Bangalore District Court
Sri.B.M.Hanumanthappa vs Sri. Govinda Raju on 1 June, 2015
C.R.P. 67] Government of Karnataka
Form No. 9 TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGEMENTS IN SUITS
(Civil)
Title Sheet IN THE COURT OF THE SMALL CAUSES AT BANGALORE
for
Judgment in PRESENT: Basavaraj Chengti., B.Com.,LL.B.,(spl)
Suits XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
(R.P.91) Court of Small Causes,
BANGALORE.
Dated this the 1st day of June 2015.
S.C.No.903/2014
Plaintiffs: 1. Sri.B.M.Hanumanthappa,
S/o late B.V.Muniyappa,
Aged about 65 years,
2. Sri.B.H.Lakshminarayan,
S/o B.M.Hanumanthappa,
Aged about 44 years,
Both are residing at No.21/22,
Opp.Government School,
Byatarayanapura,
1st Main Road, Mysore Road,
Banglaore-560026.
(By pleader Sri RC)
Vs.
Defendant : Sri. Govinda Raju,
Father name not known to plaintiff's
Aged about 47 years,
No.1/1, Lakshmi Building,
G.K.Enterprises, Shop No.3.
First floor, opp. Kavika, Iyaana
Shetty layout,
Byatarayanapura,
Mysore Road, Bangalore-560026.
(By pleader Sri JCR)
SCCH-14 2 SC.No.903/2014
Date of Institution of the suit : 06.08.2014
Nature of the suit (Suit on
Pronote, suit for declaration and
Possession, suit for injunction, etc.,) : Ejectment, Arrears
& Damages
Date of the commencement of recording
of the evidence : 04.12.2014
Date on which the judgment was : 01.06.2015
Pronounced
Total duration Year/s Month/s Days
00 09 24
Additional Judge.
Note: The names and descriptions of all the plaintiff's and
defendants as stated in the plants should be mentioned.
SCCH-14 3 SC.No.903/2014
JUDGEMENT
This is a suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and for damages.
2. Brief averments of the plaint are as under:
The 2nd plaintiff is the son of the 1st plaintiff and they are co-owners of the premises bearing No.1/1, Lakshmi Building Opp.Kavika Iyaana Shetty layout, Byatarayanapura, Mysore road, Bangalore-560026. The defendant was a monthly tenant under the plaintiffs in respect of non-residential shop No.3 in first floor of the said premises on a monthly rent of Rs.1,750/-. The tenancy month is the English calendar month. The schedule premises is more than 14 square meters in area and the rate of rent is more than Rs.3,500/-. The plaintiffs caused a legal notice of termination dated 23.12.2013 through registered post to the defendant terminating the tenancy immediately after the expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice as contemplated U/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and also called upon to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the schedule premises on the expiry of 15 days from the date of service of the notice. The defendant deliberately did not receive the notice and the postal cover is returned as not claimed on 31.12.2013 and hence, there is deemed service. As a precautionary measure, the plaintiffs also affixed the notice on the schedule premises and drawn mahazar on 08.01.2014. The defendant is liable to pay Rs.10,000/- as damages for use and occupation of schedule SCCH-14 4 SC.No.903/2014 premises after expiry of notice of termination. The plaintiffs restrict their claim for damages to the tune of Rs.1,750/- per month for 7 months only. The defendant was in due of Rs.14,750/- towards arrears of rent for the month of December 2013, towards damages for use and occupation of the schedule premises for 6 months from 01.02.2014 till the date of suit and towards notice charges. The schedule premises fetch more than Rs.10,000/- per month as rent and Rs.1,00,000/- as advance.
Hence, the plaintiffs claim future damages @ Rs.10,000/- per month. Therefore, the plaintiffs have filed this suit for ejectment of the defendant from the schedule premises and sought for directing the defendant to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the schedule premises to pay arrears of rent of Rs.14,750/- and future damages @ Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of suit till the date of delivery of vacant possession of the schedule premises.
3. In pursuance of the summons, the defendant has appeared before the court through his counsel and filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint as false and contended that the suit is not maintainable, that the plaintiff No.2 has nothing to do with the schedule premises as the plaintiff No.1 has let out the same to him by receiving Rs.15,000/- as advance and for rent of Rs.1,250/- per month, that the suit is barred by Karnataka Rent Act, that the suit property measures 10' X 15' and is less than 14 Sqmtr, that the description of the schedule premises is wrong, that the Court has no jurisdiction to try the matter, that the plaintiffs have wrongly described him and SCCH-14 5 SC.No.903/2014 the schedule premises as his correct name is V.Govindaraju S/o Venkatesh and he carries his business under the name and style as GR.Enterprises. He has denied that he is carrying business under the name and style of G.K.Enterprises in the schedule premises, that the plaintiffs are the co-owners of the schedule premises and contended that initial monthly rent of Rs.1,250/- is now enhanced to Rs.1,750/-, that he is regular in paying monthly rents as and when falls due by way of cheque and also by cash, that the alleged termination notice is not sent to him and there is no legal and valid termination of tenancy, that he is not liable to pay arrears of rent, damages and notice charges, that he has paid rent upto January 2007 through cheque and has paid the subsequent rent in cash and however, the plaintiff No.1 has failed to issue any receipt in that regard, that there was no cause of action to file the suit, that the alleged notice of termination of tenancy is bad in law and is not in accordance with Sec. 106 of TP Act. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the suit with exemplary cost.
4. During the evidence, the plaintiffs have examined the plaintiff No.2 as PW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to P7. The defendant has examined himself as DW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.D1 to 3.
5. Heard the arguments. The counsel for the plaintiffs has filed written arguments and relied upon following rulings:
1. ILR 2003 (2) 1306 (Vithabai Vs United western bank Ltd),
2. AIR 1989 SC 630 (M/s Madan and co. Vs Wazir Jaivir Chand), SCCH-14 6 SC.No.903/2014
3. JT 1996 (1) SC 669 (The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Hiralal and Ors )
4. 2008 (2) Karlj 365 (Mujawar and Co. Bangalore Vs Fazlur Rehman),
5. (2005)1 SCC 705 (Atma Ram Properties P Ltd Vs Federal Motors P Ltd)
6. AIR 2006 SC 1471 (Mohinder Prasad Jain Vs Manohar Lal Jain)
7. ILR 2006 KAR 2466 (M/s maniram Industrial Enterprises and others Vs B.S.Sathyakumar)
8. 2006 (2) AIR Kar R 588 (Webbing and belting factory P ltd Vs C.M.Shashikumar )
9. 2011 (3) KarLj 657 (DB) (M.L.Shivakumar Vs N.Annappa)
10. ILR 2004 Kar 1637 (Smt.P.Vatsala Upadhya and others Vs Srikanth Keshav Raikar) I have gone through the said written arguments and rulings and perused the records.
6. Now, the points arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the plaintiffs have proved that the tenancy of the defendant is duly terminated?
2. Whether the plaintiffs have proved that the defendant is in arrears of Rs.14,750/- towards rent, damages and notice charges?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as prayed for?
4. What order or decree?
7. My answer to the above points are as follows:
POINT No.1 to 3 : In affirmative.
POINT No.4 : As per final order
for the following:
SCCH-14 7 SC.No.903/2014
REASONS
8. POINT No.1 to 3: These points are interlinked and to avoid repetition of facts and evidence, I have taken them together for common discussion. It is an admitted fact that the schedule premises is a commercial premises, that the plaintiff No.1 is the owner and the defendant is the tenant under him in the schedule premises on a monthly rent of Rs.1,250/- which is enhanced to Rs.1,750/-, that the defendant is running business under the name and style of G.R.Enterprises, that the defendant is doing Real Estate business in the schedule premises, that summons was served upon the defendant, that the schedule premises is having carpet area of 10'X15' and it has got a passage measuring 2½' width, that the schedule premises fetches a rent of Rs.2,000/- per month now.
9. PW-1 Lakshminarayana is the plaintiff No.2 and he has reiterated entire averments of the plaint and stated that the tenancy of the defendant is terminated by a quit notice, that inspite of termination of tenancy, the defendant has not vacated the schedule premises, that the defendant is in arrears of rent of Rs.1,750/-, of damages of Rs.10,500/- and of notice charges of Rs.2,500/- totally amounting to Rs.14,750/-, that the schedule premises fetches more than Rs.10,000/- per month as rent and Rs.1,00,000/- as advance. Hence, he has sought for passing of Judgment and Decree against the defendant as prayed in the suit. In cross examination, he has stated that the schedule premises is his ancestral property and it has fallen to his share, that the defendant is inducted as tenant in the schedule premises SCCH-14 8 SC.No.903/2014 by his father and there is an agreement between the defendant and his father, that as per instruction of his father, he is receiving the rent of the schedule premises from the defendant by way of cheque in the name his father, that the defendant paid rent upto November 2013, that his father told him that advance amount is Rs.20,000/-, that his father has executed an agreement authorising him to receive the rent of the schedule premises, that the schedule premises measures 10½' X 16½' and it has separate electricity connection. He has denied that the suit property measures only 10'X15' and its total area is less than 14 sqmtrs, that he has no right to file the suit, that he has sent notice to incorrect address and no notice was affixed to the schedule premises under panchanama, that the service of notice is not proper, that Ex.P5 does not bear the signature of his father, that his father never asked the defendant to vacate the schedule premises, that the suit is filed without knowledge and consent of his father.
10. DW-1 Govindaraju has deposed as per the averments of written statement and stated that his name and schedule premises are not properly described, that the alleged termination notice is not legal and not sent to correct address, that the schedule premises measures 10' X 15' and this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, that his tenancy is intact, that the plaintiffs have no right eject him from the schedule premises.
Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the suit with exemplary cost. In cross examination, he has admitted that the schedule premises is situated opposite to KAVIKA, that he occupied the SCCH-14 9 SC.No.903/2014 schedule premises as tenant in the year 2007 under a written agreement with the plaintiff No.1, that he paid Rs.15,000/- as advance and the rate of rent was Rs.1,250/- per month and it is enhanced to Rs.1,750/- per month after 2 years, that earlier, the plaintiff No.1 was receiving rent by cheque and later by way of cash, that he paid rent to the plaintiff No.1 till January 2015, but receipt or acknowledgment is not issued by the plaintiff No.1, that Comfort Travel Links and Solutions belongs to him and he started it about one year back. He has admitted that one Shanker was the tenant in the neighbouring shop and photos at Serial No.1 to 4 at Ex.D1 are not pertaining to the schedule premises and the building appearing in those photos is situated towards east of the building appearing in photos at serial No.7 and 8, that Ex.P4 summons was duly served upon him and it bears his signature. He has denied the suggestions that he has not claimed the legal notice issued by the plaintiffs, that the schedule premises measures 10.5' X 16' and it will fetch a rent of Rs.10,000/- per month now, that he is in arrears of rent of Rs.14,750/- as on the date of suit.
11. Ex.P1 is the copy of legal notice dated 23.12.2013, Ex.P2 is postal cover, Ex.P3 is Mahazar dated 08.01.2014, Ex.P4 is summons dated 22.08.2014, Ex.P5 is copy of partition deed dated 01.03.2006 between the plaintiff No.1 and his brother. Ex.P6 is Adhaar card and Ex.P7 is PAN card of the plaintiff No.2. Similarly, Ex.D2 is Adhaar card of the defendant. 8 photographs are jointly marked as Ex.D1 and CD of the same is at Ex.D3.
SCCH-14 10 SC.No.903/201412. On perusal of oral evidence of PW-1 and documents at Ex.P1 to 7, it reveals that the schedule premises has fallen to the share of the plaintiff No.1 in a partition with his brother on 01.03.2006, that the plaintiff No.2 is the son of plaintiff No.1, that the plaintiff No.1 is the owner of schedule premises and he has inducted the defendant as tenant in the schedule premises on a monthly rent of Rs.1,250/- with advance amount of Rs.20,000/-, that the rent is enhanced to Rs.1,750/- per month, that on 23.12.2013, the plaintiffs have got issued a legal notice to the defendant terminating his tenancy on the expiry of 15 days from the service of notice, that the said notice was not claimed by the defendant and the plaintiff has affixed a copy of notice on the conspicuous part of the schedule premises under a panchanama, that the defendant has not vacated the schedule premises and continued to occupy the same. On perusal of evidence of DW-1 and documents at Ex.D1 to D3, it reveals that the defendant is running his business under the name and style of G.R.Enterprises, of Comfort Travel Links and Solutions, that G.K.Enterprises is being run in a different premises in the different portion of same building. However, there is no evidence to believe the version of DW-1 that G.K.Enterprises is the business concern of one Krishne gowda. The defendant has not produced any evidence to believe that the said Krishne Gowda is the proprietor of G.K.Enterprises. PW-1 has explained that after issuance of notice, the defendant has put the board in the name of G.R.Enterprises and after filing of this suit, he has put another board in the name of Travel Solutions. There is nothing on record SCCH-14 11 SC.No.903/2014 to disbelieve the explanation given by PW-1. Only on the basis of bare suggestions, it can not be held that G.K.Enterprises is the concern of Krishne Gowda.
13. On perusal of postal cover at Ex.P2, it reveals that the notice was sent in the name of the defendant. Even if, the name of the firm is incorrect, the postman will not go to Krishne Gowda for service of notice only on the basis firm name. The cover discloses that intimation was delivered regarding notice on 30.12.2013 and 31.12.2013. It shall be deemed that the intimation was delivered to the defendant and not to said Krishne Gowda. The postman has endorsed on the notice that the addressee has not claimed the notice. The said endorsement can be treated as deemed service of notice on the defendant. Hon'ble High Court has held in ruling reported in ILR 2003 KAR 1306 as under;' CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (CENTRAL ACT NO.5 OF 1908)- ORDER 5 RULE 10 - RPAD returned with endorsement 'not claimed' whether the respondents are duly served.
Held; it is not the case of the petitioners that they are not residing in the address mentioned. The address of respondent NO.3 is the same as that of respondents nos.1 and 2. Therefore, it is clear that the party when refused to take delivery of the postal articles containing the summons etc. it is deemed to be that the notice is duly served.
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in ruling reported JT 1996 (1) SC 669 as under;
SCCH-14 12 SC.No.903/2014Notice - Service through post-office report stating that respondent obviously managed to have the notice returned with postal remarks " not available in the house", "House Locked" and "shop closed" - Held that in view of that it must be deemed that the notices have been served on the respondents.
Hon'ble High Court has held in ruling reported in ILR 2006 KAR 2466 as under;
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882- SECTIONS 108, 109 - LANDLORD TENANT RELATIONSHIP- legal notice issued -
unserved with shara "not claimed" - whether notice is served on the defendant - HELD- the postal endorsement " not claimed" is sufficient to hold that the notice is served upon the defendant, as the defendant has not proved that the endorsement made upon the unserved notice cover is not correct.
The principles laid down in the above rulings are applicable to this case. On perusal of the above rulings, it becomes clear that the quit notice issued by the plaintiffs is deemed to have been served upon the defendant. Moreover, in this case, the plaintiffs have affixed the copy of notice on the conspicuous part of schedule premises under panchanama at Ex.P3. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the contents of Ex.P3. Therefore, I hold that the quit notice is deemed to have been served upon the defendant on or before 31.12.2013. The contents of notice make it clear that the plaintiffs have terminated the tenancy of the defendant and his tenancy stood terminated on the expiry of 15 days from the date of service of notice. The defendant has disputed the right of the plaintiff No.2 to terminate his tenancy SCCH-14 13 SC.No.903/2014 and to eject him from the schedule premises, but Ex.P1 reveals that the notice was issued under the instructions of both the plaintiffs. PW-1 has deposed that his father has authorised him to collect the rent from the defendant. Though there is no corroboration to the evidence of PW-1, but there is nothing on record to disbelieve his evidence in that regard. Hon'ble High Court has held in ruling reported in 2008 (2) KLJ 365 as under;
Transfer of property Act, 1982, Section 53-A and 109 - Suit for ejectment of appellant herein on ground plaintiff had entered into an agreement of sale with landlord- plaintiff is constructive possession of suit property- Tenancy of appellant terminated U/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act- Suit of respondent - plaintiff came to be decreed- Point that arises for consideration - Whether respondent -
petitioner entitled to seek eviction of appellant pursuant to agreement of sale ? - Following execution of agreement of sale by landlord in favour of respondent-plaintiff and putting respondent in possession, thus respondent-plaintiff steps into shoes of original owner by virtue of operation of law having regard to Sections 53-A and 109 of the Transfer of Property Act-Original owner permitted respondent-plaintiff to collect rents, therefore he becomes landlord and, as such, he can very well seek relief of ejectment of tenant-Nature of possession by respondent is concerned is "Constructive possession"- this Court is of the view that finding of Trial Court that respondent - plaintiff had made out a case for eviction of appellant by virtue of respondent stepping into shoes of landlord can not be found fault with- Appeal dismissed.
SCCH-14 14 SC.No.903/2014The above ruling makes it clear that the plaintiff No.2 has become landlord of the schedule premises as he is authorised by the plaintiff No.1 to collect rent. Therefore, joint notice and joint suit filed by the plaintiffs is legal and maintainable. Even otherwise, the plaintiff No.1 being the owner of the schedule premises, is empowered to terminate the tenancy and to eject the defendant from the schedule premises. The defendant has not produced any evidence to hold that the notice at Ex.P1 is not legal and not in accordance with Sec.106 of TP.Act. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the quit notice issued by the plaintiffs is legal and valid and it has terminated the tenancy of the defendant on 15.01.2014. In spite of termination of tenancy, the defendant did not vacate the schedule premises, but continued to occupy the same. Hon'ble Supreme Court in ruling reported (2005) 1 SCC 705 has held as under;
Transfer of Property Act, 1882-S.111- termination of lease- when occurs-Right of tenant (not protected by rent control legislation) to continue in possession-Cesser of and date of cesser- Theory skin to theory of "relation back" - Liability for and measure of damages for occupation after termination of tenancy-Held, under the general law and in cases where the tenancy is governed only by provisions of TPA,1882, once the tenancy comes to an end by determination of the lease under S.111, the right of the tenant to continue in possession comes to an end and for any occupation of the premises thereafter he becomes liable to pay damages at the rate at which the landlord could have let out the premises on being vacated by the tenant- On SCCH-14 15 SC.No.903/2014 the basis of a theory akin to the theory of "relation back" on the passing of a decree of eviction, the tenant's possession would become unlawful not from the date of the decree but from the date of termination of the contractual tenancy itself- Civil Procedure code, 1908 - Or.20 R.12- Entitlement of rent or mesne profits- Property Law.
Hon'ble High Court in ruling reported in ILR 2006 KAR 2466 has held as under;
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882- SECTION 108 (q)- HANDING OVER BY VACANT POSSESSION AFTER TERMINATION OF TENANCY- Payment of damages by trial court whether proper-Held-the Trial court rightly ordered for payment of damages by the defendants to the plaintiff towards the occupation charges for the schedule premises as they have continued in unauthorized occupation in respect of the schedule premises and defendant has failed to discharge the statutory duty as provided U/s 108 (q) as the transfer of property Act by not handing over the vacant possession of the schedule premises to the plaintiff even after termination of tenancy in respect of the schedule premises.
The said rulings are aptly applicable to the facts of this case. The defendant is liable for payment of damages for use and occupation of the schedule premises even after termination of tenancy. DW-1 has admitted that the schedule premises fetches a rent of Rs.2,000/- per month now. PW-1 has deposed that the schedule premises fetches a monthly rent of Rs.10,000/-, but his evidence is not corroborated by any oral or documentary SCCH-14 16 SC.No.903/2014 evidence. Therefore, I hold that the schedule premises now fetches a rent of Rs.2,000/- per month.
14. PW-1 has deposed that the defendant has paid rent upto November 2013. DW-1 has denied that he is in arrears of rent and stated that he has paid rent in cash to the plaintiff No.1 from February 2013 till end of August 2014. Both the parties have not produced any corroboratory evidence regarding non payment and payment of rent. DW-1 has admitted that he was paying rent to the plaintiff No.1 through cheque, but he has not explained the circumstances under which he started paying rent in cash. Uncorroborated evidence of PW-1 that he paid rent for the month of December 2013 to August 2014 in cash to the plaintiff No.1 is unbelievable. He has to prove the payment of amount by producing cogent evidence. His evidence that the plaintiff No.1 has not issued any receipt or acknowledgment for the payment of amount is imaginary as no prudent will pay amount without getting any receipt or acknowledgment. Thus, the defendant has not discharged his burden to prove the payment of rent upto August 2014. Therefore, I disbelieve the evidence of DW-1 as to payment of rent to the Plaintiff No.1 in cash upto August 2014. Under the circumstances, evidence of PW-1 regarding payment of rent till November 2013 shall have to be believed. The tenancy of the defendant came to be terminated on 15.01.2014. The defendant is liable to pay rent @ Rs.1,750/- per month till termination of his tenancy. The arrears of rent till the date of termination comes to Rs.2,625/-. The suit is filed on 06.08.2014. The defendant is liable to pay damages @ Rs.2,000/-
SCCH-14 17 SC.No.903/2014per month from 15.01.2014 to 06.08.2014 totally amounting to Rs.13,500/-. The notice charges claimed by the plaintiffs is excessive. However, notice charges can be calculated @ Rs.500/-. Thus, the defendant was in arrears of Rs.16,625/- as on the date of suit, but the plaintiffs have claimed Rs.14,750/- only as arrears of rent, damages and notice charges. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled for Rs.14,750/- towards arrears of rent, arrears of damages and notice charges. The defendant is further liable to pay damages @ Rs.2,000/- per month from the date of suit till the date of delivery of vacant possession of schedule premises.
15. The defendant has contended that the schedule premises measures 10'X 15' and it is less than 14Sqmtrs, that suit is barred under the provisions of Karnataka Rent Act and this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The plaintiffs have contended that the area of the schedule premises is more than 14 sqmtrs and the property does not fall under the provisions of Karnataka Rent Act. The plaintiffs have impliedly admitted that carpet area of the schedule premises is 10' X 15' i.e., 150 Sft. DW-1 has shown ignorance regarding measurement of walls. However, he has admitted that there is passage measuring 2½' in width in front of the schedule premises. Our Hon'ble High Court has held in ruling reported in 2011 (3) KLJ 657 as under;
Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, section 2 (3)(g) - Premises having plinth area of not exceeding 14 sq.mtr is excluded from the application of the act- Plinth area is not the carpet area, it is carpet area and the area SCCH-14 18 SC.No.903/2014 covered by the walls of the premises, which constitutes ' plinth area' which is to be taken into consideration- On facts- "plinth area" of the schedule premises exceeds 14 sq.mtr-
Hence petition filed under the Act before the Court of Small causes was not maintainable.
Our Hon'ble High Court has held in ruling reported in ILR 2004 KAR 1637 as under;
KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999 - SECTIONS 2(3)(g), 70(2)(c) - Commercial premises- At the time of calculation of the area, should the frontage of the shop or the plinth area as the case may be taken into consideration for calculating whether the premises falls within 14 sqmtr. Held-The frontage of the shop certainly forms part of the shop premises and it is an appurtenant of the shop premises. Without the use of such appurtenant, the purpose and object for which the tenant has taken the shop on lease can not be realised. Therefore, for considering the size of any premises for the purpose of determining the applicability of the provisions of the act to the petition premises under Clause (g) of sub section (3) of Section 2 of the Act, essentially all appurtenants that form part of the premises which are let along with the building are to be taken into consideration.
Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 - Section 3 (i) (a) Building includes grounds appurtenant to such building and which is let along with such building or forms part of such building. Revision petitions allowed.
The above rulings are aptly applicable to the dispute on hand. The carpet area of the schedule premises is 150 sft. There SCCH-14 19 SC.No.903/2014 is a passage measuring 2½' in width to the schedule premises. If 14 sqmtrs converted into feet, it comes to 152.46 sft. After inclusion of area of 4 walls and area of the passage, the plinth area of the schedule premises will definitely be more than 14 Sqmtr i.e., more than 153 sft. Therefore, I hold that the provisions of Karnataka Rent Act are not applicable to the schedule premises and this court has got jurisdiction to try the suit.
16. The plaintiffs have succeeded to prove that the tenancy of the defendant is duly terminated and the defendant did not quit, vacate and deliver the possession of the schedule premises, that the defendant was in arrears of rent and damages amounting to Rs.14,750/- as on the date of suit. The defendant is liable to be ejected. He is liable to pay Rs.14,750/- towards said arrears and is liable to pay Rs.2,000/- per month as damages from the date of suit till delivery of vacant possession of the schedule premises. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief sought for and I answer the points in affirmative.
17. POINT No.4: In view of above discussion and findings, I proceed to pass following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs is decreed with cost.
The defendant is directed to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the schedule premises in favour of the plaintiffs within 60 days from the date of decree.
The defendant shall pay Rs.14,750/- to the plaintiffs towards arrears of rent, damages and notice charges.SCCH-14 20 SC.No.903/2014
The defendant shall pay Rs.2,000/- per month to the plaintiffs from the date of suit till the date of delivery of vacant possession of the schedule premises.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer and then corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 1st day of June, 2015) (Basavaraj Chengti) XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes, BANGALORE.SCCH-14 21 SC.No.903/2014
SCHEDULE All the piece and parcel of the shop No.3, in the first floor of the premises bearing No.1/1, Lakshmi Building G.K.Enterprises, opp Kavika Iyaana Shetty Layout, Byataranapura, Mysore Road, Bangalore - 560026 and the entire shop premises measuring east to west 10.5 feet and north to south 16 feet is bounded on the ;- East by: Shop No.2 in the premises No.1/1, West by: Shop No.4 in the premises No.1/1, North by: Road South by: Private property XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes, BANGALORE.SCCH-14 22 SC.No.903/2014
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS:
PW.1 B.H.Lakshminarayana
Defendants
DW.1 Govindraju
Ex.P1 - Copy of Legal Notice
Ex.P2 - Postal Cover
Ex.P3 - Mahazar
Ex.P4 - Notice
Ex.P5 - Certified copy of partition deed
Ex.P6 - Adhaar Card
Ex.P7 - PAN card
Defendant's
Ex.D1 - Photographs (8 in nos)
Ex.D2 - Adhaar Card
Ex.D3 - CD
XVI Addl.Judge,
Court of Small Causes,
Bangalore.