Bangalore District Court
Smt.N.Lakshmidevi vs Mr.Syed Omer on 18 December, 2015
Before the Court of XXIII Additional Small Causes Judge at
Bangalore
(SCCH-25)
Present:Sri.DHARMAGIRI RAMASWAMY
M.A., LL.M.
XXIII Additional Small Causes Judge,
Bangalore.
Dated this the 17th day of December 2015
AMENDED JUDGMENT
Dated this the 27th day of January 2016
S.C.No.1204/2015
Plaintiff/s: 1.Smt.N.Lakshmidevi,
D/o Late C.Narasimhaiah,
W/o Late K.B.Balachandra.
2. Smt.N.Saroja,
D/o Late C.Narasimhaiah,
W/o Late B.K.Anantharam.
3. Smt.N.Kamala,
D/o Late C.Narasimhaiah,
W/o Late A.L.Ramakrishna.
4. Sri.C.Ahsok Kumar,
S/o Late Chowdappa,
S/o Late Narasamma.
5. Smt.Jayalakshmi,
D/o Late Puttarajappa,
And Late N.Lakshminarasamma.
6. Sri.Ramesh,
2 SC 1204/2015
SCCH-25
S/o Late Puttarajappa,
And Late N.Lakshminarasamma.
7. Smt.Sunitha,
W/o Late Bhaskar
All are majors.
Rep.by their GPA Holder
Sri.Ramu Bhojanna,
Aged about 57 years,
S/o Late K.B.Balachandra,
No.44, Nanjappa Road,
Shanthinagar,
Bangalore - 560 027.
Defendant/s: Mr.Syed Omer
S/o. Late Syed Hussain,
Iron and Steel Traders,
Two portions one RCC Roofed godown
& one Iron Sheet Shed,
# 16/1, 4th Cross, Narasimharaja Road,
(Nala Road, Kumbaragundi)
Bangalore - 560 002.
Date of institution of the suit: 07-10-2015
Nature of the suit (suit on pronote,
suit for declaration and possession
suit for injunction etc.): Ejectment
Date of commencement of
recording of the evidence: 17.12.2015
Date on which the judgment
is pronounced : 17-12-2015
Total duration: Years Month/s Days
00 02 10
XXIII Addl.Judge
3 SC 1204/2015
SCCH-25
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking ejection from the suit property and sought for possession of the suit property.
2. The plaint averments briefly stated as follows:
The subject matter of the property bearing No.16/1, 4th Cross, Narasimharaja Road, (Nala Road, Kumbaragundi) Division, No.36, PID No.47-61-16/1, Bangalore - 560 002. The Defendant occupied two portions i.e., one godown RCC roofing with electricity, measuring 700 Sq.Ft bounded on:
East by : SJP Police Station,
West by : Compound of land lords,
North by : Other premises belongs to land lord, South by : Road.
And another Iron Sheet shed without electricity Approximately measuring 400 Sq. feet bounded on: East by Landlords compound, west by portion let out to tenant Abdul Salam, North by Iron sheet shed let out to tenant Abdul Salam and South by road. 4 SC 1204/2015
SCCH-25 Non residential premises herein after called as a suit property. Plaintiffs are the land lord over the suit property. They acquired the land lord through a decree in OS No.4636/2007, FDP bearing No.117/2013. The Defendant is a tenant over the suit property. ON 06.10.2014 GPA of the Plaintiff issued a notice to the Defendant demanding execution of the rent agreement as well as arrears of the rent. On 31.08.2015 again the Plaintiff issued ejectment notice. Thereafter the Defendant did not pay the rent and issued a reply notice then the Plaintiff issued a rejoinder to the Defendant and requirement of the suit schedule property for the uses of occupation of the Plaintiff for bonafied purpose. The Defendant did not vacate the suit property. The Plaintiff terminated the tenancy on 30.09.2015. Thereafter the Defendant is in illegal possession over the suit property. There is no arrears of rent. The Defendant is a chronic defaulter. The suit property required for bonafied use and enjoyment of 5 SC 1204/2015 SCCH-25 the Plaintiff and prayed for decree the suit as prayed for.
The summons was ordered, the Accused did not appeared before this court and placed ex-parte and proceed as per law.
3. The Plaintiff to prove their case, examined their GPA as PW.1 and got marked 13 documents under Exs.P.1 to P.13 and closed their side. The Defendant did not appear before this court and put forth for their say and placed ex-parte.
4. Heard.
5. On the above pleadings the following points that arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the Plaintiff proves to decree the suit as prayed for?
2. What judgment or decree?
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Plaintiff/s and the Defendant/s.
6. My findings on the above points are as under: 6 SC 1204/2015
SCCH-25 Point No.1: In the affirmative.
Point No.2: As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
7. Point No.1:
PW.1 who is the GPA of the Plaintiff stated in his examination-in-chief that, The subject matter of the property bearing No.16/1, 4th Cross, Narasimharaja Road, (Nala Road, Kumbaragundi) Division, No.36, PID No.47-61-16/1, Bangalore - 560 002. The Defendant occupied two portions i.e., one godown RCC roofing with electricity, measuring 700 Sq.Ft bounded on:
East by : SJP Police Station, West by : Compound of land lords, North by : Other premises belongs to land lord, South by : Road.
And another Iron Sheet shed without electricity Approximately measuring 400 Sq. feet bounded on: East by Landlords compound, west by portion let out to tenant Abdul Salam, North by Iron sheet shed let out to tenant Abdul Salam and South by road.7 SC 1204/2015
SCCH-25 Non residential premises herein after called as a suit property. Plaintiffs are the land lord over the suit property. They acquired the land lord through a decree in OS No.4636/2007, FDP bearing No.117/2013. The Defendant is a tenant over the suit property. On 06.10.2014 GPA of the Plaintiff issued a notice to the Defendant demanding execution of the rent agreement as well as arrears of the rent. On 31.08.2015 again the Plaintiff issued ejectment notice. Thereafter the Defendant did not pay the rent and issued a reply notice then the Plaintiff issued a rejoinder to the Defendant and requirement of the suit schedule property for the uses of occupation of the Plaintiff for bonafied purpose. The Defendant did not vacate the suit property. The Plaintiff terminated the tenancy on 30.09.2015. Thereafter the Defendant is in illegal possession over the suit property. There is no arrears of rent. The Defendant is a chronic defaulter. The suit property required for bonafide use and enjoyment of 8 SC 1204/2015 SCCH-25 the Plaintiff and prayed for decree the suit as prayed for.
The summons was ordered, the Accused did not appeared before this court and placed ex-parte and proceed as per law.
8. In support of their oral evidence they have filed 13 documents under Exs.P.1 to P.13. Ex.P.1 is the partition deed dated 20.08.2014, Ex.P.2 is the GPA, Ex.P.3 is the Khatha certificate, Ex.P.4 is the Office copy of attornment notice 06.10.2014, Ex.P.5 is the Postal receipt for having sent attornment notice, Ex.P.6 is the Postal acknowledgment, Ex.P.7 is the Office copy of ejectment notice dated 31.08.2015, Ex.P.8 Postal receipt for having posted ejectment notice, Ex.P.9 is the postal acknowledgment, Ex.P.10 is the original Defendant reply notice dated 28.09.2015 got sent by the Defendant, Ex.P.11 is the rejoinder dated 03.08.2015 to the reply notice, Ex.P.12 is the postal receipt for having sent rejoinder under RPAD, Ex.P.13 is the Bank Pass Book.
9 SC 1204/2015
SCCH-25
9. On perusal of the Ex.P.1 partition deed reveals that, the Plaintiffs are the land lord over the suit property as per the decree in OS 4636/2007. Ex.P.13 reveals that, the Defendant paid rent by way of cheque. It clearly shows that, the Defendant was a tenant over the suit property. Exs.P.7 & P.11 reveals that, notice is issued by the Plaintiff as per section 106 of T.P. Act., for ejectment. The Plaintiff proves that, the Plaintiff is a land lord, the Defendant is a tenant over the suit property. The suit schedule property is required for bonafied use and enjoyment of the Plaintiff. The Defendant did not appeared before this court and to defend their case. Therefore I have no option to accept the evidence of the PW.1. Hence I have answered Point No.1 in the affirmative. oral and documentary evidence, the Plaintiff is a land lord, the Defendant is the tenant over the suit property. Notice was issued to the Defendant as per section 206 of T.P.Act. The Defendant did not vacate the suit property in spite of notice served. There is no evidence on record 10 SC 1204/2015 SCCH-25 to show that, the Defendant paid the rent, as on today he is a chronic defaulter. The suit property is required for bona-fide use and occupation of the Plaintiff. The Defendant placed ex-party. For the above said reasons I have answered Point No.1 in the affirmative.
10. Point No.2:
In view of the finding on the above said point the suit of plaintiff is succeeded. As a result I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed. The Defendant is hereby directed to vacate the suit premises and handover the same to the Plaintiff within 60 days from the date of decree. No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer on line, revised, corrected and then pronounced in the open court this the 27th day of January 2016.) (DHARMAGIRI RAMASWAMY) XXIII Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore.
.........11 SC 1204/2015
SCCH-25 ANNEXURE List of the witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff:
P.W.1 Ramu Bhojanna List of the documents exhibited on behalf of plaintiff:
Ex.P.1: Partition Deed dated 20.08.2014 Ex.P.2: Original GPA Ex.P.3: Khatha Certificate Ex.P.4 Office copy of Attornment notice 06.10.2014 Ex.P.5 Postal receipt for having sent attornment notice Ex.P.6 Post acknowledgment Ex.P.7 Office copy of ejectment notice dated 31.08.2015 Ex.P.8 Postal receipt for having posted ejectment notice Ex.P.9 Postal acknowledgment Ex.P.10 Original Defendant reply notice dated 28.09.2015 Ex.P.11 Rejoinder dated 03.08.2015 to reply notice Ex.P.12 Postal receipt for having sent rejoinder under RPAD Ex.P.13 Pass book.
List of the witnesses examined on behalf of defendants:
Nil 12 SC 1204/2015 SCCH-25 List of the documents exhibited on behalf of defendants:
Nil (DHARMAGIRI RAMASWAMY) XXIII Addl.Small Causes Judge, Bangalore.