Bangalore District Court
) Mohamme Ghouse Navi vs Preetham S/O Smt.K.Marutham on 26 August, 2017
IN THE COURT OF LXV ADDL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE; BANGALORE CITY
(CCH.NO 66)
PRESENT
SRI.PATIL MOHANKUMAR BHEEMANAGOUDA
B.Com.,LL.B.,(Spl)
LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S.No.6794/2016
Dated this the 26th day of August, 2017
PLAINTIFFS: 1) Mohamme Ghouse Navi
S/o Ghulam Mohiuddin, Aged
about 73 years.
2) Smt.Ameena Begum
W/o Mohammed Ghouse Nadvi,
-Vs- Aged about 65 years.
Both are residing at No.2039, West
Sycamore Street, San Bernardino,
California, USA,
Duly reptd by their GPA holder
Nafees Ahmed, S/o Nasir Ahmed, R/at
No.51, 1st Floor, Moore Road, Frazer
Town, Bengaluru.
[By Sri S.Krishnaswamy, Adv.]
DEFENDANT: Preetham S/o Smt.K.Marutham
Kuppan and L.Kuppan, Apartment
No.03, 13th Floor, Platinum City, D
Block, HMT Road, Yeshwanthpura,
Bengaluru.
(Defendant: Ex-parte)
2 O.S.No.6794/2016
Date of Institution 21.9.2016
Nature of the suit Permanent Injunction
Date of recording 18.4.2017
of evidence
Date of Judgment 26.08.2017
Total Duration Days Months Years
05 11 00
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs have filed this suit against defendant, seeking relief of permanent injunction, to restrain the defendant or anybody under them from entering suit schedule property.
2. Brief facts of plaintiffs' case are as follows:
One Smt.K.Marutham Kuppan, i.e. mother of defendant is the tenant of the schedule property. The plaintiff had filed suit in O.S.No.4175/2016, before this court for relief of recovery of arrears of rent and also ejectment from the suit schedule property. The tenant Smt.K.Marutham Kuppan has failed to pay arrears of rent, since the date of induction as tenant. The plaintiffs are 3 O.S.No.6794/2016 senior citizens and they have been badly treated by the tenant, when they requested her to pay arrears of rent. The plaintiffs further submit that, on several occasions when the plaintiffs or their power of attorney holder approached the tenant, this defendant used to come forward and abuse the power of attorney holder. The defendant on several occasion has driven out the plaintiff and their power of attorney holder. Being fed up with the act of tenant and defendant, they were constrained to file suit of ejectment. After coming to know of the said suit, the defendant has started causing obstruction to the plaintiffs and other neighbours. The defendant is causing nuisance to the plaintiffs and other residents of the said apartments. Hence, plaintiffs pray for granting injunction against the defendant.
3. Though the suit summons was duly served, the defendant remained exparte. The plaintiffs in support of their contentions, got examined one witness as PW1 and produced the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and closed their side.
4 O.S.No.6794/2016
4. Heard arguments. I have perused the available materials on record.
5. Now the points that arise for my consideration are:
1) Whether the suit is to be decreed, as prayed?
2) What Decree or order?
6. My answer to the above points are:
Issue No.1 :- Partly Affirmative. Issue No.2 :- As per final order For the following:
REASONS
7. POINT NO.1: This suit is filed by the plaintiffs, who are the residents of United State of America and they have filed this suit through their GPA holder. The plaintiffs are the owners of the one apartment i.e. schedule property in the Platinum City Apartments. Situated in Yeshwanthpura, Bengaluru. The plaintiffs have field this suit against the defendant. The General Power of Attorney 5 O.S.No.6794/2016 holder of plaintiffs has got examined as PW1 and he has reiterated the facts stated in the affidavit.
8. PW1 states that One Smt.K.Marutham Kuppan, i.e. the mother of defendant is the tenant of the schedule property. The plaintiff had filed suit in O.S.No.4175/2016, before this court for relief of recovery of arrears of rent and also ejectment of the tenant from the suit schedule property. The tenant Smt.K.Marutham Kuppan has failed to pay the rent, since the date of induction as tenant. The plaintiffs are senior citizens and they have been badly treated by the tenant, when they requested her to pay arrears of rent. PW1 further submits that, on several occasions when the plaintiffs or their power of attorney holder approached the tenant, this defendant used to come forward and abuse them and create nuisance. The defendant on several occasions, has driven out the plaintiff and their power of attorney holder. Being fed up with the act of tenant and the defendant, they were constrained to file suit for ejectment. After coming to know of the said 6 O.S.No.6794/2016 suit, the defendant has stated causing obstruction to the plaintiffs and other neighbours. PW1 further submits that, the defendant had set fire to the Milk Bags hanging to the doors of the flats. The defendant is causing nuisance to the plaintiffs and other residents of the said apartments. PW1 in support of his contention has produced the following documents. Ex.P.1 is the GPA executed by the owners of the apartment in favour of present PW1. Ex.P.2 is the letter addressed to the police inspector, Yeshwanthpura PS dt.16.11.2015. On perusal of this document, it is observed that, the Secretary of the Platinum City Resident Forum has lodged a complaint with regard to the incident of fire. They have alleged that some miscreants had set fire to the Milk Bags hanging to the doors of the flats. Ex.P.3 is also another complaint to the police dt.5.7.2016. They have alleged that another fire accident and mischief was caused by the present defendant.
9. Though the suit summons was duly served, the defendant has remained exparte. Hence, the evidence of PW1 remained unchallenged. It is the specific case of the 7 O.S.No.6794/2016 plaintiff that, they are the owners of the flat, in Platinum City Apartment, Yeshwanthpura, Bengaluru. Similarly, the mother of defendant by name Smt.K.Marutham Kuppan, is tenant of apartment No.3 of Platinum city, D block. The plaintiffs are the owners of the said flat and they have inducted the mother of the defendant as tenant. However, the tenant has failed to pay the arrears of rent. Hence, they have filed a suit for ejectment, which is pending before the City Civil Court in O.S.No.4175/2016. Such being the state of affairs, the defendant who is son of the tenant is causing obstruction and indulging in harmful activities. The plaintiffs have alleged that the defendant is causing fire hazards and mischief and several such incidents have taken place on 14.11.2015, 16.11.2015 and 5.7.2016. In this regard, they have also lodged complaint. The contentions of the plaintiffs are corroborated by the documents at Ex.P.2 and Ex.P3. They are the complaints lodged before Yeshwanthpura police.
8 O.S.No.6794/2016
10. However, it is pertinent to note that, the plaintiffs have filed this suit for permanent injunction and prayer sought by them, is to restrain the defendant from entering premises bearing flat No.D/13/3 of D block, of platinum city apartments. Yeshwanthpura, Bengaluru. However, the relief claimed by the plaintiffs canot be granted. It is admitted fact that, the mother of the defendant is a tenant of the said flat. Naturally the defendant can reside in this flat. Hence, such relief cannot be claimed. If at all the defendant was going to some one else's flat and causing obstruction, then such relief could have been granted. The court cannot restrain a person from entering his or his mother's flat. More over the tenant i.e. the mother of defendant is also not having any objections about the defendant. Hence he cannot be restrained from entering her apartment.
11. However, it is well settled preposition of law that, looking to the plaint averments, the relief can be moulded. On careful perusal of the plaint averments and 9 O.S.No.6794/2016 evidence of PW1, it is observed that, the defendant is causing nuisance by way of fire hazards, mischief etc. in the apartment complex. PW1 has contended that, some miscreants had set fire to the milk bags hanging on the doors. The contentions taken up by the plaintiff/PW1 have totally remained unchallenged. Hence, on careful perusal of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiffs, I am of the opinion that, plaintiff has proved that defendant is causing obstruction to the plaintiffs and other residents of the said apartments block. Hence, the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief permanent injunction against the defendant from causing obstruction to the plaintiff. Hence, I am of the opinion that prayer of the plaintiff has to be moulded and relief is to be given. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 'Partly in the Affirmative'.
12. Point No:2: In view of my findings above points, I proceed to pass the following:
10 O.S.No.6794/2016
ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs is hereby partly decreed with costs.
The defendant is hereby restrained by way of permanent injunction, from causing any sort of nuisance or obstruction in the schedule property.
Draw decree accordingly.
*** (Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day of August, 2017).
(PATIL MOHANKUMAR BHEEMANAGOUDA) LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.11 O.S.No.6794/2016
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF:
PW.1 : Nafees Ahmed LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANT:
- Nil -
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 : Authorization letter Ex.P.2 : Complaint dt.14.11.2015 Ex.P.3 : Complaint dt.5.7.2016
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT:
- Nil -
(PATIL MOHANKUMAR BHEEMANAGOUDA) LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.12 O.S.No.6794/2016