Bangalore District Court
Leela Gulati vs M/S Sublime Art And Architecture on 24 September, 2025
1
O.S.No.3168/2021
KABC010093872021
IN THE COURT OF LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY: (CCH-56)
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025
PRESENT
SRI. MOHAN PRABHU, M.A., LL.M.
LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
O.S. No. 3168 / 2021
PLAINTIFF/S LEELA GULATI
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS,
W/O LATE I.S.GULATI
RESIDING AT SARASU FARM NO.117,
DODDAGUBBI, OFF HENNURU ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 071,
REPRESENTED BY HER SPA HOLDER
MS.PREA GULATI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
D/O LEELA GULATI
RESIDING AT SARASU FARM NO.117,
DODDAGUBBI, OFF HENNURU ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 071.
(BY SRI.B.V.NIDHISHREE, ADV.)
Versus
DEFENDANT/s 1. M/S SUBLIME ART AND ARCHITECTURE
2
O.S.No.3168/2021
A PARTNERSHI HAVING ITS OFICE AT
NO.3B, 3RD FLOOR, LAVELLE MANSION,
NO.9, LAVELLE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS
A.R. PRUTHVIRAJ
M.G.VENKATESH AND
A.J. MURALIDHARA
2.A.R.PRUTHVIRAJ
AGED: MAJOR,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
PLAINTIFF, PARTNER
M/S SUBLIME ART AND ARCHITECTURE
NO.3B, 3RD FLOOR, LAVELLE MANSION,
NO.9, LAVELLE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560001,
3. M.G.VENKATESH
AGED: MAJOR,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
PLAINTIFF, PARTNER
M/S SUBLIME ART AND ARCHITECTURE
NO.3B, 3RD FLOOR, LAVELLE MANSION,
NO.9, LAVELLE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560001,
4. A.J.MURALIDHARA
AGED: MAJOR,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
PLAINTIFF, PARTNER
M/S SUBLIME ART AND ARCHITECTURE
NO.3B, 3RD FLOOR, LAVELLE MANSION,
NO.9, LAVELLE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560001,
(D1 TO 4 BY SRI.R.K.M., ADVO).
3
O.S.No.3168/2021
Date of Institution of the 22.06.2021
suit
Nature of the Suit Suit for ejectment and for
damages
Date of commencement of 17.12.2022
recording of evidence
Date on which the 24.09.2025
judgment was pronounced
Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
01 03 05
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants praying to direct the defendants to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and to direct the defendants to jointly and severally pay the plaintiffs a sum of Rs.4,80,000/- towards mesne profit / damages at the rate of Rs.80,000/- p.m. as on 31.05.2021 along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and also direct the defendants to jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff damages / mesne profit at the rate of Rs.80,000/- p.m. from 31.05.2021 along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. till the date of payment and till the date of delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property and to pay cost 4 O.S.No.3168/2021 of the suit.
The suit schedule property is the part and parcel of the Apart No.3B, 3rd Floor, Lavelle Mansion, No.9, Lavelle Road, Bengaluru - 560 001 measuring about 2,250 sq.ft.
2. The plaint averments, briefly stated as follows.
The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff has authorized her daughter Ms.Priya Gulati to represent her suit as she executed SPA dated 28.10.2020. The defendants who have paid security deposit of Rs.5,50,000/- taken the suit schedule property from the plaintiff on rent on monthly rental of Rs.55,000/-, under rental agreement dated 28.01.2014, which entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants for the period from 01.01.2014 to 30.11.2014, subsequently rental agreement was extended for the period 01.12.2014 to 30.10.2015 and 01.11.2015 to 30.09.2016. The monthly rental was payable in advance on or before 5 th of every month. The rental agreement was subsequently renewed by the defendants for further period of 11 months from 01.12.2015 to 30.10.2016, 01.10.2016 to 31.08.2017, 5 O.S.No.3168/2021 01.09.2017 to 31.07.2018 and finally from 01.08.2018 to 30.07.2019. The rents were directly deposited to the bank account of the plaintiff. The last monthly rental amount that was to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff for the period 01.08.2018 to 30.06.2019 was sum of Rs.77,175/- . Upon expiry of rental agreement on 30.06.2019, the tenancy was neither renewed nor was any fresh agreement executed between the plaintiff and the defendants. The defendants have been occupying the suit schedule property on month-to-month tenancy basis w.e.f. 01.07.2019. The monthly rental paid from 01.07.2019 was to be a sum of Rs.80,000/-. However, the defendants, grossly defaulted in payment of rents from 01.07.2019. The defendants failed to pay full months rents to the plaintiff and made part payments periodically after lapse of 2 - 3 months from when the rent become due. The security deposit that was paid by the defendants to the plaintiff at the start of their tenancy in December 2014 stands fully adjusted and exhausted against the arrears of rents payable by the defendants. Despite repeated reminders to the 6 O.S.No.3168/2021 defendants they have willfully defaulted in payment of rent. As on 01.03.2020 the rental amount due was Rs.2,55,000/-. After repeated request on 02.03.2020 the defendants paid amount of Rs.30,000/- towards part of rental arrears. The plaintiff was constrained to issue legal notice dated 10.03.2020 to the defendants calling upon them to quit and deliver vacant possession of the schedule property and to pay arrears of rent and damages within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The legal notice duly served to the defendants. But they have not vacated the schedule premises and not paid the arrears of rent. After receipt of the legal notice, the defendants paid the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards rental arrear on 19.03.2020. Subsequently, the defendants have paid a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- towards rental arrears and mesne profit. As on the date of filing of the suit, the defendants have failed to vacate the schedule premises. The defendants on 02.07.2020 sent an email to the plaintiff seeking time till March 2021 to mitigate the financial crisis and in the meantime process to pay Rs.45,000/- p.m. towards rent for the month of 7 O.S.No.3168/2021 July, August and September 2020 and Rs.90,000/- p.m. from October 2020 to March 2021. The defendants also offered to pay sum of Rs.1 lakhs towards security deposit. However, the plaintiff was not agreeable to this proposal of the defendants. The defendants are liable to pay sum of Rs.62,920/- as on 26.03.2020 and mesne profit or damages for their unlawful and unauthorized occupation of schedule premises at the rate of Rs.80,000/- p.m. from 27.03.2020 to 31.05.2021 for illegal occupation of schedule property and 15 days from the date of receipt of the legal notice dated 10.03.2020. The plaintiff is ready and willing to pay the difference in the court fees, if any payable on the amount of mesne profit / damages to be quantified after due enquiry. The defendants are liable to pay sum of Rs.4,80,000/- towards mesne profit / damages at the rate of Rs.80,000/- p.m. as on 31.05.2021, along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. Hence, on these grounds plaintiff prays to decree the suit.
3. The defendants entered appearance by engaging their counsel and resisted the claim of the plaintiff by 8 O.S.No.3168/2021 filing written statement. The written statement filed by the defendant No.2 which is briefly stated as follows.
The suit of the plaintiff is highly frivolous, vexatious, tainted with malafide objects and to extract money from the defendants who were bonafide tenants of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has suppressed the real fact. She is not entitled for any discretionary and equitable relief. The landlord and tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is admitted. The ownership of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property is admitted. Para 11 to 13 of the plaint are all denied as false. There is no cause of action to file this suit. The plaintiff has got filed suit behind the back of the defendants, even while claiming to have matter settled amicably. Knowing the situation of the defendants, on account of the effects of Covid-19 on the business of the defendants, the plaintiff has filed this false suit. The defendants procured the suit schedule property on rents from the plaintiff at the time of building was in a dilapidated condition. The defendants with the permission of the plaintiff restored the building of the suit schedule property from out of 9 O.S.No.3168/2021 their own funds, which the plaintiff has failed to appreciate. The defendants have also spent considerable sum of money, but restored and reconstructed the suit schedule property to usable, corporate office space which is also not appreciated by the plaintiff. The defendants had long association with the plaintiff and in their time of need the plaintiff has literally back stabbed them by filing the suit even when amicable solution being worked out. The plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the suit. Hence, on these grounds, the defendant No.2 prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed in the suit.
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,80,000/- towards mesne profit and damages as on 31.05.2021 as averred in the plaint?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are liable to pay damages / mesne profits at the rate of Rs.80,000/- per month from 31.05.2021 till the date of delivery of possession?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the relief 10 O.S.No.3168/2021 as sought for in the plaint?
4. What order or decree?
5. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the daughter of plaintif and SPA holder examined as PW1 and documents at Ex.P1 to 36 are marked. After closure of the evidence on the side of the plaintiff, even though the defendant No.1 filed his affidavit in examination in-chief and examined as DW1 subsequently same was discarded, as DW1 did not turn up. The defendant No.2 has examined as DW2 and document Ex.D1 authorization letter is marked through him.
6. I have heard arguments on the side of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and learned counsel for the defendant No.2. The learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as defendants filed their written arguments. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the following decisions.
1. MANU/SC/0463/2024 (BIJAY KUMAR MANISH KUMAR HUF VS. ASHWIN BHANULAL DESAI).
2. (20025) 1 SCC 705 (ATMA RAM PROPERTIES (P) LTD. VS. FEDERAL MOTORS (P) LTD.
3. 2006 (88) DRJ 693 (SURJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER VS. KUMAR PAHILAJ AND OTHERS).
4. MANU/KA/3357/2022 (FARAHANA BANU VS. 11
O.S.No.3168/2021 NITCO ROADWAYS LTD.
5. AIR ONLINE 208 DEL 1594 (HINDUSTAN MOTORS LIMITED VS. SEVEN SEAS LEASING LTD.).
7. My findings on the above issues are as under.
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.4 : As per final order, for the following.
REASONS
8. ISSUES NO.1 & 2: These issues are taken up
together for consideration for the sake of convenience and in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
9. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of this suit, the defendants vacated the suit schedule premises. Even though there is no pleading on the side of the plaintiff and defendants, with regarding to date on which the suit schedule property vacated by the defendants, but the plaintiff would contend that the defendants have failed to handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff, but in the month of August 2022, the plaintiff was informed by the building Manager that the defendants had abandoned the suit 12 O.S.No.3168/2021 schedule property and not paid the monthly maintenance charges. Hence, the plaintiff went to the suit schedule property and found that the defendants abandoned the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff had took the possession of the suit schedule property . On the other hand, the defendants would contend that they have left the suit schedule property in the month of August 2020. I would discuss this point regarding handing over the suit schedule property in the later part of this judgment.
10. Under this issue, this court has to decide whether the plaintiff proved that the defendants are liable to pay sum of Rs.4,80,000/- towards mesne profits and damages as on 31.05.2021 as averred in the plaint and whether the plaintiff prove that the defendants are liable to pay damages / mesne profits at the rate of Rs.80,000/- p.m. from 31.05.2021 till the date of delivery of possession. The defendants have not disputed regarding rental agreement produced by the plaintiff. The last agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants is from 01.08.2018 to 30.06.2019. The 13 O.S.No.3168/2021 plaintiff has produced the documents Ex.P4 lease agreement dated 23.11.2018. DW12 in his cross examination admitted his signature and signatures of defendants No.3 and 4 in Ex.P2, Ex.P3 an Ex.P3, which are marked as Ex.P2(a), 2(b), 2(c), Ex.P3(a), 3(b), (c) and Ex.P4(a), 4(b), 4(c). Thus, one-thing is clear that the defendants have not disputed regarding execution of lease deed. Now the question is whether the plaintiff is validly terminated the tenancy of the defendants or not is to be considered.
11. PW1 in her examination in-chief has deposed that, as the defendants were chronic defaulter in payment of rental amount, hence, the plaintiff was constrained to issue legal notice dated 10.03.2020 to the defendants, inter-alia calling upon the defendants to quit and deliver vacant possession of the schedule property and to pay arrear of rentals and damages thereunder within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. PW1 has deposed that the defendants have received the legal notice on 12.03.2020. In order to substantiate the contention 14 O.S.No.3168/2021 taken by the plaintiff, the plaintiff has produced and got marked the document Ex.P11 copy of legal notice dated 10.03.2020. Ex.P12 to 16 are 5 e-mails copies. Ex.P17 and 18 are two e-mail attachments. Ex.P29 to 32 are all postal receipts for having sent the legal notice to the defendants. Ex.P33 to P36 are postal acknowledgments for having served the notice to the defendants. The defendants in their written statement have not denied the receipt of legal notice sent to them by the plaintiff as per Ex.P11. During the course of cross examination of PW1 also the learned counsel for the defendants not denied the documents Ex.P11 and Ex.P29 to 36. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff made suggestion to PW1 is that in Ex.P11 notice it is stated that arrears of Rs.2,99,000/- till March 2020. Thus, one thing is clear that the defendants have not denied the receipt of the legal notice as per Ex.P11 and also not disputed Ex.P29 to 32 postal receipts for having sent legal notice and Ex.P33 o P36 postal acknowledgments for having served the legal notice. During the course of cross examination of DW2, he has deposed that after 15 O.S.No.3168/2021 legal notice as per Ex.P11 they have paid the amount of Rs.2 lakhs to the plaintiff. As such deposition of DW2 indicates that he admitted the receipt of legal notice as per Ex.P11. It is not in dispute that the tenancy between the plaintiff and defendants is monthly tenancy. The lease agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants for 11 months are renewed from time to time from the year 2014. The last lease agreement is the lease agreement dated 23.11.2018 which is marked at Ex.P4. The document Ex.P2 is lease agreement dated 12.12.2016. Ex.P3 is lease agreement dated 27.10.2017. Ex.P4 is lease agreement dated 23.11.2018. The defendants have not disputed regarding landlord and tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants. Thus, in view of provision u/S/106 of Transfer of Property Act, the tenancy can be terminated by issuing 15 days legal notice. The plaintiff as per Ex.P11 issued legal notice calling upon the defendants to pay arrears of rent and to quit and handover vacant possession to the plaintiff. The oral evidence of PW1, which is supported by the document Ex.P11, Ex.P29 to P36 are sufficient to hold 16 O.S.No.3168/2021 that the plaintiff validly terminated the tenancy of the defendants by issuing legal notice as per Ex.P11.
12. PW1 has deposed that upon expiry of agreement on 30.06.2019, the tenancy was neither renewed nor any fresh agreement executed between the plaintiff and the defendants. The defendants then occupied the schedule premises on month-to-month tenancy basis w.e.f. 01.07.2019. She has deposed that monthly rent amount paid from 01.07.2019 was to be sum of Rs.80,000/-. However, the defendants grossly defaulter in payment of rents. The defendants have failed to pay full month's rents to the plaintiff and made part payment periodically after lapse of 2 - 3 months from when the rent was due. She has deposed that the security deposit that was paid by the defendants to the plaintiff at the start of their tenancy in December 2014 stands fully adjusted and exhausted against the arrears of rent payable by the defendants. She has deposed that the defendants were chronic defaulter in making rentals payment and miserably failed to adhere to the time frame agreed to 17 O.S.No.3168/2021 by the plaintiff and the defendants. She has deposed that as on 01.03.2020 the rental amount due to the plaintiff by the defendants towards arrears of rent was Rs.2,55,000/-. After repeated requisitions the defendants on 02.03.2020 paid sum of Rs.30,000/- towards rental arrears. She has deposed that after issuance of the legal notice, the defendants paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards rental arrears on 19.03.2020. Subsequently, the defendants have paid a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- towards rental arrears and mesne profits. She has deposed that on 02.07.2020 the defendants sent an e-mail seeking time till March 2021 to mitigate the financial crisis and in the meantime the proposed to pay a sum of Rs.45,000/- p.m. towards rent for the month of July, August and September 2020 and Rs.90,000/- from October 2020 to March 2021. The defendants also offered to pay sum of Rs.1 lakh towards security deposit, the plaintiff was not agreeable to this proposal of the defendants. As the defendants had in the defaulted on several proposals of settlement discussion between the parties and had continued to defaulted of payment of rents and other 18 O.S.No.3168/2021 monies due. PW1 has deposed that the defendants are liable to pay Rs.4,80,000/- as on 31.05.2021 towards mesne profits or damages for their livelihood and unauthorized occupation of the schedule premises at the rate of Rs.80,000/- p.m. from 27.03.2020 to 31.05.2021 for the illegal occupation of the suit schedule property beyond 15 days from the date of receipt of legal notice dated 10.03.2020. PW1 has deposed that the defendants liable to pay sum of Rs.12 lakhs from 01.06.2021 till 03.08.2022 towards mesne profits or damages for their unlawful and unauthorized occupation of the schedule premises at the rate of Rs.80,000/- p.m. along with interest at 18% p.a. for illegal occupation of the schedule property. Thus, it is the contention of the plaintiff is that after termination of the tenancy the defendants are liable to pay Rs.80,000/- p.m. towards mesne profit / damages. No doubt there is no lease agreement between the plaintiff and defendants, after expiry of terms of lease deed dated 23.11.2018. But it is pertinent to note that in Ex.P11, the plaintiff has clearly stated that the current rental amount being paid from 01.07.2019 is sum of 19 O.S.No.3168/2021 Rs.80,000/- p.m. The plaintiff also made it clear that as on that date, there is sum of Rs.2,99,000/- due and payable by the defendants. It is also called upon the defendants to pay sum of Rs.80,000/- p.m. towards mesne profit for illegal occupation of the schedule property beyond 15 days of the notice.
13. Since the defendants have not disputed the document Ex.P4 lease deed dated 23.11.2018 one thing is very clear that the rental amount payable from 23.11.2018 till 30.06.2019 payable were monthly rent of Rs.77,175/-. In Ex.P4 itself, it is stated that after expiry of rental period for renewal of fresh lease deed minimum enhancement of monthly rent will 5% over and above Rs.77,175/- p.m. every 11 months, that mesne if we calculated 5% over and above Rs.77,175/-, we can safely calculate the rental amount after 30.06.2019 as Rs.80,000/- p.m. More than that during the course of cross examination of DW2 he has deposed that in the month of August 2020, the rent was Rs.80,000/- p.m. The plaintiff has also produced bank passbook to show 20 O.S.No.3168/2021 that in one month the defendants have paid rent of Rs.80,000/-. That indicates that the defendants by admitting the rent as Rs.80,000/- paid the rent amount of Rs.80,000/- on 05.12.2019 to the plaintiff. During the course of cross examination of DW2 when the learned counsel for the plaintiff shown him entries in Ex.P10, he admitted that they have paid rent amount of Rs.80,000/- on 05.12.2019 to the plaintiff. Hence, it is proved that, after expiry of lease agreement as per Ex.P4 these defendants have greed to pay rent of Rs.80,000/- p.m. to the plaintiff to the suit property.
14. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that after termination of tenancy from 27.03.2020 to 31.05.2021 we calculate the mesne profit / damages at Rs.80,000/- p.m. if calculated, it would comes to Rs.4,80,000/-. She argued that from 1.06.2021 to 03.08.2022 at the rate of Rs.80,000/- p.m. mesne profit would be Rs.12 lakhs. Hence, the defendants are liable to pay amount of Rs.16,80,000/- towards mesne profits and also liable to pay balance amount mentioned in 21 O.S.No.3168/2021 Ex.P11 notice. She argued that the plaintiff has produced the documents Ex.P21, Ex.P24 to 28 photographs to show the damages caused to suit schedule property and towards cost of repairs and restoration of the schedule property to the original state for which the plaintiff claimed the amount of Rs.2,35,000/-. She argued that as per document Ex.P19 and Ex.P20 the defendants are arrears of maintenance amounting to Rs.1,42,500/-. Hence, the defendants are liable to pay same to the plaintiff. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendants argued that the plaintiff herself admitted that the defendants paid amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on 19.03.2020 and amount of Rs.1,65,000/-, in all Rs.3,50,000/- + Rs.30,000/- on 02.03.2020 and grand total of Rs.3,45,000/-. He submitted that as against the demand of the plaintiff being Rs.2,55,000/-. As admitted by her in para 7 of the plaint, the defendants have paid Rs.3,45,000/- i.e. excess of Rs.90,000/-. He argued that the plaintiff has failed to satisfy this court that there was understanding and agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants towards rent of Rs.80,000/-. He argued 22 O.S.No.3168/2021 that due to Covid-19 pandemic, the defendants have suffered a lot. The defendants have handed-over the keys to the building in-charge in the month of August 2020. Since the defendants have handed-over the possession of the schedule premises to the plaintiff in the month of August 2020 itself, the defendants re not liable to pay any damages or mesne profits thereafter.
15. I have appreciated the rival contentions. As I already noted there is no pleadings either on the side of the plaintiff or on the side of the defendants to show actual date of delivery of possession of the suit schedule premises to the plaintiff. DW2 in his cross examination has deposed that, they have stopped the business in the schedule property in the month of August 2020. In order to show that they have stopped the business transaction in the suit schedule property in the month of August 2020. They have not produced any document. He has admitted the suggestion that as per lease agreement the defendants should pay the maintenance charges of the suit schedule property directly to the building Manager and they have to pay the electricity bill directly to the 23 O.S.No.3168/2021 BESCOM. When the question asked him regarding last rent payment, he has deposed that they have given rent of Rs.45,000/- in the month of August 2020. He has deposed that after they received the legal notice Ex.P11 they have paid the amount of Rs.2 lakhs to the plaintiff. In this regard, he has not produced any document. He has deposed that they vacated the suit schedule property on 30.08.2020. He has deposed that in order to show that they have vacated the suit schedule property on 30.08.2020 they have not informed the plaintiff in writing. He has deposed that they have informed the plaintiff regarding vacating the suit schedule property through e-mail. In his cross examination DW2 has deposed that key of the suit schedule property handed over to one person came on the side of the plaintiff in the month of September 2020. In order to show that they have handed over the key to the plaintiff, he has no evidence. Thus, on perusal of the oral evidence of DW2 one thing is very clear that there is no document on the side of the defendants to show that they have handed over the possession of the suit 24 O.S.No.3168/2021 schedule property and handed over the key of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff either in the month of August 2020 or in the month of September 2020. Even though DW2 has deposed that they informed the plaintiff through mail regarding vacating of the suit schedule property no such mail copy is produced in this suit. On the other hand, the plaintiff has produced and got marked mail copies marked at Ex.P2 to 18. Ex.P12 is mail dated 04.07.2020. Ex.P13 is the mail dated 06.06.2020, Ex.P14 is the mail dated 13.07.2020, Ex.P15 is the mail dated 27.11.2020. It is important to note that in Ex.P15 mail dated 27.11.2020 there is mention that next rent will be due on 1 st November. The correct outstanding is Rs.4,19,850/-. If Rs.90,000/- added to this, it will make it Rs.5,09,850/-. If at all the defendants have vacated the suit schedule property in the month of august 2020 there was no such necessity to send such mail on 27.11.2020. The contents of Ex.P15 mail dated 27.11.2020 is sufficient to hold that the defendants were not vacated the premises as on the date of Ex.P15 mail. Ex.P17 is the account statement attached to the same 25 O.S.No.3168/2021 mail wherein the arrears of rent are mentioned, it is stated that as on 01.05.2021 the total arrears of rent was Rs.11,95,000/-. Subsequent payment is mentioned as Rs.1,65,000/-, security deposit is mentioned as Rs.5,50,000/-. Thus, total arrears due as on 31.05.2022 is mentioned as Rs.4,80,000/-. During the course of cross examination of PW1 nothing is elicited from her mouth to discard documents Ex.P12 to 18. On the other hand, these documents Ex.P15 to 18 would go to show that the defendants were not vacated the suit schedule property in the month of August 2020.They continued in possession of the suit schedule property till the plaintiff took possession of the suit schedule property on 03.08.2022, after the plaintiff seen that the defendants abandoned the suit schedule property. Ex.P19 is the letter issued by one Mukesh P. Patil to the plaintiff wherein it is stated that tenants have not paid maintenance charges from the month of November 2017, which now stands at Rs.1,42,500/-. Ex.P20 is the invoice wherein the details of the maintenance charges are calculated. Ex.P21 are 21 photos in 12 sheets showing 26 O.S.No.3168/2021 the condition of the suit schedule property as on the date of taking possession by the plaintiff. Ex.P22 is its CD. Ex.P24 is the notice sent by BESCOM to pay the electricity amount of Rs.18,570/-. Ex.P25 is the receipt dated 27.12.2022 for having paid the electricity bill of Rs.18,570/- by the plaintiff. Ex.P26 is the acknowledgment issued by BESCOM for having issued electricity bill Rs.18,570/-. Ex.P27 is the tax invoice issued by the HPL Electric and Power Limited for Rs.2,430/-. Ex.P28 receipt for Rs.54,999/- for having pad the bill to Hindustan Iron Steel in order to reconstruct the doors and other fixtures to reconstruct the suit schedule property . The oral evidence of PW1 which is supported by the documents, Ex.P12 to P28 are sufficient to hold that the plaintiff taken possession of the suit schedule property on 03.08.2022 after the plaintiff seen the defendants have abandoned the suit schedule property without intimating the plaintiff.
16. In Ex.P11 legal notice, the plaintiff has clearly stated that as on 05.03.2020, the arrear of rental due 27 O.S.No.3168/2021 payable by the defendants after deduction of security deposit amount is at Rs.2,99,000/-. Even if we calculate the amount paid by the defendants, which is reflected in Ex.P8 to 10 the bank passbook of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has rightly calculated the due amount is at Rs.4,80,000/- towards mesne profits / damages at the rate of Rs.80,000/- p.m. as on 31.05.2021. PW1 has not suppressed anything about the receipt of the amount from the defendants. In the examination in-chief of PW1, she has deposed regarding the payment made by the defendants. That on 02.03.2020 the defendants paid sum of Rs.30,000/- towards rental arrears. After issuing the legal notice, as per Ex.P11 the defendants paid the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards rental arrears on 19.03.2020, which reflects in the bank passbook of the plaintiff. The defendants have paid a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- towards rental arrears. Thus after if we deduct the amount paid by the defendants, that arrears of rent / damages as on the date of plaintiff taking possession of the suit schedule property , the defendant due a sum of Rs.21,13,000/- as claimed by the plaintiff. 28
O.S.No.3168/2021 The plaintiff has rightly calculated the mesne profit / damages payable by the defendants as on 31.05.2021 was Rs.4,80,000/-. Till the date of taking possession of the suit schedule property i.e. on 03.08.2022 if we calculate, the damages at the rat of Rs.80,000/- p.m. it comes to Rs.21,13,000/-. Since the defendants have abandoned as on 03.08.2022 the plaintiff had taken possession of the suit schedule property . This court can award damages at the rate of Rs.80,000/- p.m. from 01.06.2021 till the plaintiff taken possession of the suit schedule property.
17. DW2 in para 9 of the deposition has deposed that it is true that the plaintiff had issued legal notice Ex.P11. He has deposed that the plaintiff has not shown any documents to show that the defendants had agreed to pay the amount of rent Rs.80,000/- p.m. as claimed by her. In para 12 of the deposition DW2 has deposed that the defendants are not liable to pay any sums of the plaintiff under any heads and claim of the plaintiff is completely concocted one. He has deposed that the 29 O.S.No.3168/2021 defendants have paid a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- as security deposit and further sum of Rs.8,65,000/- was with the plaintiff at the time of institution of the suit. On perusal of the examination in-chief of DW2 he has not deposed anything about on which date they have vacated the suit schedule property . Only during the course of cross examination of DW2 he would contend that they have vacated the suit schedule property as on 30.08.2020. He has deposed that he gave keys of the suit schedule property in the month of September 2020 to the person who came on behalf of the plaintiff. He has deposed that the defendants have sent email to the plaintiff informing regarding vacating the suit schedule property. In order to substantiate such contention taken by the defendants there is absolutely no pleadings and documents,. If at all the defendants have vacated the suit schedule property as on 30.08.2020 the defendants should have stated same in written statement and in examination in-chief of DW2. Such defence taken by the DW2 that too in his cross examination is appears to be an after thought. PW1 in her examination in-chief itself has deposed that 30 O.S.No.3168/2021 on 03.08.2022 the plaintiff received call from the building Manager informing her that the defendants had not paid the maintenance charges and the electricity meter for the schedule property had been pulled out. Hence, she went to inspect the property and was surprised to find that the electricity meter was pulled out and strong shutters of the entrance of the apartment was replaced by glass door making the property easily accessible to anyone. Thereafter she found that the suit schedule property had been abandoned by the defendants and hence, she took possession of the suit schedule property on 03.08.2022. During the course of cross examination of PW1 the learned counsel for the defendants not denied, these deposition of PW1. In the cross examination of PW1, the defendants have not taken any such defence that they have vacated the suit schedule property as on 30.08.2020 and handed over the keys of the suit schedule property to the person who came on behalf of the plaintiff in the month of September 2020. In the absence of any such defence taken by the defendants either in cross examination of 31 O.S.No.3168/2021 PW1 or in examination in-chief of DW2, would go to show that such defence taken by DW2 during his cross examination that they have handed over the suit schedule property to the plaintiff in the month of September after they vacated the suit schedule property on 30.08.2020 is an after thought defence. Even though DW2 has deposed that they have intimated the plaintiff that they are vacating the suit schedule property through mail but there is absolutely no such documents produced before this court by the defendants. The unchallenged oral evidence of PW1 which is supported by the photographs marked at Ex.P21 is sufficient to hold that the plaintiff taken possession of the suit schedule property on 03.08.2022, soon after the plaintiff found that the defendants had abandoned the suit schedule property . Hence, the plaintiff are entitled for mesne profits / damages at the rate of Rs.80,000/- p.m. till they took possession of the suit schedule property i.e. till 03.08.2022.
18. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the 32 O.S.No.3168/2021 judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court between MANU /SC/0463/2024 DECIDED ON 17.05.2024, (BIJAY KUMAR MANISH KUMAR HUF VS. ASHWIN BHANULAL DESAI), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 16 placed reliance on Halsbury Laws of England 3rd Edn. Vol.23 for definition of 'determination by landlord' for payment of mesne profit / damages that states "The tenancy is impliedly determined by the landlord when he does any act on the premises which is inconsistent with the continuance of tenancy; for example, when he re-enters to take possession (b), or puts in a new tenant (c), or cuts down trees or carries away stone (d), the trees and stone not being excepted from the demise (e), and also when he does an act off the premises which is inconsistence with the tenancy, as when he conveys the reversion (f), or grants a lease of the premises to commence forthwith (g). An act done off the premises, however, does not determine the tenancy until the tenant has notice of it (h)."
19. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on the judgment reported in (2005) 5 SCC 531 between ACHAL MISRA VS. RAM SHANKER SINGH AND OTHERS, wherein it is held that when it appears from the material available on record that the tenant did not take any steps to fix further rent to continue to occupy and enjoy the 33 O.S.No.3168/2021 premises without any payment, it is made clear that the tenants shall be liable to pay rent equivalent to mesne profit with effect from the date on which they are found to have seized to be entitled to retain the possession of the premises as tenant and for such period landlord's entitlement cannot be held pegged to the standard rent.
20. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2005) 1 SCC 705 (ATMA RAM PROPERTIES (P) LTD. VS. FEDERAL MOTORS (P) LTD., wherein it is held that under general law and also as per Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, once the tenancy comes to an end by determination, the tenant has no right to continue in possession thereafter and if he does so, he is ;liable to pay damages for use and occupation at the rate at which the landlord could have let out the premises on being vacated by the tenant.
21. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on the judgment reported in 2006 (88) DRJ 693 (SURJIT SINGH 34 O.S.No.3168/2021 AND ANOTHER VS. KUMAR PAHILAJ AND OTHERS), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme court held that 'landlord is entitled to secure the damages / mesne profits from the tenant from the date of filing of the suit.
22. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the judgment reported in MANU/KA/3357/2022 (FARAHANA BANU VS. NITCO ROADWAYS LTD., wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has allowed the appeal dismissing the trial court's order and accordingly payment of arrests of rent / mesne profits / damages to the landlord from the date on which the suit was instituted by the landlord before the trial court till the date of judgment and decree. The Hon'ble High Court also held that the landlord was entitled to future mesne profits / damages, in accordance with Or.XX R.12 CPC.
23. The learned counsel for the plaintiff also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR ONLINE 208 DEL 1594 (HINDUSTAN MOTORS LIMITED VS. SEVEN SEAS LEASING LTD.), wherein it is held that 35 O.S.No.3168/2021 definition of mesne profit included the interest payable on mesne profit and affirmed the trial court's holding / reasoning in awarding rate of interest at 9% p.a. on decreetal amount towards mesne profits.
24. The learned counsel for the plaintiff in the written arguments has made the following calculations regarding arrears of damages / mesne profits.
Sl.No. Period Rental arrears / Total Payment made Outstanding
mesne profits outstanding by Defendants amounts /
due amount Balance. Due
1. Till Rs.255,000/- Rs.2,55,000/- Rs.30,000/- Rs.2,25,000/-
01.03.2020 on 02.03.2020
in Exhibit P-
10
2. 2nd of March - Rs.2,25,000/- Rs.1,50,000/- Rs.75,000/-
2020 to 31st on 19.03.2020
March 2020
3. Till 30th of Rs.80,000/- Rs.1,55,000/- Nil Rs.1,55,000/-
April, 2020
4. Till 31st of Rs.80,000/- Rs.2,35,000/- Nil Rs.2,35,000/-
May, 2020
5. Till 30th of Rs.80,000/- Rs.3,15,000/- Nil Rs.3,15,000/-
June, 2020
6. Till 31st of Rs.80,000/- Rs.3,95,000/- Rs.75,000/- Rs.2,75,000/-
July 2020 on 01.07.220,
Rs.45,000/-
on 01.07.2020
in Exhibit
No.10
7. Till 31st of Rs.80,000/- Rs.3,55,000/- Rs.45,000/- Rs.3,10,000/-
August 2020 on 27.08.2020
in Exhibit
No.P10
8. Till 30th of Rs.80,000/- Rs.3,90,000/- Nil Rs.3,90,000/-
September
2020
9. Till 31st of Rs.80,000/- Rs.4,70,000/- Nil Rs.4,70,000/-
October
36
O.S.No.3168/2021
2020
10. Till 30th of Rs.80,000/- Rs.5,50,000/- Rs.45,000/- Rs.5,50,000/-
November on 10.09.2020
in Exhibit
No.P10
11. Till 31st Rs.80,000/- Rs.5,85,000/- Nil Rs.5,85,000/-
December
2020
12. Till 31st of Rs.80,000/- Rs.6,65,000/- Nil Rs.6,65,000/-
January
2021
13. Till 28th of Rs.80,000/- Rs.7,45,000/- Nil Rs.7,45,000/-
February
2021
14. Till 31st of Rs.80,000/- Rs.8,25,000/- Nil Rs.8,25,000/-
March 2021
15. Till 30th of Rs.80,000/- Rs.9,05,000/- Nil Rs.9,05,000/-
April 2021
16. Till 31st of Rs.80,000/- Rs.9,85,000/- Nil Rs.9,85,000/-
May 2021
17. Till 30th of Rs.80,000/- Rs.10,65,000/- Nil Rs.10,65,000/-
June 2021
18. Till 31st of Rs.80,000/- Rs.11,45,000/- Nil Rs.11,45,000/-
July 2021
19. Till 31st of Rs.80,000/- Rs.12,25,000/- Nil Rs.12,25,000/-
August 2021
20. Till 30th of Rs.80,000/- Rs.13,05,000/- Nil Rs.13,05,000/-
September
2021
21. Till 31st of Rs.80,000/- Rs.13,85,000/- Nil Rs.13,85,000/-
October
2021
22. Till 30th of Rs.80,000/- Rs.14,65,000/- Nil Rs.14,65,000/-
November
2021
23. Till 31st of Rs.80,000/- Rs.15,45,000/- Nil Rs.15,45,000/-
December
2021
24. Till 31st of Rs.80,000/- Rs.16,25,000/- Nil Rs.16,25,000/-
January
2022
25. Till 28th of Rs.80,000/- Rs.17,05,000/- Nil Rs.17,05,000/-
February
2022
26. Till 31st of Rs.80,000/- Rs.17,85,000/- Nil Rs.17,85,000/-
March 2022
27. Till 30th of Rs.80,000/- Rs.18,65,000/- Nil Rs.18,65,000/-
April 2022
28. Till 31st of Rs.80,000/- Rs.19,45,000/- Nil Rs.19,45,000/-
May 2022
29. Till 30th of Rs.80,000/- Rs.20,25,000/- Nil Rs.20,25,000/-
June 2022
30. Till 31st of Rs.80,000/- Rs.21,05,000/- Nil Rs.21,05,000/-
July 2022
31. Till 3rd of Rs.8,000/- Rs.21,13,000/- Nil Rs.21,13,000/-
37
O.S.No.3168/2021
August
2022
25. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendants in the written arguments argued that the plaintiff herself admitted that the defendants have paid sum of Rs.30,000/- on 02.03.2020, Rs.1,50,000/- on 19.03.2020 and another sum of Rs.1,65,000/- and totally the defendants have paid sum of Rs.3,45,000/- to the plaintiff. The defendants have paid sum of Rs.5,50,000/- as security deposit. Hence, the total sum paid by the defendants to the plaintiff was Rs.8,95,000/-. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for any damages / mesne profits.
26. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff while calculating the mesne profits, deductions of the amounts paid by the plaintiff i.e., amount of Rs.30,000/- paid on 02.03.2020, Rs.1,50,000/- paid on 19.03.2020, Rs.75,000/- paid on 01.07.2020, Rs.45,000/- paid on 01.07.2020, Rs.45,000/- paid on 27.08.2020, Rs.45,000/- paid on 10.09.2020. The plaintiff has also produced bank statement which are marked as Ex.P8 to P10. It is not the 38 O.S.No.3168/2021 contention of the defendants is that other than through bank transactions they have paid the arrears of rent / damages in any other mode. In Ex.P11 notice itself the plaintiff has stated that after adjusting the security deposit amount of Rs.5,50,000/-, the defendants are liable to pay sum of Rs.2,99,000/- payable towards rental amount. The defendants have not denied the contents of Ex.P1 notice. Even though Ex.P11 notice served upon the defendants they have not sent any reply notice to the plaintiff. Even in the written statement of the defendants, they have not denied the averments made by the plaintiff in Ex.P11 notice. More than that the plaintiff has produced bank passbook which are marked at Ex.P8 to 10 to show the amount received by her towards rent. As on the date of sending the notice, as per Ex.P11 the defendants were liable to pay arrears of rent to the extent of Rs.2,99,000/-, after deduction of security deposit amount of Rs.5,50,000/-. The learned counsel for the plaintiff in her written arguments, rightly calculated the amount due as on 01.03.2020 as Rs.2,25,000/-. The learned counsel for the plaintiff rightly 39 O.S.No.3168/2021 calculated the arrears of mesne profits at the rate of Rs.80,000/- p.m. after termination of tenancy. This court already in foregoing paragraphs given finding that the damages / mesne profits can be calculated at Rs.80,000/- p.m. This court has given finding that the plaintiff had taken possession of the suit schedule property on 03.08.2022. Hence, the defendants are liable to pay mesne profits / damages at the rate of Rs.80,000/- p.m. from 01.03.2020 till 03.08.2022 and after deducting of payments made by the defendants, it can be calculated at Rs.21,13,000/-. The learned counsel for the plaintiff rightly calculated the damages at the rate of Rs.21,13,000/- in the aforesaid table. Since the plaintiff has already taken possession of the suit schedule property on 03.08.2022 this court can calculate the mesne profit/ damages from 01.03.2020 till 03.08.2022 which come to Rs.21,13,000/-. The plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits / damages of Rs.4,80,000/- as on 31.05.2021 as averred in the plaint. Thereafter from 31.05.2021 till the date of plaintiff taken possession i.e. 03.08.2022 the plaintiff is entitled for damages at the 40 O.S.No.3168/2021 rate of Rs.80,000/-. Thus, total amount of damages / mesne profits come to Rs.21,13,000/-. Hence, I answered issue No.1 and 2 in the AFFIRMATIVE.
27. ISSUE No.3: The plaintiff filed this suit praying to direct the defendants to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property and direct the defendants to pay sum of Rs.4,80,000/- towards mesne profits / damages along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. as on 31.05.2021. The plaintiff also prayed to direct the defendants to pay damages / mesne profits at the rate of Rs.80,000/- from 31.05.2021 till the defendants deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and to pay interest at the rate of 18% p.a.
28. Since the plaintiff has taken possession of the suit schedule property on 03.08.2022 granting to first relief i.e. direct the defendants to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property does not survive for consideration. In view of my findings on issue 41 O.S.No.3168/2021 No.1, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief to direct the defendants to pay sum of Rs.4,80,000/- towards mesne profits / damages as on 31.05.2021. In view of my finding on issue No.2, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief to direct the defendant to pay damages / mesne profits at the rate of Rs.80,000/- from 31.05.2021 till the date of delivery of vacant possession i.e. till 03.08.2022. Since this court already calculated the total amount of damages / mesne profits payable by the defendants till 30.08.2022 as Rs.21,13,000/- this court can pass decree to direct the defendants to pay total sum of Rs.21,13,000/-. So far as interest is concerned, as the defendants have failed to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property soon after receipt of the notice Ex.P11 within 15 days, the defendants are liable to pay interest to the plaintiff. This court can direct the defendants to pay interest at the rate of 6% p.a. in view of the provisions u/S.34 of CPC this court is of the opinion that the interest amount can be made payable to the plaintiff from 03.08.2022 i.e. from the date of taking possession of the suit schedule 42 O.S.No.3168/2021 property by the plaintiff. During the course of examination in-chief of DW1 the plaintiff has prayed to award amount of Rs.1,42,500/- towards maintenance charges and also prays to direct the defendants to pay amount of Rs.2,35,000/- towards damages, cost of repairs, and restoration of schedule property to its original state. In this suit, the plaintiff has not sought any such prayer for maintenance charges and towards damages cost of repairs and restoration of schedule property to its original position. There is no pleading in respect of the same. The plaintiff has not made any attempt to carry out the amendment in the plaint in this regard. Even though plaintiff has produced certain documents marked at Ex.P19 to 21, 24 to 28, since there is no pleadings with regard to the arrears of maintenance charges and regarding damages to the property and towards repair cost, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the same from the defendants. The plaintiff is entitled for the relief of damages / mesne profits from the defendants, which is calculated at the rate of Rs.21,13,000/-. The plaintiff is 43 O.S.No.3168/2021 also entitled for interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 03.08.2022 till its realization.
29. In the plaint the plaintiff has stated that she is ready to pay the difference of court fees for difference of amount of mesne profits / damages, the plaintiff has already paid the court fees of Rs.32,075/- + Rs.50,360/- as per office note. As the plaintiff is ready to pay difference of court fees for remaining amount, the plaintiff shall pay the court fees for the same, on the calculation made in the office. Hence, I answered issue No.3 partly in the AFFIRMATIVE.
30. ISSUE NO.4: In the result I proceed to pass the following.
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby partly DECREED, with costs.
Since the plaintiff had already taken possession of the suit schedule property as on 03.08.2022 the relief of the plaintiff to direct the defendants to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property has 44 O.S.No.3168/2021 become infractuous.
The plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mesne profits / damages with interest.
The defendants are hereby directed to pay damages / mesne profits of Rs.21,13,000/- (Rupees Twenty one lakh thirteen thousand only) to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 03.08.2022 till its realization.
The plaintiff shall deposit the deficit court fees. Draw decree, accordingly.
(Dictated to SG-I, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on the 24 th day of SEPTEMBER 2025).
(MOHAN PRABHU), LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
45
O.S.No.3168/2021 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF/S:
PW1 Prea Gulati LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT/S: DW1 Discarded DW2 Pruthvi Raj A.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF/S:
Ex.P-1 Power of attorney
Ex.P-2 Lease deed dtd.12.12.2016
Ex.P-3 Lease deed dtd.27.10.2017
Ex.P-4 Lease deed dtd.23.11.2018
Ex.P-5 C/C of sale deed dtd. 10.05.1990
Ex.P-6 Encumbrancer certificate
Ex.P-7 E Khata
Ex.P-8 to 10 3 SBI Bank Pass Books
Ex.P-11 Copy of Legal notice
Ex.P-12 to 16 5 Email copies
Ex.P-17 & 18 2 Email attachments
Ex.P-19 Intimation sent by Mukesh.B.Patel
Ex.P-20 Invoice sent Mukesh.B.Patel
Ex.P-21 24 Photos in 12 sheets
Ex.P-22 CD
Ex.P-23 65 B certificated
Ex.P-24 Notice sent by BESCOM
Ex.P-25 Receipt dt. 27-12-2022
46
O.S.No.3168/2021
Ex.P-26 Acknowledgment issued by BESCOM
Ex.P-27 Bill dt.29-12-2022
Ex.P-28 Bill
Ex.P-29 to 32 Postal receipts
Ex.P-33 to 36 Postal acknowledgments
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT/S Ex.D1 Resolution of Partners LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.