Bangalore District Court
G K Sathya Keerthi vs Hemanth Kumar on 9 January, 2026
1 COM.O.S.441/2024
KABC170008982024
IN THE COURT OF LXXXVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, (EXCLUSIVELY DEDICATED
COMMERCIAL COURT) AT BENGALURU (CCH-88)
DATED ON THIS 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026
PRESENT: SRI.C.D.KAROSHI, B.A., LL.M.,
LXXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
COM.O.S.441/2024
PLAINTIFFS 1) Sri.G.K.Sathya Keethi
S/o K.Gopal Krishna
Aged about 72 years
2) Smt.Sandhya Sathya Keerthi
W/o G.K.Sathya Keethi
Aged about 63 years
3) Smt.Aishwarya Sathya Keethi
W/o Goutham Harish
Aged about 40 years,
4) Smt.Ashreya Sathya Keethi
W/o Sanjithaa S Krishnappa
Aged about 36 years
All are at No.19/1, (Old No.402/1),
Palace Upper Orchards, 13th Cross,
Sadashivanagar, Bengaluru-560 080.
2 COM.O.S.441/2024
Plaintiff No.2 to 4 are represented by
their GPA Holder, Plaintiff No.1
(Represented by G.N.B, Advocate)
-V/S
DEFENDANTS 1) Hemanth Kumar
S/o Late. Dhanraj
2) Mahendra
S/o Hemanth Kumar
3) Nirmala Devi
W/o Hemanth Kumar
4) Akshay
S/o Hemanth Kumar
Defendant No.1 to 4 R/at No.10/8,
Chabariah Layout, Kumara Krupa Road,
Bengaloru-560 001
5) Gambhir Chordia
S/o Sampatmulji Chordia
R/at No.25, 2nd Puliya Street,
Trust Puram, Chennai.
(As per order dated 10.01.2025
the name of Defendant No.5 is deleted)
(By Sri.M.K/K.R.S, Advocates)
Date of Institution of the suit 21.03.2024
Nature of the suit (suit on
pronote, suit for declaration &
Ejectment and Damages
Possession, Suit for injunction
etc.)
3 COM.O.S.441/2024
Date of commencement of
25.07.2025
recording of evidence
Date on which judgment was
09.01.2026
pronounced
Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
01 09 19
(C.D.KAROSHI)
LXXXVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
(EXCLUSIVELY DEDICATED COMMERCIAL COURT)
BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs for ejectment of the defendants from the suit schedule-B premises and mesne profits/damages till handing over of the vacant possession of the property and costs of suit.
2. Brief facts are as under:-
That, the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule A and B properties, the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 approached for renting the schedule B premises situated on the 2nd floor of the schedule A property for office use. Accordingly they entered into registered lease deed dated 17.03.2017 for a 4 COM.O.S.441/2024 period of 10 years, with lock-in period of 5 years from 15.03.2017 for the monthly rent of Rs.1,88,800/- inclusive of GST with enhancement of rent at the rate of 5% on every year. The lock-in period was completed on 16.03.2022, therefore after the enhancement of rent at the rate of 5% from the month of June 2023 the rent is at Rs.2,65,658/-, as such the defendants were supposed to pay the monthly rent on or before 5th of every month by way of bank transfer and electricity charges will be borne by the defendants. This being the fact the defendant Nos.1 to 4 after getting permission from the plaintiffs have sub-let a portion of schedule B premises to defendant No.5 to the extent of 135 sq.ft, but not paying monthly rent on time but always paying be lately on several request, therefore the plaintiff got issued letter and email correspondence on payment of rent with intimation that plaintiffs have difficulty to maintain the accounts. Further the defendants were never paying the electricity bill, in order to avoid dis connection from the BESCOM plaintiffs forced to pay the same which has caused 5 COM.O.S.441/2024 mental trauma to the plaintiffs.
Further it is averred that the defendants being fully aware that suit schedule B property is rented out for office use, however slowly the defendants have started using the schedule B property as godown for storage of heavy goods and using the common passage for dumping the goods which is against the terms of contract, causing extreme trouble to the plaintiffs and other tenants to commute their respective floors and also caused mental trauma for other tenants in the schedule A property. Further states that the defendants with an intention to pester the other tenants and plaintiffs had parked the vehicle in the basement driveway. Thereby causing hindrance for other tenants vehicles ingress and egress into the building premises, but even upon several request of the plaintiffs and tenants the defendants did not turn up and not moved the same, therefore the plaintiffs lodged complaint before the jurisdictional police and then the defendants removed the vehicle. That apart the defendants have stopped payment of rent since 01.04.2023 till breach of terms of the 6 COM.O.S.441/2024 contract. Therefore as per clause 29.1 of the lease deed dated 15.03.2017 in default of payment of rent of electricity charges the lessors are entitled to terminate the tenancy accordingly the plaintiffs got issued notice dated 16.09.2023 by terminating the tenancy and to vacate the schedule B premises on or before 31.12.2023, instead of complying the same the defendants have given evasive reply and thereby holding over the possession of the schedule B premises illegally. In this regard the plaintiffs again constrained to issue another notice dated 17.01.2024 informing that out of Rs.30 lakhs security deposit amount the defendants have deducted a sum of Rs.28,91,030/- with interest towards arrears of rent and an amount of Rs.1,50,020/- towards utility bills borne by the plaintiffs. Therefore after deducting a sum of Rs.36,55,965/- remaining balance security deposit amount would be Rs.3,44,038/- as on 22.09.2024, but the defendants are holding over from 01.03.2024, therefore liable to pay a sum of Rs.125 per sq.ft which works out to a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- per month and the same shall be deducted 7 COM.O.S.441/2024 from the balance security deposit. Cause of action to file the suit arose on 15.03.2017 on the date of lease deed, on 16.09.2023 on the date of issuance of legal notice for termination of tenancy, on 27.12.2023 from the date of reply and 17.01.2024 when the defendants admitted the arrears of rent and non payment of electricity bills the plaintiffs have paid court fee as per valuation slip. On these grounds prayed for ejectment and to hold enquiry regarding mesne profits/damages towards unauthorized occupation of schedule B premises by the defendants from the date of termination of tenancy till vacating the premises.
3. Records reveal that, the defendants appeared through their counsel and filed written statement contending that suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable either in law or on facts liable to be dismissed. The period of lease is 10 years from 01.04.2017 which has not been expired though lock-in period has expired, as such lease is enforciable till 15.03.2027, suit is premature. Though the defendants admit ownership of the plaintiffs and lease of the schedule 8 COM.O.S.441/2024 B property under the registered lease deed, but it is false to say that defendants were never paying monthly rent on time along with electricity charges and thereby causing mental trauma to the plaintiffs.
Further contend that the averments made in para 8 to 12 & 14 of the plaint are denied as false and plaintiffs be put to strict proof of the same, there was no unauthorized use of lift as alleged by the plaintiffs, as such breakdown of the lift if any is on account of improper maintenance of the same by the plaintiffs, allegations made against the defendants are concocted and fabricated. On the other hand it is plaintiffs active with connivance of other tenants interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of B schedule property by the defendants. The plaintiffs filed false complaint and failed in keeping the ear marked car parking of the defendants to be occupied by the strangers and have prevented the defendants and their clients making use of the same and thereby caused loss of business. Therefore on account of intentional breach committed by the plaintiffs 9 COM.O.S.441/2024 regarding terms of lease, the defendants have stopped paying the rents and now they are ready and willing to pay the arrears of rent if any with assurance of the plaintiffs that they would make good of the lapses, latches and breach of terms of lease. Therefore there is no justifiable cause for termination of tenancy, as such legal notice dated 16.09.2023 in this regard is not tenable in law accordingly replied. On the other hand relationship between the parties was very cordial and smooth going, but the problem started when the plaintiffs were inducted the tenancy in the 1st floor of schedule A property for running cement business and parked their vehicles everywhere including parking place of the defendants, when the same was brought to the notice of the plaintiffs being enraged the plaintiffs aggravated the situation by further harming the interest of the defendants in the matter of parking. The building itself is commercial in nature. No cause of action to file the suit arose, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any reliefs. On these grounds prayed for dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs.
10 COM.O.S.441/2024
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, this court has framed the following:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the termination of tenancy is valid and lawful?
2. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that the defendants remained illegal and unauthorized occupation of the schedule-B premises, therefore they are liable to pay the damages for the said period?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the vacant possession of the suit schedule-B premises from the defendants?
4. Whether the defendants prove that they are not liable to vacate the suit premises until expire of statutory period mentioned in registered lease dated 15.03.2017?
5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as sought for?
6. What order or decree?
11 COM.O.S.441/2024
5. In order to prove their case, the plaintiff No.1 examined himself as PW-1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.34. The defendant No.1 examined himself as DW-1 and got marked the documents at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.8.
6. Heard and perused the written arguments along with the authorities and the material on record .
7. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1:- In the Affirmative Issue No.2:- In the Affirmative Issue No.3:- Partly in the Affirmative Issue No.4:- In the Negative Issue No.5:- Partly in the Affirmative Issue No.6:- As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
8. ISSUE NOS.1 TO 4:- I take these issues altogether for my discussion as the facts overlap and for the sake of convenience.
9. It is worth to note that admittedly the plaintiffs have filed the above numbered suit against the defendants for ejectment and damages towards illegal occupation of schedule B commercial premises even after termination of tenancy. 12 COM.O.S.441/2024 In this regard the plaintiff No.1 has filed affidavit in lieu of oral evidence by reiterating entire averments of the plaint as referred supra, examined himself as PW.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.34 stating that the defendants approached and entered into registered lease deed dated 15.03.2017 for a period of 10 years with a lock-in period of 5 years from 16.03.2017 agreeing to pay monthly rent of Rs.1,88,800/- including GST having enhancement of rent clause on every year. Further states that the defendants started dumping the goods in the premises and thereby caused hindrance for other tenants and also stopped payment of rent from 01.04.2023 till breach of terms of contract, therefore the plaintiffs got terminated the tenancy and deducted arrears of rent in security deposit of Rs.40,00,000/-, but the defendants are holding over the schedule premises and thereby became unauthorized occupation of the premises, for that plaintiffs have also sought for damages.
13 COM.O.S.441/2024
10. During the course of cross examination of PW.1 it has been elicited that he has neither produced any documents for having provided separate meter to schedule B premises with bills nor any of the clauses of lease deed permits to deduct arrears of rent in security deposit amount of Rs.40,00,000/- paid by the defendants or has called meeting to solve the issue of parking area, but denied the suggestion that he has allowed other tenants to park in the area provided for defendants who said to have become unauthorized tenants.
11. In order to substantiate their defence the defendant No.1 also filed affidavit in lieu of oral evidence by reproducing entire contentions taken in the written statement, examined himself as DW.1 and got marked at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.8 contending that the period of lease is 10 years from 01.04.2017 which has not been expired though lock-in period has expired, as such lease is enforceable till 15.03.2027 and suit is premature. Further states that there was no unauthorized use of lift as alleged by the plaintiffs, as such 14 COM.O.S.441/2024 breakdown of the lift if any is on account of improper maintenance of the same by the plaintiffs, allegations made against the defendants are concocted, fabricated and failed in keeping the ear marked car parking of the defendants to be occupied by the strangers, therefore due to intentional breach on the part of plaintiffs only the defendants have stopped paying the rents, now they are ready and willing to pay the arrears of rent if any with assurance of the plaintiffs that they would make good of the lapses, latches and breach of terms of lease.
12. It is pertinent to note here that on careful evaluation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence on record, we can find that, as per Ex.P1 PW.1 has been authorised to give evidence for himself and on behalf of remaining plaintiffs. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiffs and defendants have entered in to Ex.P.3/registered Lease deed dated 15.03.2017 for a period of 10 years and the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to the suit is also not in dispute.
15 COM.O.S.441/2024
13. In this regard it is the case of the plaintiffs that since the defendants became defaulters in payment of rent, therefore they got issued notice under Ex.P8 and thereby terminated the tenancy. The defendants would submit that, though Lock in period of 5 years has been expired, but Lease period not yet over, as such termination of tenancy is improper and suit is premature, therefore unless the plaintiffs solve the issue of parking and Lift, they will not pay the arrears of rent.
14. As could be seen from perusal of Ex.P.3 that as per Clause 30.1 the period of five years commencing from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2022 shall be the lock-in-period and parties shall not be entitled to terminate the agreement or tenancy during that period, but the said clause further reflects that the lessors shall be entitled to terminate the agreement for breach of terms by the lessee as per clause 1 and shall pay rent for entire Lock-in-Period without raising any dispute.
16 COM.O.S.441/2024
15. In this connection it is evident that when the defendants became defaulters in payment of monthly agreed rent, the plaintiffs got issued notice for termination of tenancy calling upon the defendants to pay arrears of rent and to vacate the premises, but the defendants did not turn up. Though PW.1 admits that other tenants have not complained of towards act of the defendants and also not produced documents to show that he has made efforts to solve the issue of Lift and parking place, but during the course of cross examination of DW.1 admits that as per clause 29.1 of the Lease deed if he failed to pay arrears of rent for 3 months then lease deed would be terminated.
16. Further admits that as per clause 25(a) there is bar to store any goods shown in Ex.P6 photographs in the common corridor, using it all purpose, which is contrary to the terms of Lease deed. In the cross examination of DW.1 has specifically admitted the fact that though as per terms of lease he should have paid monthly rent on or before 10 th of every month, but he has not paid the same. In such 17 COM.O.S.441/2024 circumstances an adverse inference can validly be drawn against the defendants holding that, even after termination of tenancy by the plaintiffs they continued to be in the possession of the schedule B premises un-authorizedly without paying rent regularly.
17. So now it is clear that, if the parties by a contract have indicated the duration of a lease, section 106 of T.P.Act would not apply. Further it says that to prescribe the duration of the period of different kind of leases by legal fiction leases for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be lease from year to year and all other leases shall be deemed to be from month to month, as such existence of a valid lease is a prerequisite to invoke the rule of construction embodied in Section 106 of T.P. Act.
18. In addition to the material admission given by the defendants in their written statement, during the course of cross examination of DW.1, he has also categorically admitted that the plaintiffs got issued notice dated 16.09.2023 and 17.01.2024 twice calling upon the defendants to pay arrears 18 COM.O.S.441/2024 of rent by vacating the premises, but he has neither replied nor vacated the schedule B premises or paid arrears of rent as agreed under the lease deed on or before 10th of every month and thereby continued to be in the possession of the premises stating that if the plaintiffs solve the issue of car parking and using of lift then he is ready to pay arrears of rent. In this connection in the case of M.T Valson and others (OP No.1446/2023 dated 25.09.2024) referred by the counsel for the plaintiffs the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala observed that continuance of such litigation is nothing but abuse of process of Court.
19. Furthermore, as per clause 26 of the Lease deed Rs.40 Lakhs amount paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs towards interest free security deposit is refundable at the time of delivering the vacant possession of the schedule premises. In this aspect the plaintiffs would submit that since the defendants did not pay arrears of rent accordingly he got adjusted with arrears of rent and other charges, but in the cross examination of PW.1 admits that there is no such 19 COM.O.S.441/2024 clause in the deed to deduct the same in arrears of rent nor produced bit of document towards payment of GST.
20. However, in para 16 of the affidavit evidence DW.1 states that even after deducting the security deposit amount from Rs.59,81,791/-, the defendants are ready to pay the rents up to end of June 2025 plus GST, subject to solve the issue of car parking and using of Lift. On perusal Ex.P4 and 5 along with Ex.D1 to 8 mail correspondence done between the parties and photos also reflect non payment of outstanding rent, issue of parking and taking the goods through Lift. But as admitted by the DW.1 there is no clause in the deed to the effect that if plaintiffs fail to solve the said issue the defendants can withhold payment of monthly rent for a period of more than three months. Moreover in the case on hand the plaintiffs have neither claimed arrears of rent nor paid court fee thereon or the defendants have set up counter claim for refund of security deposit amount of Rs.40 Lakhs. In these circumstances none of the parties will be prejudiced on this aspect. In a 20 COM.O.S.441/2024 similar/reportable judgment {Meera Devi (D) Thr Lr v/s Dinesh Chandra Joshi(D) Thr Lrs} Civil Appeal No.5577/2014 dated 19.09.2024 referred by the counsel for the plaintiffs the Hon'ble Apex Court of India held that in any rent proceedings, the tenant is not only bound to offer the arrears of rent on account of non payment which eviction is sought for, but also to pay future rent regularly, failing which liable to be evicted. It is not in dispute that the defendants are continued to be in the possession of the schedule property without paying rent to the plaintiffs regularly. Accordingly, the plea of the defendants that they are not liable to vacate the premises until expiry of the Lease period cannot be sustained.
21. It may be noted that, though the plaintiffs have also sought the relief of mesne profits/damages for the un-authorised occupation of the schedule B premises by the defendants from the date of termination of tenancy, but no material on this aspect is forthcoming before this court, as such it requires separate enquiry. Therefore having regard to 21 COM.O.S.441/2024 the facts and circumstances of the case, plaintiffs are entitled only for the relief of ejectment of the defendants from schedule 'B' premises as claimed in the plaint with cost of the suit. For the aforesaid reasons arguments/written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs holds good, on the other hand any amount of oral and written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the Defendants cannot be accepted. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 and 3 are in the affirmative, Issue No.2 Partly in the Affirmative and Issue No.4 in the Negative.
22. ISSUE NO.5: In view of my discussion made supra while dealing with Issue No.1 to 4, I am of the opinion that plaintiffs are able to prove that defendants continued to be in the illegal possession of the suit schedule B premises without paying rent properly even after termination of tenancy. On the other hand defendants failed to prove their case as contended in the written statement by adducing cogent, oral and documentary evidence before this court. Consequently, defendants are liable to be evicted from the 22 COM.O.S.441/2024 suit schedule property as sought for. The relief of mesne profits/damages requires separate enquiry. In the result, the suit of the plaintiffs deserves to be partly decreed with cost. Hence, I answer Issue No.5 Partly in the Affirmative.
23. ISSUE NO.6:- For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following;-
:ORDER:
The suit of the plaintiffs is hereby Partly Decreed with cost.
The defendants are hereby directed to quit and hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule B premises to the plaintiffs within three months from the date of decree, failing which plaintiffs are at liberty to recover the possession of the schedule property in accordance with law.
There shall be separate enquiry towards the relief of mesne profits/damages. Draw decree accordingly.
The copy of this Judgment shall be made available to both the applicants through electronic mail or otherwise as required under the amended provisions of Order XX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected and signed by me then pronounced in the open court on 9th day of January, 2026) (C.D.KAROSHI) LXXXVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (EXCLUSIVELY DEDICATED COMMERCIAL COURT) BENGALURU.23 COM.O.S.441/2024
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:-
PW-1 G.K.Sathya Keerthi LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:-
Ex.P.1 Notarized copy of GPA executed by plaintiff No.2 to 4 Ex.P.2 PIM report No.260/2024 Ex.P.3 Original deed of lease dated 15.03.2017 Ex.P.4 E-mail correspondence dated 11.10.2023 Ex.P.5 E-mail correspondence (page No.37 to 47) Ex.P.6,
8 photographs of the schedule premises with CD Ex.P.6(a) Certificate u/Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act in Ex.P.7 support of Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.6(a) Ex.P.8 Office copy of legal notice dated 16.09.2023 Ex.P.9 to Postal receipts (5 in numbers) Ex.P.13 Ex.P.14 to Postal acknowledgments (5 in numbers) Ex.P.18 Ex.P.19, Reply notice dated 27.12.2023, Empty postal cover Ex.P.19(a) Another legal notice dated 17.01.2024 issued by us Ex.P.20 to tenants Ex.P.21 Postal receipts (10 in numbers) Ex.P.22 Postal track consignment reports (10 in numbers) to Ex.P.31 24 COM.O.S.441/2024 Copies of invoices raised by plaintiff towards Ex.P.32 consumption of electricity from April 2023 to July 2025 (26 nos.) Ex.P.33 Payment of receipt towards payment of July month Copy of statement of account for a period of 2 years Ex.P.34 (page nos.28 to 67) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:-
DW-1 Hemanth Kumar LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:-
Document No.1 - Copies of email dated Ex.D.1 31.07.2017 addressed by the defendants to the plaintiffs (11 nos.) Document No.15 - Copies of photos showing parking of various cars belonging to other Ex.D.2 tenaments parked in the placed earmarked for the defendant nos.1 to 4 (14 nos.) Document No.16 - Copy of photo showing locking of the entry to the building (key of Ex.D.3 entrance was taken back by the plaintiffs), although the defendants were in the office. Photo taken on 01.10.2023 Document No.17 - Copy of photos showing display of "This lift is for passengers only", Ex.D.4 photo taken on 01.03.2022 25 COM.O.S.441/2024 Document No.18 - Copy of photo showing keeping table and chair by other tenant in the Ex.D.5 first floor on the common passage by the side of lift. Copy taken on 01.03.2022 Document No.21 - Copies of the photos taken Ex.D.6 on 25.07.2022 showing keeping carton boxes by the tenant of the first floor in common passage. Cash vouchers towards payment of hamail Ex.D.7 charges (13 nos.) Certificate under Section 63 of Bharatiya Ex.D.8 Sakshya Adhiniyam in support of emails and photographs (C.D.KAROSHI) LXXXVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (EXCLUSIVELY DEDICATED COMMERCIAL COURT) BENGALURU.