Bangalore District Court
Sri Channakeshavaraya vs Sri Ramanarayana Maharana on 28 November, 2022
KABC010010792017
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY. (CCH30)
Dated this the 28th day of November 2022
PRESENT: SRI A. EARANNA, M.Com., LL.M.,
LXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
C/C XXIX ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
O.S.No. 353/2017
Plaintiff : Sri Channakeshavaraya,
S/o Sri Krishnaiah,
Aged about 34 years,
R/a No.269, 6th Main, MICO Layout,
BRM 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru - 560 076.
(By M/s M.L. Gowda & Associates
Advocates)
Vs.
Defendants : 1. Sri Ramanarayana Maharana,
S/o Sri Anthrami Maharana,
Aged about 35 years,
R/a No.66, Ground Floor,
BTM Layout, 6th Stage,
Hulimavu Village,
Bengaluru - 560 076.
And also at:
Door No.268, (Room - 6),
Chowdeshwari Nagar,
Thathaguni Post & Village,
Agara Cross,
Kanakapura Main Road,
Bengaluru South - 560 082.
2
O.S.No.353/2017
And also at:
Gondala, Hinjili Taluk,
Ganjam District,
Odissa State - 761 102.
2. Smt S. Vaishnavi,
W/o Sri C. Madhusudhan,
Aged about 40 years,
R/a No.B304, Eastern Enclave,
Arakere, Banneghatta Road,
Bengaluru - 560 076.
(By Sri A.C. Manjunatha, Advocate
for defendants No.1 & 2)
[
Date of institution of the suit 12/01/2017
Nature of the suit (suit on
pronote. Suit for declaration and Ejectment
possession suit for injunction,
etc.)
Date of the commencement of
recording of the evidence. 07/08/2017
Date on which the judgment 28/11/2022
was pronounced
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
05 10 16
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants for eviction from the suit schedule premises, directing the defendant No.1 to deliver the vacant possession of the schedule premises and for directing the defendant No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.89,000/ towards arrears of rent with interest at the rate of 18% p.a., till the realization of the said amount and for directing the defendant No.1 to pay a sum 3 O.S.No.353/2017 of Rs.1,000/ per day from the date of filing of this suit till the delivery of vacant possession of the schedule premises towards damages and for costs and such other reliefs.
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as under:
It is submitted that, the plaintiff is the owner of the house property bearing No.43, Ground Floor, 1 st Phase, BTM 6th Stage, BDA Layout, Hulimavu Village, Bengaluru, measuring East to West : 30 feet and North to South : 40 feet, herein after referred to as 'schedule property'.
It is further submitted that, the defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff to get house on rental basis. He entered into a rental agreement dated 28.09.2015 for a period of one year and tenancy became effective from 15.10.2015 on a monthly rent of Rs.12,000/. After execution of rental agreement, the defendant No.1 has resided in the said premises and he is a chronic defaulter in the matter of payment of rent. He is not regular in payment of rent to the plaintiff. Due to default on payment of rent by the defendant No.1, the plaintiff has several times requested and demanded the defendant No.1 to pay the rent and also requested the defendant No1 to vacate the premises, as he is irregular in payment of rent. The defendant No.1 has threatened the plaintiff and avoided the payment of rent. Therefore, the plaintiff has lodged a complaint before Hulimavu police 4 O.S.No.353/2017 station and the police have called the defendant No.1 and warned about the threat given by him to the plaintiff and the police have advised the plaintiff to approach the competent Court of law for recovery of arrears of rent and also for eviction of tenant from the schedule premises, since the matter is civil in nature. Then the plaintiff has filed the suit for eviction and for getting arrears of rent.
It is further submitted that, the defendant No.2 is nowhere concerned to the agreement disputed between plaintiff and defendant No.1. In spite of it, she lodged a complaint on 02.04.2016 against the plaintiff before Hulimavu police station and she has paid an amount of Rs.1,20,000/ to the plaintiff and she demanded for repayment of the said alleged amount. The police called upon the plaintiff and plaintiff has furnished the document before the concerned police. Therefore, the defendant No.2 is made as party in this suit. The defendant No.1 has not paid the rent and also not vacated the suit premises. The plaintiff has got issued a legal notice on 29.04.2016 calling upon the defendant No.1 to vacate the schedule premises and deliver the vacant possession of the schedule premises within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice dated 29.04.2016. After receipt of notice, the defendant No.1 has not vacated the schedule premises and not delivered the schedule premises and also not paid a sum of Rs.89,000/ towards arrears of rent with interest at the rate 5 O.S.No.353/2017 of 18% p.a., till the realization of the said amount. Therefore, the plaintiff has constrained to file the present suit against the defendants. Hence, the suit for ejectment.
3. After filing the suit, this Court has got issued summons to defendants No.1 & 2. In pursuance of the summons, the defendants No.1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and filed written statement contending that, the suit of the plaintiff is false, baseless and the same is liable to be dismissed. They have contended that the plaintiff has filed the suit for ejectment of defendant No.1 from the schedule premises and seeking direction to defendant No.1 to deliver the vacant possession of the schedule premises. The defendant No.1 is a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of schedule premises on a monthly rent of Rs.12,000/ and tenancy being the English calendar month and paid an amount of Rs.1,20,000/ as security deposit to the plaintiff. This amount shall be refunded by plaintiff to the defendant No.1 at the time of vacating the schedule premises.
They further contended that, the plaintiff approached the defendant No.1 to let out his schedule premises for rental basis and the defendant No.1 at the time of searching an house for his residential purpose, then the plaintiff at the time of showing the schedule premises on rental to the defendant No.1. The schedule premises is not usable condition and it is unavailable condition to let 6 O.S.No.353/2017 out i.e., electrical connection was not taken, tiles were not fixed in the kitchen room, there is a big hole in the main door, no wardrobes and cupboards was fixed, flooring was not done in front of house. At the request of plaintiff to need of fund for further construction of building on schedule property, the defendant No.1 accepted to take the schedule premises on rental with the oral condition that the house will be made into a humanly usable condition within two weeks time and until rent is exempted to nonpayment thereafter entered a rental agreement dated 28.09.2015 and paid a sum of Rs.1,20,000/ as security deposit to the plaintiff. But the plaintiff failed to perform his part of obligations on repeated request made by defendant No.1. Hence, the defendant No.1 due to his heavy work to follow up the said act and to take action against the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 executed a notary registered General Power of Attorney dated 30.03.2016 in favour of defendant No.2. Thereafter, the defendant No.2 approached the plaintiff and demanded several times to made the house as usable condition. On the other hand, the plaintiff has threatened and avoided the defendant No.2. Hence, the defendant No.2 has lodged a complaint before the Hulimavu police on 02.04.2016, then the said police have called upon the plaintiff and advised him and plaintiff assured to made the schedule property as usable condition within two weeks. In spite of it, he has not made 7 O.S.No.353/2017 the suit premises for usable condition. On the other hand, he has filed the present suit against the defendants. The suit is not maintainable, the same is liable to be dismissed. They further contended that, to harass the defendant, the plaintiff has filed the above suit. Therefore, they prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, my learned Predecessorinoffice has framed the following issues on 16.01.2018 and they are as hereunder: ISSUES (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants are in arrears of rent of Rs.89,000/ in respect of schedule premises?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree prayed in the suit?
(4) What decree or order?
5. In order to prove their case, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4. On behalf of defendants, the 2nd defendant was examined herself as DW.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.D.1 & Ex.D.2.
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. In spite of sufficient time, the defendant and his counsel 8 O.S.No.353/2017 absent, hence the arguments on defendant's side is taken as nil and perused the materials placed on record by both the parties.
7. My findings on the above said issues are as hereunder: Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2 : In the Negative.
Issue No.3 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.4 : As per final order for the following: REASONS
8. Issue No.1: The counsel for the plaintiff argued that, the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises. The defendant No.1 has approached the plaintiff and has agreed to reside in the suit premises and executed an agreement and agreed to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/ p.m. towards rent. But after residing in the suit premises, the defendant No.1 was not paying the rent regularly and he is a chronic defaulter. The plaintiff demanded the defendant No.1 to pay the rent. On the other hand, he has threatened the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff approached the Hulimavu police station. Then the Hulimavu police have called the defendant No.1 and directed him to pay the rent and the police have also advised the plaintiff to approach the competent Court of law, since the matter is civil in nature. Thereafter, the plaintiff has got issued a notice as per Ex.P.3. After receipt of notice, the defendant No.1 has not vacated the suit premises and has not paid the arrears of rent of Rs.89,000/ and 9 O.S.No.353/2017 also he is entitled to pay the damages. Therefore, he prays to decree the suit of the plaintiff.
9. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and he has reiterated the plaint averments in his evidence. He was crossexamined by the counsel for defendant. He denied that, he has received the amount of Rs.1,20,000/ as advance. He further denied that, "ಸದರ ಮನನ ಕಟಟಡದ ಕಕಮಗಕರ ಸಸಪಪರರಗನಗಳಸಸವ ಉದನದದಶದಸದ ನಕನಸ ಪಪತವಕದಯರಸದ ಅಡಕಡನನನ ಮತತವನಸನ ಸಡದಕರಸದನದ ಎನಸನವವದಸ ಸರಯಲಲ ಮತಸತ ಆ ಕಕರರ ಕರಕರನಲಲ 20 ದನಗಳ ಸಮಯಕವಕಕಶ ಪಡನದಸಕನಗಸಡನ ಎಸದರನ ಸರಯಲಲ." It is the defence taken by the defendant that the house is not ready for occupancy and there is no electricity, wardrobes, cupboards and there is no tiles to the front portion of the house. Therefore, he has not taken the said suit premises for occupancy purpose. As per written statement of defendant, the house is not completed for occupancy purpose. Therefore, they have not occupied the said house.
10. On perusal of evidence of PW.1, he is nowhere admitted in the crossexamination that, the said house is not ready for occupancy purpose and there is an alteration regarding electricity, wardrobes, cupboards etc. Normally when a person intends to take the house on rental basis before entering into agreement nor before he agreed to take the house on rental basis, he ought to visit the 10 O.S.No.353/2017 house. If the house is ready for occupancy, then he may agree the same. Thereafter, between landlord and tenant, there may be some conversation regarding payment of advance amount and also payment of rent. If both parties are agreed, then only they may enter into written agreement and in it they may mention the advance amount as well as monthly rent amount and also term of occupation and there may be condition that the house or premises cannot sublet to the other person and regarding payment of electricity bill, water charges, maintenance charges etc., same will be taken into writing and then the said document may be registered before the competent authority and then only rental agreement came into force. In the present case the defendant has taken a contention at, at the time of execution of rental agreement, the said house is not ready for occupancy and for the above said alteration is pending, then they have not taken the possession of the house.
11. In this regard, the defendant No.1 has not entered into witness box and has not stated that the house is not ready for occupancy purpose. DW.1 (defendant No.2) who is the GPA Holder of defendant No.1, but she has not resided in the said house. On behalf of defendant No.1, she entered into witness box. She deposed that, the house is not ready for occupancy and defendant No.1 has not resided in the said house. It is the defence taken by the defendant 11 O.S.No.353/2017 that, before entering into the said house, within two weeks the plaintiff is to make alteration regarding electricity, wardrobes, cupboards, tiles etc., and thereafter, the defendant No.1 will occupy the same. When the house is not ready for occupancy, then there is no necessary to enter into the agreement to pay the advance amount of Rs.1,20,000/ and monthly rent of Rs.12,000/.
12. DW.1 who is the GPA Holder of defendant No.1, has stated that the defendant No.1 was employed in their company and the defendant No.1 entered into an agreement as per Ex.P.4. She denied that, as per terms and conditions, he entered into the suit premises. She deposed that, defendant No.1 is not having money, she paid an advance amount to the plaintiff. She further deposed that, she do not have any document to show that the house was not ready for occupancy. She furter deposed that, as per Ex.P.4 the plaintiff has not repaid the advance amount. As per evidence of DW.1, the plaintiff ought to pay an amount of Rs.80,000/, She further deposed that, she was handed over the key of the premises to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff has not repaid the amount of Rs.80,000/. On careful perusal of evidence of DW.1, they have not produced any document to hold that, yet the plaintiff is entitled to pay an amount of Rs.80,000/. On the other hand, the DW.1 (defendant No.2) has produced Ex.D.1 that, she has lodged a complaint before the 12 O.S.No.353/2017 Hulimavu police stating that, "I have taken a house on rent ground floor No.43, 1st phase, BTM 6th Stage, BDA Layout, Hulimavu Village, Bengluru - 560 076. This house was taken, so that my employees can stay there comfortable. I have paid an advance of Rs.1,20,000/ on a condition that they would make the house in a good condition liable. But even after repeated requests, the house remained in an uninhabitable and dangerous condition". In this regard, she has lodged a complaint before Hulimavu police.
13. It is the defence of the defendants that, the defendant No.1 has not all resided in the said house, as it was not in good condition for residing in the said house. On going through Ex.P.4, it was a registered document i.e., Rental Agreement between plaintiff and defendant No.1. On going through the said document in condition No.7, it has mentioned that, "The lessee shall keep the premises in good condition and shall not sublet the same to any third party". Ex.P.4 reveals that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 have signed the said document and in the said condition No.7, it has mentioned that the defendant No.1 shall keep the premises in good condition. In the said document it has been mentioned in the Schedule as, "Ground floor house of premises No.43, 1st Phase, BTM 6th Stage, BDA Layout, Hulimavu Village, Bengaluru - 560 076, which consisting of two rooms, hall, kitchen, bathroom and toilet with electricity and water 13 O.S.No.353/2017 connections and with three tube lights and two ceiling fans". Ex.P.4 reveals that, the schedule premises is consisting of two rooms. If the said premises is not good condition, then it may not mention as stated above. In Ex.P.4 they ought to mention that, after altering the electricity and making cupboards and wardrobes and after flooring outside of the house, then they will occupy the suit premises. On going through Ex.P.4, it does not reveals that the suit premises wants to alteration, then only the defendant No.1 will reside in the said premises. Ex.P.4 does not reveals that, there is a need of alteration as stated in the written statement. On the other hand, Ex.P.4 reveals that at the time of execution of Ex.P.4, the house is in good condition and there is no need to alteration as stated by defendant No.1. On going through the evidence of DW.1 in para4, it has stated that, "The 1st defendant is the tenant under the plaintiff herein in respect of the schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs.12,000/ per month, the tenancy being the English calendar month and paid a sum of Rs.1,20,000/ as security deposit to the plaintiff and this amount shall be refundable by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant at the time of vacating the schedule premises". On bare perusal of examinationin chief of DW.1 in para4, it does not reveals that the suit premises is not in good condition to reside in the suit premises. 14
O.S.No.353/2017
14. DW.1 has stated in her evidence that, "I do not have any document to show that the house was not ready for occupancy. It was not written anywhere in Ex.P.4, as house was not ready for occupancy. I did not written any letter to the plaintiff to show that, schedule premises is not ready for occupation as well as to cancel the agreement. I did not terminate rental agreement. I did not produce any document to show that, Ex.P.4 was terminated agreement and I am not in possession of schedule premises". On going through the crossexamination of DW.1, it is clear that she has not produced any document to show that the house was not ready for occupancy. It is the burden on the defendant to produce the documents i.e., photographs to show that the house was not ready for occupancy. Even though she has not given any letter to the plaintiff stating that the house was not ready for occupancy. Even though they have not terminated Ex.P.4 stating that the house was not ready for occupancy. Even they have not produced any document they are not in possession of the schedule premises. When the defendants have taken a contention that the house was not ready for occupancy, then they ought to write a letter to the plaintiff regarding the house was not in good condition for occupancy. In this regard, the evidence of DW.1 clearly reflects that they have not written any letter to the plaintiff nor made any efforts to show that the house was not ready 15 O.S.No.353/2017 for occupancy. Mere saying in the evidence, the Court cannot believe the version of the defendant that the house was not ready for occupancy. The defendant No.1 has entered into an agreement between the plaintiff. In Ex.D.1 DW.1 has stated that, "I have paid an advance of Rs.1,20,000/ on a condition that they would make the house in a good condition". As per Ex.D.1, the defendant No.2 has lodged a complaint before the Hulimavu police station. On going through Ex.P.4, it was executed on 28.09.2015. In Ex.P.4 it has not mentioned the defendant No.2 paid an amount of Rs.1,20,000/ towards security deposit. As per the said document, it was executed in the year 2015. On going through Ex.D.1, she has lodged a complaint on 02.04.2016 stating that, she has paid an amount of Rs.1,20,000/ towards advance. On the other hand, DW.1 deposed that the plaintiff has to pay an amount of Rs.80,000/. As per written statement of defendants, they have paid an amount of Rs.1,20,000/ towards security deposit. On the other hand, DW.1 has stated that the plaintiff has to pay an amount of Rs.80,000/. In this regard, DW.1 has not placed any document to show why the plaintiff has to pay an amount of Rs.80,000/. On going through Ex.D.1, in it she has not mentioned the plaintiff ought to pay an amount of Rs.80,000/. On going through the written statement as well as examinationinchief, she has not at all mentioned the 16 O.S.No.353/2017 plaintiff ought to pay an amount of Rs.80,000/. If plaintiff ought to pay an amount of Rs.80,000/, then in the written statement and in the examinationinchief, she ought to state the plaintiff has to pay an amount of Rs.80,000/.
15. The counsel for plaintiff argued that, the defendant No.1 has not handed over the key of the suit premises. On the other hand, DW.1 has deposed that, "I handed over the key to the plaintiff and plaintiff has to pay Rs.80,000/ to me". In the examinationin chief nor in the crossexamination, she has not stated on which date, in whose presence she has handed over the key of the suit premises. DW.1 has stated that, in the police station she was handed over the key of the suit premises. If DW.1 has handed over the key of the suit premises, then she ought to mention in Ex.D.1. On perusal of the said document, it does not reveals that the plaintiff ought to pay an amount of Rs.80,000/ and handed over the suit premises key to the plaintiff. In this regard, there is no proper and reliable documents placed by the defendant. She further deposed in the evidence that, in the written statement and in her examinationinchief she has not mentioned regarding handing over the key of the suit premises in the police station. If the defendant had paid the key of the suit premises, then they have mentioned in the written statement. But in this case no such contention taken by the defendant.
17
O.S.No.353/2017
16. The plaintiff has taken a contention that the defendant ought to pay an arrears of rent of Rs.89,000/ in respect of the suit premises. Therefore, he filed the suit for eviction of the suit premises and also recovery of arrears of rent. On perusal of the evidence of PW.1, the defendant ought to pay the arrears of rent of Rs.89,000/, same was not paid by the defendant. On going through the document placed by plaintiff i.e., Ex.P.4 reveals that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 got executed rental agreement. As per the terms and conditions of Ex.P.4, the defendant No.1 ought to pay monthly rent of Rs.12,000/. But the defendant No.1 has not paid the rent from 15.10.2015. Therefore, he is entitled to get arrears of rent of Rs.89,000/. Before filing the suit the plaintiff has got issued a legal notice to the defendant No.1 calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent of Rs.84,000/ due from 01.10.2015 to 30.04.2016 for the past 7 months. It is not disputed that the plaintiff has got issued Ex.P.1. As per Ex.P.1 from 01.10.2015 to 30.04.2016, the defendant has not paid the amount of Rs.84,000/. After receipt of said notice, the defendant No.1 or defendant No.2 has not replied to the said notice and defendants have taken a contention that Ex.P.1 was not served on him. On the other hand, the plaintiff has got issued a notice, where the defendant No.1 was residing. In spite of it, he has taken a contention that, Ex.P.1 was not served. When the suit premises is 18 O.S.No.353/2017 not in good condition for occupancy, then the defendants have not issued a legal notice nor they have sought for cancellation of Ex.P.4. On the other hand, on 29.04.2016 the plaintiff has got issued a legal notice calling upon the defendant to pay the arrears of rent of Rs.84,000/. Now the plaintiff is claiming an amount of Rs.89,000/. The defendants have taken a contention that the defendant No.1 has not resided in the said house. When defendants approached the Hulimavu police station on 02.04.2016, they have not at all stated that they have no arrears of rent and not occupied the suit premises. In order to substantiate the document Ex.D.1, the defendants have not placed any documentary evidence. Even though defendant No.1 has not stated apart from this house, he was residing in other place during the said period and they have not produced any document. Therefore, this Court presumed that the defendant No.1 has resided in the suit premises as per the terms and conditions of Ex.P.4. The counsel for plaintiff has taken a contention that, before filing the suit the plaintiff has got issued a notice.
17. Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act reads thus:
"106. Duration of certain leases in absence of written contract or local usage. (1) In the absence of a contract of local law or usage to the contrary, a lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by six months' notice; and a lease of immovable property for any other purpose shall be deemed to be a 19 O.S.No.353/2017 lease from month to month, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by fifteen days' notice".
18. The counsel for plaintiff has relied the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, reported in (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 527, in the case of Martin and Harris Private Limited and Another Vs. Rajendra Mehta and Others, wherein it reads as under:
"A. Rent Control and Eviction - Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (1 of 2003) - Ss. 32(3) and 20 - Mesne profits to the extent of three times of the standard rent in terms of S. 20 of the 2001 Act, in case the premises are let out for commercial purposes - Entitlement to - Inapplicability of, to pending proceedings - Suit or proceedings pending on date of coming into force of the 2001 Act, held,f would continue under the 1950 Act - The 2001 Act would have no application in such a case, as pending proceedings under the old Act are expressly saved under S. 32(3) of the 2001 Act".
19. The counsel for plaintiff has relied another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, reported in 2022 (4) AKR 322, in the case of Jyothi Narayan Das Vs. M/s Devatha Saree Bhandar and Others, wherein it reads as under:
"(C) Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882), Ss.106, 111 - Eviction - Direction to pay rental arrears -
Challenge as to - Demised premises used only for commercial purposes - Tenancy was determined with issuance of legal notice of 15 days - Suit commenced much after the expiry of 15 days - Lease was validly terminated - No material on record to demonstrate that tenant had paid any rent to landlords after 20 O.S.No.353/2017 issuance of flegal notice - Landlords failed @ Rs.8,000/ p.m. Order of subordinate Court modified to the extent of directing tenant to pay damages @ Rs.210/ p.m. from date of issuance of legal notice to actual date of delivery of vacant possession of demised premises. (Paras 44, 45, 46, 47)".
Based on the above said provision and judgments, the plaintiff has got issued a notice to the defendant No.1. In spite of it, the defendant No.1 has not paid arrears of rent and has not handed over the key of the suit premises. With due respect the ratio laid down in the above said judgments are applicable to the present case in hand and the plaintiff has got issued a legal notice as per Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Therefore, the plaintiff has established the case that the defendant No.1 has taken suit premises on rental basis and agreed to pay monthly rent of Rs.12,000/. The defendant No.1 has not paid rent for the above mentioned period. Therefore, the plaintiff has established his case. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to get arrears of rent of Rs.89,000/. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 in the 'Affirmative'.
20. Issue No.2: The counsel for plaintiff argued that, the plaintiff is entitled for damages. On perusal of evidence of PW.1, he has not at all stated from which period he is entitled to get damages and there is a violation of terms and conditions he is entitled to damages or not as stated in his evidence and he has not placed any 21 O.S.No.353/2017 document to hold that he is entitled to get damages. Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to prove the Issue No.2. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 in the 'Negative'.
21. Issue No.3: The counsel for plaintiff argued that, the plaintiff is entitled to get arrears of rent of Rs.89,000/ and he is entitled to get key of the suit premises from the defendant. For the above said detailed discussion on Issue No.1, the plaintiff is entitled to get arrears of rent of Rs.89,000/ and is also entitled to get key of the suit premises from the defendant. In order to prove their defence, the defendants have not placed any reliable documents and evidence to hold that the defendant No.1 is not resided in the suit premises from the date of execution of Ex.P.4. Admittedly, DW.1 has not made agreement with the plaintiff and DW.1 has not resided in the suit premises. How DW.1 can say that the house is not in good condition for occupancy and how she can say that the defendant No.1 has not resided in the suit premises. After getting GPA from defendant No.1, she (DW.1) has entered into the witness box, but she is not a party to the rental agreement. Such being the case, mere production of oral evidence, this Court cannot come to conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled for arrears of rent of Rs.89,000/ and is entitled to receive suit premises key from the defendant. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.3 in the 'Affirmative'.
22
O.S.No.353/2017
22. Issue No.4: In view of the discussion made on Issue No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants is hereby partly decreed with costs.
It is directed the defendants to vacate the suit schedule premises and to hand over the key of the suit schedule premises to the plaintiff within 3 months from the date of this judgment.
It is further directed the defendant No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.89,000/ to the plaintiff towards arrears of rent with interest at the rate of 18% p.a., from the date of suit till the realization of the said amount.
The plaintiff is not entitled for damages.
Draw a decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 28th day of November, 2022) (A. EARANNA) LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, C/C XXIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff's side: PW.1 Chennakeshavaraya 23 O.S.No.353/2017 List of documents exhibited for the plaintiff's side: Ex.P.1 Office copy of legal notice issued to defendant No.1 dated 29.04.2016.
Ex.P.2 Postal receipts (2 in Nos.). Ex.P.3 Sealed postal cover. Ex.P.3(a) Notice in Ex.P.3. Ex.P.4 Original registered Rental Agreement executed by plaintiff
in favour of defendant No.1 dated 28.09.2015.
List of witnesses examined for the defendants' side: DW.1 Smt S. Vaishnavi List of documents exhibited for the defendants' side: Ex.D.1 Copy of complaint issued by DW.1 / defendant No.2 dated 02.04.2016.
Ex.D.2 Letter given by PSI, Hulimavu P.S. dated 19.02.2017.
(A. EARANNA) LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, C/C XXIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
24O.S.No.353/2017 28.11.2022:-
Judgment pronounced in open Court, vide separate judgment.
ORDER Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants is hereby partly decreed with costs.
It is directed the defendants
to vacate the suit schedule
premises and to hand over the
key of the suit schedule premises
to the plaintiff within 3 months
from the date of this judgment.
It is further directed the
defendant No.1 to pay a sum of
Rs.89,000/ to the plaintiff
towards arrears of rent with
interest at the rate of 18% p.a.,
from the date of suit till the
realization of the said amount.
The plaintiff is not entitled
for damages.
Draw a decree accordingly.
LXII ACC & SJ,
C/C XXIX ACC & SJ,
Bengaluru City.
25
O.S.No.353/2017