after the amendment was carried out by the plaintiffs adding additional Para No.2(a) in the plaint. The defendant choose to file additional written statement stating that he is a tenant O.S.No.16/2021 21 with respect to Shop No.5 which contradicts with his initial defense that he was a tenant with respect to Shop No.1 from where he was forcibly dispossessed. Hence the contention is taken by the defendant at a later stage that he was a tenant with respect to Shop No.5 cannot be accepted solely on the basis of a typographical error in the Lease Agreement (Ex.P.1), as he had not disputed the shop number when he filed the written statement and when he led defense evidence at the first instance. Hence it is observed that the defendant is a tenant with respect to Shop No.1, but not with respect to Shop No.5.
17. It is the specific contention of the defendant that he was dispossessed from the suit schedule property on 4.12.2017. As such he has contended that as per the Lease Agreement (Ex.P.1), the plaintiffs had terminated the tenancy within 3 months, as he failed to pay the rent for 3 months. In this regard, it is at first necessary to refer to Column No.17 of the Lease Agreement ("Ex.P.1) at page No.5, wherein it is stated as under :
"The Lessors may terminate this lease deed, if the Lessee fails to pay the rent herein reserved continuously for a period of three months or if the Lessee commits breach of any terms of this deed.
The lessee/lessors may with or O.S.No.16/2021 22 without cause terminate this agreement at any time before the expiry of the renewed period of lease after giving three months notice in writing ".
Here itself it is pertinent to note that the word used is "may", i.e., it is the discretion of the Lessor/plaintiffs to terminate the agreement, but to do so they have to issue notice in writing. In the present case, it is not the contention of the defendant that the plaintiffs had issued notice intimating him about termination of lease on 4.12.2017.
18. Further it is pertinent to refer to Column No.1 of the Lease Agreement (Ex.P.1), wherein it is stated as under :
"The lease shall be deemed to have been renewed by the Lessee, if the Lessee does not issue a notice of their intention to terminate this agreement three months before the end of 11 month term and continued to be in possession of the schedule premises after the end of the concerned term".
In view of Column No.1 of the Lease Agreement (Ex.P.1), it is not the contention of the defendant that he had issued notice terminating the agreement of lease. Hence the contention of the defendant that the O.S.No.16/2021 23 lease has been terminated in terms of Column No.17 of Ex.P.1 cannot be accepted when admittedly no notice of termination was issued to the defendant on 4.12.2017.
19. Now the question before the court is whether the defendant proves that he has been dispossessed from the suit schedule property on 4.12.2017. In this regard the defendant has furnished six photographs (Exs.D.1 to 6) wherein in 4 photographs the shutters of the shop with the board "Classic Dreams Saloon" appears to be closed. In view of the very photographs furnished by the defendant to show that the plaintiff has closed the shutters of his shop on 4.12.2017. When that being so it is not clear as to how the Saloon Shop board is still on the shop which is said to have been closed about 2-3 years prior to the filing of the suit. If really one has to believe that the contention of the defendant that he was forcibly thrown out and the plaintiff had closed the shutters of the shop and had not handed over the keys to the defendant, then the evidence of independent witnesses i.e., the surrounding people of the suit schedule property or the customers of the defendant who can depose that the defendant was thrown out and is not running a shop in the premises and that he is running the saloon in some other place plays a pivotal role. But no corroborating oral or documentary evidence is placed before the court to support the contention of the defendant.
O.S.No.16/2021 24
20. Even otherwise in the present the case the defendant is a professional barber who has been running a saloon, as a prudent person if really he was dispossessed from the suit schedule property by the plaintiffs without returning back the advance amount, then he had to approach the jurisdictional police or should have got issued a legal notice calling upon the plaintiffs to refund the refundable security deposit on the ground that he has been forcibly dispossessed from the suit schedule property. In the present case the defendant has not approached the police and has not given any legal notice to the plaintiffs. The contention taken by the defendant that the plaintiff is an influential person in the locality which prevented him from asking the deposit cannot be accepted.
21. Further it is the contention of the defendant that he had carried out interior work over the suit schedule property for which he had spent Rs.5,00,000/-. In this regard it is pertinent to refer to the cross examination of D.W.1, wherein it is elicited that he does not know the name of the Carpenter who had carried out the decoration of the shop and also he has no documents to show that he had spent Rs.5,00,000/- to the interior decoration of the shop, which clearly raises doubt as to the contention taken by the defendant that he had carried out interior decoration of the premises by spending Rs.5,00,000/-.
O.S.No.16/2021 25
22. Even though the defendant has failed to prove the interior decoration as contended by him, but it has no bearing on this suit as it is for recovery of arrears of rent and vacant possession of the suit schedule property in terms of the lease agreement (Ex.P.1) which is silent about about any interior decoration.
23. Further it is pertinent to note that as per the lease agreement (Ex.P.1) there is no clause to the effect that the plaintiff is bound to waive off the rent for the period of interior work. It is the settled position of law that the rent is payable from the date on which the possession is handed over as per the lease agreement i.e., from 1.09.2017, irrespective of the fact as to whether the defendant is in occupation or is carrying out any work to make the premises suitable for his business. Here itself it is necessary to note that it is not the contention of the defendant that the suit schedule property was in a damaged condition and it was not fit for occupation, which compelled him to carry out the repair. When that being the case the interior work alleged to have been carried out by the defendant cannot be accepted as a ground for non-payment of rent.
24. As such in view of the discussion made supra, it is observed that in the absence of corroborating oral and documentary evidence in support of the defense O.S.No.16/2021 26 taken by the defendant, it can be safely said that the defendant has miserably failed to prove that on 4.12.2017 he was dispossessed by the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property.
25. As discussed supra, the plaintiffs got amended the plaint to add para No.2(a) stating that in the lease agreement (Ex.P.1), the shop No. is wrongly mentioned as Shop No.5 instead of Shop No.1. Here itself it is pertinent to note that in page No.2 of the lease agreement (Ex.P.1), it is stated that Shop No.1 has been given on lease, but in the schedule of the lease agreement it is mentioned as Shop No.5. In the legal notice (Exs.P.3 and 4), it is mentioned that Shop No.1 was let out to the defendant. Also in the schedule to the original plaint and in the affidavit filed by the plaintiff in support of his examination in chief he has specifically mentioned that the defendant was a tenant with respect to Shop No.1. In the written statement filed by the defendant he has admitted that he had taken Shop No.1 i.e., the suit schedule property on lease under the lease agreement on 30.08.2017. Before amendment of the plaint during the cross examination of P.W.1, nothing has been suggested by the defendant to the effect that he is not in occupation of Shop No.5 and not Shop No.1 and he was dispossessed from Shop No.5. On the contrary, the suggestion is that he is not in possession of the suit O.S.No.16/2021 27 schedule property as he has been dispossessed from the suit schedule property. From which it can be safely said that as the suit schedule property is with respect to Shop No.1, the defendant had not disputed that he had taken Shop No.1 on lease from the plaintiffs under the lease agreement (Ex.P.1). It is after amendment of the plaint clarifying that the schedule to the lease agreement (Ex.P.1), the shop number is wrongly mentioned as Shop No.5 instead of Shop No.1 due to typographical error. The defendant in his additional written statement went to take a defense that he was thrown out of Shop No.5 and he has further stated that he is not liable to pay the rents since Shop No.5 is already rented out. During further cross examination of P.W.1 after the said amendment the suggestion is made that a rectified lease agreement was not entered and only at the time of arguments the plaintiffs chose to carry out the amendment. Here itself it is pertinent to note that the suggestion is made to the effect that there is a tenant in Shop No.5 and Shop No.1 is vacant and till the defendant was dispossessed from Shop No.5, he was in possession of the same. In view of the said cross examination with respect to the amended plaint, it can be safely said that the defendant chose to take a defense that he was dispossessed from Shop No.5 only after the plaintiffs amended the plaint. If really the defendant was in possession of Shop No.5 at any point of time he should have taken the said defense O.S.No.16/2021 28 at the earliest point of time and should have cross examine the P.W.1 with respect to the same. Also it is pertinent to note that the defendant got examined himself as D.W.1 and in his affidavit filed in lieu of his examination in chief in para No.1 of the affidavit he has specifically stated that he had approached the plaintiffs to let out the Shop No.1 in Roopa Complex to set up a Hair Saloon and after mutual discussion they agreed to lease out the said shop for 11 months starting from 1.09.2017. From which it can be safely said that the defendant was a tenant had taken Shop No.1 on lease from the plaintiffs and it was not Shop No.5. In view of the discussion made supra, it can be safely said that the defendant has failed to prove that he has been dispossessed from the suit schedule property on 4.12.2017. While the plaintiffs have proved that the defendant is still in possession of the suit schedule property as a tenant. Accordingly, the Issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative, while Issue No.3 is answered in the Negative.
26. ISSUE NO.2 : The plaintiffs in order to prove that the tenancy of the defendant is duly terminated has furnished the legal notices (Exs.P.3 and 4). The legal notice issued to the defendant bearing the address of the suit schedule property was returned with a shara "not claimed, returned to the sender". The said RPAD cover does not state that the premises was O.S.No.16/2021 29 locked. Even otherwise the notice issued to the defendant to his residential premises at Marenahalli, Manuvana, Vijayanagar is said to have been served. Even though the defendant claims that the signature on the acknowledgment (Ex.P.2) was not signed by him. But on comparison of the address in the notice (Ex.P.4(a) along with the defendant's address in the cause title which clearly goes to show that both the addresses are the same. Hence it can be safely said that the legal notice was duly served on the defendant. In view of the issuance of legal notice wherein the plaintiff has asked the defendant to pay the arrears of rent and common area maintenance from 1.09.2017 to 31.07.2020 to an extent of Rs.6,42,250/- and to quit, vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within 15 days of the receipt of the notice clearly goes to show that the plaintiffs have issued the termination notice to the defendant as per law. Hence it can be safely said that the plaintiffs have proved that they have duly terminated the tenancy of the defendant. Accordingly the Issue No.2 is answered in the Affirmative.
27. ISSUE No.4 : The plaintiffs have sought for arrears of rent and common area maintenance charges of Rs.5,15,650/- from the date of suit till realization i.e., after deduction of refundable security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/-. In view of the discussion made in Issue O.S.No.16/2021 30 Nos.1 to 3 wherein it is observed that the defendant has not paid rent since the date of him taking possession of the suit schedule property. As such it is held that the plaintiffs are entitled for arrears of rent and common area maintenance charges of Rs.5,15,650/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till its realization. Also the plaintiffs are entitled for vacant possession of the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the defendant is directed to quit, vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the Issue No.4 is answered in the Affirmative.
28. ISSUE No.5 : In view of my findings on Issue Nos.1 to 4, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs is hereby decreed with costs.
The defendant is directed to quit,
vacate and hand over vacant
possession of the suit schedule
property to the plaintiffs within 3
months from the date of this judgment.
Further the defendant is directed to pay the arrears of rents and common area maintenance charges of Rs.5,15,650/- together with interest at O.S.No.16/2021 31 the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of the suit till its realization. Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II directly on computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4th day of August 2025) (RASHMI.M) LXVII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, BENGALURU.
SCH EDULE All that piece and parcel of Ground Floor of commercial building bearing Shop No.1, in Roopa Complex, situated at Premises No.54, 2 nd Cross, Hosahalli, Near Hosahalli Metro Station, Manuvana, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru-560 040 approximately measuring Carpet Area of 320 sq. feet (10 X 32 feet).
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED IN FAVOUR OF THE PLAINTIFFS :
P.W.1 Dasegowda
2. WITNESSES EXAMINED IN FAVOUR OF THE DEFENDANT :
D.W.1 Armugam.R.
3. DOCUMENTS MARKED IN FAVOUR OF THE
PLAINTIFFS :
Ex.P.1 Lease Agreement
Ex.P.2 Postal Acknowledgment
O.S.No.16/2021
32
Ex.P.3 Copy of legal notice
Ex.P.4 Returned postal cover
Ex.P.4(a) Notice contained in Ex.P.4
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED IN FAVOUR OF THE
DEFENDANT :
Exs.D.1 to 6 Photos of the suit schedule property.
(RASHMI.M)
LXVII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, BENGALURU.
Digitally signed by RASHMI RASHMI M Date:
M 2025.08.04
17:49:54
+0530