Bangalore District Court
Ravi Kumar S G vs Raghavendra Bhatta K on 4 January, 2025
KABC020472162024
IN THE COURT OF THE SMALL CAUSES AT
BENGALURU
PRESENT: SRI. KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM B.A.L., LL.M.,
XIX ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & ACJM,
BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY Of JANUARY, 2025
S.C.No. 679/2024
Plaintiff: Mr. Ravi Kumar S.G.
Aged about 69 years,
Residing at No.103,
Priyadarshini Apartment,
Shirke Quarters,
Kengeri Satellite Town,
Kengeri, Bengaluru- 560 060.
(By Sri. Bhojappa K.K., Adv.,)
V/s.
Defendant: 1. Mr. Raghavendra Bhatta K.
Aged about 48 years,
2. Mrs. Manjula M.V.
W/o. Raghavendra Bhatta K.
Aged about 47 years,
SCCH17 2 SC 679-2024
Both are residing at;
Residing at # 117, Mandira,
2nd main, Jnanabharathi,
II Block, Valagerahalli,
Kengeri Satellite Town,
Bengaluru- 560 060
(Exparte)
JUDGEMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants for recovery of sum of Rs.55,100/- .
2. The sum and substance of the plaintiff's case is that:
The plaintiff was the tenant under the defendants and entered in to rent agreement dated 19.12.2022. The defendants are being the owners of the schedule 2 BHK house property let out to plaintiff on monthly rent base for a period of 11 months on monthly rent amount of Rs.8,500/- as per the agreement. The plaintiff has paid the advance amount of Rs.70,000/- to defendants by way of online and cheque transactions as follows;
SCCH17 3 SC 679-2024
1) Rs.10,000/- through online transfer on 9.11.2022.
2) Rs.10,000/- through online transfer on 5.12.2022
3) Rs.16,000/- through cheque No. 818931 of Karnataka Bank on 5.12.2021
4) Rs.14,000/- through cheque No. 234788 of the Hotel Industrialists Co-op. Bank on 5.12.2022
5) Rs.20,000/- through cheque No. 672915 on 7.12.2022.
The said security deposit amount shall be refundable amount to plaintiff at the time of vacating of the schedule premises. The rental agreement expired on 19.11.2023. After expiry of agreement period, the plaintiff asked both the defendants to renew the rental agreement but the defendants have refused the same and asked the plaintiff to vacate the schedule premises and both the defendants promised the plaintiff that the defendants will refund the security deposit amount of Rs.70,000/- immediately after vacating the schedule premises. Accordingly the plaintiff vacated the schedule SCCH17 4 SC 679-2024 premises in the presence of defendants and also handed over the key to defendants on 24.6.2024.
After vacating the schedule premises, the plaintiff asked the advance amount as per the rental agreement, but the defendants have deliberately neglected and ignoring the plaintiff to refund the advance amount to the plaintiff. The defendants were postponing to refund the deposit amount to plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 6.7.2024, but the defendants have refused to receive the notices. Hence, the present suit.
3. The summons in this case were issued against the defendants. Both the summons returned with shara as Refused. As such by holding the service of summons as sufficient as per Order dated 18-09-2024 the defendants were placed Exparte.
4. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked documents at Ex.P-1 to 8.
SCCH17 5 SC 679-2024
5. Heard the arguments.
6. By considering the pleadings, evidence and arguments canvassed by both parties, the following points arises for consideration:
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he has paid Rs.70,000/- to the defendants towards the refundable security deposit of the rented premises ?
2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants without any justiciable reason have not returned the refundable security deposit of Rs.70,000/- to the plaintiff ?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs.55,100/-from the defendant with the interest @ 18% p.a.?
4) What order or decree?
7. My findings on the above points are as under;
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Point No.2 : In the Affirmative,
Point No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative,
Point No.4 : As per final orders for
the following.-
SCCH17 6 SC 679-2024
REASONS
8. Point no.1 & 2 :
The point No.1 & 2 are inter linked with each other regarding the payment made by the plaintiff to the defendants towards the security deposit of the rented premises and without any justiciable reasons the defendants failed to repay the security deposit amount which was given by the plaintiff.
9. It is very important to note that the plaintiff and defendant are landlord and tenant the same is pleaded by the plaintiff. The defendants are placed Exparte and have not appeared before this court by denying the allegations of plaintiff, hence nothing is available on record to disbelieve the contention of the plaintiff that he is the tenant under the defendants landlord.
10. Thereby the said jural relationship is admitted by the defendant. The handing over of the possession of SCCH17 7 SC 679-2024 the premises by the plaintiff on 24-06-2024 in the presence of defendant is also not denied. The execution of Ex.P.1 rental agreement dated 19-12-2022 evidentiates the rate of rent at the time of inception of the tenancy by paying the security deposit of Rs.70,000/- and fixing the rent as Rs.8,500/- p.m. The contents of Ex.P1 document is also not disputed by the defendants.
11. The plaintiff to prove the alleged payment of Rs.70,000/- to the defendants as a refundable security deposits examined himself as PW.1 and produced Ex.P2 to P3 documents ie., Bank statement. On careful perusal of the Ex.P2 it supports the case of the plaintiff regarding the payment made by the plaintiff towards the security deposit. The bank statement produced at Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 reveals that Rs.10,000/- through online transfer on 9.11.2022 to defendant No.2 Smt Manjula, Rs.10,000/- through online transfer on 5.12.2022 to the defendant No.2 Smt Manjula, Rs.16,000/- through cheque No. 818931 of Karnataka Bank on 5.12.2021, SCCH17 8 SC 679-2024 Rs.14,000/- through cheque No. 234788 of the Hotel Industrialists Co-op. Bank on 5.12.2022 and Rs.20,000/- through cheque No. 672915 on 7.12.2022.
12. These documents clearly establishes that the defendant paid Rs.70,000/- to the defendant No.2 towards refundable security deposit.
13. The main lis in the case is whether the defendants are justifiable in deducting Rs.70,000/- has to be looked in to. In this regard the plaintiff in the plaint and in his evidence affidavit pleaded that he has paid rent, electricity, water and maintenance charges. The defendants neither appeared nor contested the matter by denying the said payments made under Ex.P2 & P3 bank documents. The defendants not made any single effort to show that they have not received the cash deposit of Rs.70,000/- as alleged by the plaintiff. The defendants neither denied the execution of the rent SCCH17 9 SC 679-2024 agreement as per Ex.P1. Thus there is nothing available on record to disbelieve the case of the petitioner.
14. Thus the payment of Rs.70,000/- as security deposit by the defendants stands unchallenged before this court.
15. The next point for consideration that whether the defendants without any justifiable reasons have not returned the refundable security deposit of Rs.70,000/- to the plaintiff or not has to be verified. In this regard the PW.1 pleaded in his chief examination that even after handing over of the possession on 26-04-2024 the defendants not paid the security deposit. The said statement made by the plaintiff on oath is not denied by the defendants as they are placed Exparte. Before filing of the present case the plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendants as per Ex.P4 which came to be returned unserved with the reason of Refused. The said return covers were produced and marked as Ex.P7 & P8 which SCCH17 10 SC 679-2024 evidentiates that the defendants refused to receive the notice. After the filing of this case the summons also returned as Refused. This shows that the defendants have no favourable defence to deny the case of the plaintiff.
16. The tenancy of the plaintiff is based on Ex.P1 which evidentiates the payment of Rs.70,000/- advance and rent of Rs.8,500/- p.m. As per the condition mentioned in condition No.1 of Ex.P1 the said Rs.70,000/- is a refundable security deposit. Thus when the agreement marked at Ex.P1 itself shows that the Rs.70,000/- is refundable security deposit, the defendants are liable to repay the said amount.
17. After institution of the suit, the summons were refused by the defendants and the defendants does not chosen to appear and deny the case and evidence of plaintiff. Thus, the oral and documentary evidence of SCCH17 11 SC 679-2024 plaintiff has not been challenged by defendants either by adducing evidence or by cross examining the P.W.1.
18. Further, on considering all these facts in background, the Ex.P1 to 8 being the documentary evidence, the defendants have not came up with any documents or oral testimony to challenge the contentions of plaintiff. The defendants have not made minimum effort to deny the transaction. In this situation, the adverse inference can be drawn against the defendants U/s. 114 (g) of Indian Evidence Act. In the Ruling reported in AIR 1999 SC 1441 (Vidyadar V/s. Mankikao and another), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as follows;
"Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct"
19. If at all the defendant has not agreed to return the advance amount of Rs.70,000/-, why they have SCCH17 12 SC 679-2024 mentioned in Ex.P1 agreement that the said Rs.70,000/- is refundable security deposit. Ex.P1 is executed by both defendant No.1 & 2 as owners. As such they are bound to the conditions mentioned in Ex.P1. The defendants are not chosen to file written statement by denying the allegations and kept quite without contesting the case. Thus an inference could be drawn that the defendants without any reasons have not repaid the security deposit. The oral and documentary evidence of plaintiff has not been challenged by defendants either by adducing evidence or by cross examining the P.W.1.
20. Hence, there are no reasons to discard the evidence of plaintiff. The evidence specifically reveals that, the defendants received Rs.70,000/- refundable security deposit and they have not returend the same even after vacating of the premises by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the point No.1 & 2 are answered in the affirmative.
SCCH17 13 SC 679-2024
21. Point No.3 : As per the reasons discussed
in point No.1 & 2 it is already held that the defendants are not justifiable in with holding the amount of Rs.70,000/- as refundable security deposit. No grounds are made out by the defendants to show that why the plaintiff is not entitled for the refund of security deposit. As per condition No.7 & 9 mentioned in Ex.P1 rent agreement the plaintiff being the tenant liable to pay electricity, motor charge, water charge and also liable to pay the paining cost while vacating the house.
22. In this regard the plaintiff himself pleaded that there was one month due of rent while vacating the premises for which Rs.8,500/- is liable to be deducted in the refundable security deposit and Rs.5,000/- towards the painting charges and Rs.1,000/- for electricity and water charges for the month of May and June 2024. The defendants neither appeared nor produced any evidence by showing that they are entitled for the more money to be deducted in this refundable security deposits under SCCH17 14 SC 679-2024 the head of painting, arrears of rent or under the head of electricity and water bills. As such the statement of the plaintiff in this regard has to be accepted in the absence of contrary evidence.
Refundable Security deposit Rs.70,000/-
Painting charges Rs. 5,000/-
Arrears of rent for the period of Rs. 8,500/- 24-06-2024 Water and electricity charges for Rs. 1,000/- the month of May and June 2024 Balance payable by the defendants Rs.55,500/-
23. In this case the plaintiff filed the suit for the recovery of Rs.55,100/- and paid the court fee for the said amount only. Hence the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.55,100/- from the defendants.
24. The plaintiff pleaded for the recovery of the amount with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. But no evidence is placed to show that he is entitle for the rate of interest at the rate of 18% p.a. No written agreement in this regard is in existence between the parties.
SCCH17 15 SC 679-2024 Section 34 of C.P.C. states as follows:
"(1) Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate not exceeding six per cent, per annum as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum from] the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit:
Provided that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed six per cent, per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalized banks in relation to commercial transactions.
Explanation I.-In this sub-section, "nationalized bank" means a corresponding new bank as defined in the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 (5 of 1970).
Explanation II.-For the purposes of this section, a transaction is a commercial transaction, if it is connected with the SCCH17 16 SC 679-2024 industry, trade or business of the party incurring the liability.
(2) Where such a decree is silent with respect to the payment of further interest on such principal sum from the date of the decree to the date of payment or other earlier date, the Court shall be deemed to have refused such interest, and a separate suit therefore shall not lie."
25. In this case the plaintiff has taken the premises for rent and the defendants were the owner of the premises. In respect of the plaintiff and defendants they were tenant and landlords in respect of residential premises and the said transaction comes under the purview of the Sec.34 of CPC, as such the plaintiff is entitled for the interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Hence, the point No. 3 is answered in partly affirmative.
26. Point no.4: In the result, I proceed to pass the following ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff is partly decreed with costs.
SCCH17 17 SC 679-2024 The plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.55,100/- (Rupees Fifty Five thousand one hundred only) from the defendants. Further the plaintiff is entitled for interest @ 6% p.a. on the decreetal amount from the date of vacating the premises ie., dated 24-06-2024 till the date of realisation of entire decreetal amount.
The defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the decreetal amount along with interest and also hereby directed to pay the decreetal amount within two months from the date of decree.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in the Open court, this the 04th day January, 2025) Digitally signed by KANCHI KANCHI MAYANNA MAYANNA GOUTAM Date: 2025.01.09 15:04:22 GOUTAM +0530 (KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM) XIX ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & ACJM, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES & DOCUMENTS EXAMINED & MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF & defendant:
FOR PLAINTIFF:
Pw.1: Ravi Kumar S.G. SCCH17 18 SC 679-2024 DOCUMENTS: Ex.P.1: Rent agreement
Ex.P.2 & 3: Bank statement and pass book Ex.P4 Office copy of legal notice Ex.P5 & 6 Postal receipts Ex.P7 & 8 RPAD covers FOR defendant/s:
- NONE-
DOCUMENTS:
- NIL -Digitally signed by
KANCHI KANCHI MAYANNA
MAYANNA GOUTAM
Date: 2025.01.09 15:04:09
GOUTAM +0530
(KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM)
XIX ADDL.JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & ACJM,
BENGALURU.