Bangalore District Court
M/S R.K.Raju Dwelling Private vs Smt.Sampa Sen on 8 June, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE XX ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE(CCH.32), BANGALORE CITY
Present:
Sri. V.B.Suryavanshi,B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl.),
XX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore
DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF JUNE, 2017
O.S.No.298/2015
Plaintiff: M/s R.K.Raju Dwelling Private
Ltd., Off/at No.95, 3rd Main,
G.D.Park Extension, Opp to Stella
Mary's Convent, Vyalikaval,
Bangalore - 560 003.
Represented by its Director,
Sri Nagaraj, S/o Muniyappa,
Aged about 48 years,
Address as above
(By Sri M.N.Nehru,Adv)
/VS/
Defendant: Smt.Sampa Sen,
D/o Late Sisir,
Aged about 32 years,
R/at 'Ganesha Residency',
Apartment No.102, I Floor,
Property No.55, 13th Cross,
4th Main, Malleshwaram,
Bangalore-560 003
(By Sri J.S.Dinesh,Adv.)
Date of Institution of the 07.01.2015
suit
Nature of the suit Ejectment
Date of commencement
01.04.2016
of recording of evidence
Date on which Judgment 08.06.2017
pronounced
Total Duration Years Months Days
02 05 01
2 O.S.298/2015
JUDGEMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for ejectment.
2. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 and the plaintiff company authorized its Director Sri Nagaraj to file suit. The plaintiff company is the owner of the suit schedule property and same was let out to the defendant through agreement of rent on 19.08.2010 and accordingly, the Rental agreement was executed and rent was fixed at Rs.15,000/- per month.
2(a). The defendant has violated the terms and conditions of the Rental agreement Dt.19.08.2010 accordingly, the plaintiff has filed the original suit vide No.394/2011 before the CCH-26 for ejectment against the defendant and the defendant was placed exparte. Thereafter, the defendant has demanded Rs.5,00,000/- to vacate the suit schedule premises and the plaintiff has paid amount of Rs.5,00,000/- through cheque after monetary settlement, the defendant has vacated 3 O.S.298/2015 and handed key of the suit schedule premises to the plaintiff and thereafter, the suit was came to be dismissed, as not pressed.
2(b). Immediately, after withdrawal of the suit, the defendant once again approached the plaintiff to allow her to reside temporarily in the suit schedule premises, since she is looking for new residential premises for rent in the same locality and further she gave assurance that she will vacate the suit schedule premises without giving any trouble to the plaintiff and also agreed to pay monthly rent of Rs.15,000/- as agreed in the earlier agreement and she has not paid any advance accordingly, both are entered into an oral agreement. But, the defendant has even failed to pay the rents nor vacated the suit schedule premises and the plaintiff has requested the defendant to vacate the suit schedule premises and demanded for arrears of rent. The defendant has not complied the same, hence the plaintiff has terminated the tenancy of the defendant by issuing a legal notice on 02.12.2014 terminating the tenancy created in favour of the 4 O.S.298/2015 defendant and also calling upon the defendant to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the plaintiff within 15 days, but, the legal notice was not claimed by the defendant, hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit against the defendant for ejectment.
3. On the contrary, the defendant has filed her written statement contending that, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and the plaintiff company has not given any authorisation to the plaintiff and it is a created document.
3(a). It is the specific defence of the defendant that, the suit schedule premises is belongs to her husband and so called Director is not authorized person to question regarding the title or the ownership of the suit schedule premises and she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule premises and she is the legal heir of her deceased husband.
3(c). The defendant has categorically denied the execution of the Rental agreement and there is no 5 O.S.298/2015 relationship of tenant and owner between the defendant and the plaintiff. The defendant is the wife of R.K.Raju, who is none other than the owner of the plaintiff company. Moreover, Mr.Nagaraj is none other than good friend of her husband and he was only assisting in the business of the late husband of the defendant and moreover, the defendant has denied filing of O.S.394/2011 for ejectment against her.
3(d). The defendant became the absolute owner of the suit schedule premises by virtue of inheritance and the husband of the defendant died on 20.01.2015 who had executed 'Will' in her favour and she is the owner of the schedule property, hence, prays for dismissal of the suit.
4. Based on the pleadings of the rival parties, the following issues have been framed by the court on 04.11.2015:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is a tenant under him and the defendant agree to pay rent of Rs.15,000/- per month?6 O.S.298/2015
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendant has not paid the rent?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the vacant possession of the suit schedule property?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs sought for?
5. What order or decree?
5. The Director of the plaintiff company has been examined as PW.1 and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 and closed its side. On behalf of the defendant, no evidence is produced.
6. Heard arguments.
7. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 - In the Affirmative Issue No.2 - In the Affirmative Issue No.3 - In the Affirmative Issue No.4 - In the Affirmative Issue No.5 - As per order for the bellows mentioned REASONS
8. Issue Nos.1 to 3: Since, these issues being interconnected and interlinked to each other, to avoid 7 O.S.298/2015 repetition of facts and evidence, I have taken these issues together for common discussion.
9. This is the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for ejectment.
10. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff is the company incorporated under the Companies act 1956 and the defendant has taken the suit schedule premises on rent by virtue of the Rental agreement Dt.19.08.2010 for a monthly rent of Rs.15,000/-. Since, the defendant has violated the terms and conditions of the Rental agreement Dt.19.08.2010 and accordingly, the plaintiff has filed the original suit vide No.394/2011 and same was settled by paying Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendant and accordingly, the suit was dismissed as settled out of court. Thereafter, the defendant again requested the plaintiff to allow her to reside temporarily in the suit schedule premises with the oral agreement the plaintiff has allowed the defendant to reside in the suit schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs.15,000/- 8 O.S.298/2015 and the defendant has not paid rent, hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file suit against the defendant for ejectment.
11. On the contrary, the defendant has filed written statement and contended that, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. It is the defence of the defendant that, the suit schedule premises is belongs to her husband and so called Director is not authorized person and she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule premises and she is the legal heir of her deceased husband and there is no relationship of tenant and owner between them and the defendant became the absolute owner of the suit schedule premises by virtue of inheritance and the husband of the defendant died on 20.01.2015 who had executed 'Will' in her favour and she is the owner of the schedule property, hence, prays for dismissal of the suit.
12. The Director of the plaintiff company has been examined as PW.1 and he has reiterated the 9 O.S.298/2015 contents of the plaint averments in his oral testimony and he has produced Ex.P1 to P13.
13. Ex.P1 is the Board resolution, Ex.P2 is the Authorisation letter, Ex.P3 is the Rental agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant in respect of the suit schedule premises, Ex.P4 is the certified copy of the order sheet in O.S.394/2011 and Ex.P5 is the certified copy of the of the statement of account of the Karnataka Bank for having paid amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendant.
14. So, on perusal of the evidence of PW.1 and also on perusal of the Ex.P3 and P4 wherein by virtue of the Ex.P3, the plaintiff was constrained to file suit against the defendant in O.S.394/2011 for ejectment and said suit was came to be withdrawn as not pressed. Moreover, the plaintiff has contended that, since the defendant has demanded Rs.5,00,000/- and accordingly, they have paid Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendant and on perusal of the statement of account as per Ex.P5, it clearly goes to show that, Rs.5,00,000/- was paid to the defendant. 10 O.S.298/2015
15. It is very significant to note that, soon after withdrawal of the suit, the defendant again requested the plaintiff to allow her to reside in the said suit schedule property for temporary period and accordingly, there was an oral agreement taken place between the plaintiff and the defendant and the defendant was allowed to reside in the suit schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs.15,000/- and the defendant has not paid the rent, hence, the plaintiff got issued the legal notice and terminated the rental agreement.
16. Though the defendant has filed her written statement denying the plaint averments and also she has specifically contended that, since her husband being one of the Director of the plaintiff company and the suit schedule property is exclusively belonged to her husband and by virtue of the 'Will' executed by her husband, she has become the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and apart from that, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the 11 O.S.298/2015 plaintiff and the defendant, hence the defendant sought for dismissal of the suit.
17. It is very significant to note that, despite sufficient opportunities given to the defendant, the defendant has not stepped into the witness box to substantiate her defence. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, whatever the defence taken by the defendant is totally false and frivolous.
18. On perusal of the plaint averments as well as the evidence of the PW.1, I am of the opinion that, the defendant being a tenant who had occupied the suit schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs.15,000/- has not paid the rent and even on the earlier occasion the suit filed by the plaintiff for ejectment against the defendant was also withdrawn, as not pressed. Apart from that, the plaintiff has paid Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendant. So, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the conduct of the defendant, I am of the opinion that, the defendant being a tenant has not paid rent has no right of whatsoever nature to reside in the suit schedule 12 O.S.298/2015 premises. Accordingly, I answer issue Nos.1 to 3 in the Affirmative.
19. Issue No.4: In view of findings on issue Nos.1 to 3, the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs sought for. Accordingly, I answer this issue also in the Affirmative.
20. Issue No.5: In view of finding on issue No.4, I proceed to pass the following ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is decreed with cost.
Further, the defendant is directed to quit and handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property within one month from the date of this order.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the judgment writer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, this the 8th day of June, 2017) ( V.B.SURYAVANSHI ) XX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.
13 O.S.298/2015ANNEXURE;
List of witnesses examined for the Plaintiff :
PW.1 : Sri D.Srinivas List of documents marked for the Plaintiff:
Ex.P1 Board Resolution Ex.P2 Authorisation letter Ex.P3 C/c of Rental agreement Ex.P4 C/c of Order sheet in O.S.394/11 Ex.P5 C/c of Bank statement Ex.P6 C/c of legal notice Ex.P6(a) Postal receipt Ex.P7 RPAD cover Ex.P8 Board resolution Ex.P9 Form No.32 Ex.P10 C/c of Sale deed Ex.P11 Encumbrance certificate Ex.P12 Khatha extract Ex.P13 Memorandum & Articles of Association E
Witnesses examined for the defendant: nil List of documents marked for the defendant: nil ( V.B.Suryavanshi ) XX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY 14 O.S.298/2015 15 O.S.298/2015 Judgment pronounced in the open court. (vide separate judgment) Order Suit of the plaintiff is decreed with cost.
Further, the defendant is directed to quit and handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property within one month from the date of this order.
Draw decree accordingly.
XX ACC & SJ,B'lore 16 O.S.298/2015