Bangalore District Court
Smt.Vidyavathi vs Sri.Abid on 30 June, 2020
1
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE
AT BANGALORE CITY - CCH NO.23.
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF JUNE, 2020.
PRESIDING OFFICER
PRESENT : Sri.Mohan Prabhu
M.A., L.LM.,
XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE.
O.S.No.2761/2014
PLAINTIFF/S: Smt.Vidyavathi,
W/o M.Omprakash,
Aged about 60 years,
(since dead by her legal
representative)
1(a) Sri.M.Om Prakash,
S/o late M.S.G.Setti,
Aged about 70 years,
Presently R/at No. 14,
Pampa Mahakavi road,
Shankarpuram,
Basavanagudi,
Bengaluru - 560 004.
2. Sri.M.Rajashekar,
S/o late Sanjeevaiah Shetty,
Aged about 87 years,
2
(since dead plaintiff No. 1, 3 and 4
are the legal heirs of 2nd plaintiff.
Deleted as per order of this
Hon'ble court dated 16/10/2014)
3. Smt.Suvratha,
W/o C.S.Gopalakrishna,
Aged about 58 years,
4. Smt.Bhanumathi,
W/o D.P.Sathyam,
Aged about 54 years,
3rd and 4th plaintiffs are
represented by their Power of
Attorney holder, Smt.Vidhyavathi,
W/o M.Omprakash
All are presently residing at
No. 14, Pampa Mahakavi road,
Shankarpuram, Basavanagudi,
Bengaluru - 04.
(By M/s.V Associates)
Vs.
DEFENDANT/S: Sri.Abid,
S/o Abdul Jabbar,
Aged about 55 years,
M/s.Abid & sons,
Shop No.6,
Property No.110,
Police road,
3
Bengaluru - 560 053.
(By Sri.CSR, Advocate)
* * * * *
Date of institution of suit : 07.04.2014
Nature of suit : Ejectment &
recovery of arrears
of rent
Date of commencement
of recording of evidence : 21.04.2016
Date on which the judgment
was pronounced : 30.06.2020
Duration of the suit :Year/s Month/s Day/s
06 02 23
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant for the relief to direct the defendant to vacate the suit B schedule property and handover the vacant possession of the same to the plaintiffs and direct the 4 defendant to pay arrears of rent of Rs.79,500/- to the plaintiffs.
2. A schedule property - All that piece and parcel of the immovable property bearing No.110 (new No.103) situated at Police road, Bangalore - 53, measuring 8341.50 sq.ft. bounded on east by Sethurao street, west by property belongs to Nara Narayana Trust, north by Timber Abdul Lathif and Wakf possessed property and south by police road.
3. B schedule property (suit schedule property) - All that piece and parcel of immovable property in schedule A property i.e., shop no. 6 stone roofed building measuring 10 x 13 feet and 5.6 x 8.8 feet totally measuring 179.28 sq.ft. out of total measurement 8341.50 sq.ft. having electricity connection and bounded towards east by another shop of schedule A property, west by 5 another shop of schedule A property, north by portion of schedule A property, south by police road.
4. The plaint averments briefly stated as follows:
One Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi @ Adilakshmi W/o M.Rajashekar, owner of immovable property bearing No.110 (new No.103) is situated at Police road totally measuring 8341.50 sq.ft. bounded on the east by Sethurao street, west by property belongs to Nara Narayana trust, north by timber Abdulla Lathif and Waqf possessed property and south by Police road, comprising ground and first floor building, in the ground floor 16 commercial shops are located and in the first floor two shops are located. Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi @ Adilakshmi acquired title of this property by means of registered Will dated 13/8/1992 executed by her mother Smt.P.C.Sundramma. Based on the said Will Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi got registered her name in the khatha register maintained by 6 the appropriate authority under the provision of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act. Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi died on 14/1/2013 leaving behind the plaintiffs as her successors and legal heirs for her entire estate including the schedule 'A' property. The 2 nd plaintiff is the husband and plaintiff No. 1, 3 and 4 are the children of Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi. After the death of Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi, plaintiff No. 1, 3 and 4 got registered their names in the khatha register maintained by the BBMP and paid the tax as demanded by the authority. Now the khatha of the suit schedule property stands in the joint name of 1st, 3rd and 4th plaintiffs. The Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Limited has acquired certain portion of schedule 'A' property for the purpose of Metro Rail Scheme.
5. The defendant is the tenant under Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi in respect of shop No.6 which is 7 mentioned as B schedule. In the month of February 2013 the plaintiffs have approached the defendant and demanded to vacate the premises within 60 days so as to enable them to construct new commercial building to accommodate their children to carry their traditional business of selling of silk saries. On demand the defendant has requested six months time to vacate the premises. Hence the plaintiffs sympathetically agreed and granted time till September 2013 and demanded arrears of rent, further directed the defendant to pay Rs.1,500/- rent per month. In the month of December 2013, 2 nd plaintiff has received notice from the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.51540-51549/2013 wherein his name is found as 5th respondent. It has come to the knowledge of the plaintiffs that the defendant has filed suit in O.S.No.7078/2009 before the Hon'ble Principal City Civil Court, Bangalore on 6/11/2009 for permanent injunction 8 against late Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi and others restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in any manner including dispossession, demolition and causing damage to the same without taking due recourse of law. On receipt of the court notice the said Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi appeared and filed her defence by way of written statement wherein she made positive statement that the suit was filed based on false and fabricated statement and denied the payment of rental advance and payment of rent. Further she demanded arrears of rent of Rs.37,500/- from March 2008.
6. The Hon'ble court decreed the suit in O.S.No.7078/2009 wherein the judgment and decree passed restraining the 1st defendant Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property without due process of law. 9
7. The plaintiffs after receiving notice from the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka got issued the notice in compliance of section 106 of T.P.Act through their advocate on 3/2/2014 calling the defendant to quit the premises within one month from the date of receipt of notice and also demanded arrears of rent of Rs.79,500/- from March 2008 till the issue of notice. The said notice was duly served to the defendant on 6.2.2014. Meanwhile the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has disposed off the W.P.No.51540-51549/2013 on 12/2/2014. The defendant got issued untenable reply notice dated 18- 20.2.2014 through his advocate.
8. Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi the owner of the property and the plaintiffs are the successors of said Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi. The defendant was the tenant under Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi. Hence the relationship of tenant and landlord is continued on month to month 10 basis. The plaintiffs by issuing the notice terminated the tenancy. Since the building is in dilapidated condition, hence to avoid the future untold factor and to construct new building for the bonafide use of the plaintiffs to accommodate their children to carry their traditional business seeking eviction of the tenant after termination of tenancy. The defendant without having any legal right is still in possession of the suit schedule property. Therefore the defendant is bound to pay damages on the prevailing market rate of rent with interest for compensating the inconvenience and harassment being faced by the plaintiffs due to not vacating and not handing over the vacant possession of the suit property. Hence on these grounds the plaintiffs prays to decree the suit.
9. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff No. 1 and 2 are died. Plaintiff No. 1(a) is brought on record as 11 legal representative of deceased plaintiff No. 1. Plaintiff No. 1, 3 and 4 have continued as legal heirs of 2 nd plaintiff.
10. Upon service of summons to the defendant the defendant entered appearance by engaging counsel and resisted the claim of the plaintiffs by filing his written statement.
11. The written statement filed by the defendant briefly stated as follows:
12. The defendant has taken contention that Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi was not the owner of immovable property bearing No. 110(103) situated at police road. The property bearing new No. 110, old No. 113 standing in the name of one N.Devrajamma and the same has got nothing to do with Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi. The property 12 which is in possession of this defendant is bearing new No. 102 (old No. 120) and new No. 110 (old No. 113), police road, Bengaluru. The description of the property mentioned in the plaint and the identity of the property in possession of the defendant is seriously disputed. The khatha in respect of the property bearing new No. 110 (old No. 113) even now stands in the name of N.Devrajamma. The alleged Will alleged to have been executed by P.C.Sundramma does not relate to the suit schedule property. The relationship of the plaintiffs with Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi is disputed. The contention of the plaintiffs that the Khatha in respect of the property in possession of the defendant is standing in the name of plaintiff No. 1, 3 and 4, are denied as false. It is contended that the property standing in the name of plaintiffs have already been acquired by Metro Rail Corporation and the 2nd plaintiff has already received 13 compensation in this behalf in terms of several crores. The property in possession of this defendant does not belongs to Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi or of her heirs. The property in the possession of defendant is belongs to one Devarajamma.N. No such property as described in the plaint schedule 'B' is in possession of the defendant. The boundaries given in the schedule are fictitious. The plaintiffs have not clearly stated which portion of the property still remained with them after acquisition. The extent of property acquired is also not clearly disclosed in the plaint. The averments made in the plaint that the plaintiffs have approached the defendant during the month of February 2013 and demanded him to vacate the premises is denied as false. The contention of the plaintiffs is that they directed the defendant to pay the rents at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month is denied as false. The original suits filed by some of the tenants is 14 not in relation to the suit schedule property but to the other property which has been acquired by Metro Rail Corporation and for which Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi has already received compensation. The defendant has suitably replied the notice issued by the plaintiffs. The defendant is not due sum of Rs.79,500/- as contended by the plaintiffs. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendant. The contention of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property is in a dilapidated condition and the same is required for their bonafide use to accommodate their children after demolition and reconstructing the building is denied as false. The premises in possession of the defendant is in a habitable condition and there is no possibility of the structure coming down as alleged in the plaint. The defendant is not liable to pay any rent as alleged in the plaint. The filing of the suit in O.S.No.7078/2009 is 15 admitted. Since the relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist between the plaintiffs and defendant the suit is not maintainable. The defendant is not due or is not in any arrears of rent as alleged in the plaint. On the other hand he has paid rents earlier in cash to M.Rajashekar who was not in the habit of issuing rent receipts. Later the defendant sent rent under money order and the same has been duly acknowledged by the plaintiffs. During the life time of Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi she has received rents by way of money order. The court fee paid by the plaintiffs is not sufficient. The business done by the defendant in the property in his occupation is the only source of livelihood. If he is vacated from the schedule premises he would be rendered jobless. The plaintiffs do not need the schedule premises for their bonafide use and occupation. Hence on these grounds the defendant prayed for the dismissal of the suit. 16
13. Based on the pleadings of the parties the following issues and additional are framed in the suit:
(1) Whether there is legal and valid termination of tenancy of defendant of the suit schedule premises ?
(2)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover arrears of rent of Rs.79,500/- from the defendant as prayed ?
(3)Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the suit schedule premises ?
(4)What order or decree ?
Additional Issues:
(1) Is there exists the jural relationship of landlord and tenant in between the plaintiffs and defendant ?
(2) Whether the defendant proves that the suit of the plaintiffs is not 17 maintainable as contended by him in para No. 21 of his written statement ? (3) Whether the defendant proves that the court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient ?
14. In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs plaintiff No. 1 examined as PW1 and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P19 are marked. The defendant examined as DW1 and the documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D6 are marked through him. One witness Tahsildar of BMRCL, Bangalore examined on the side of defendant as DW2 and documents Ex.D6 to Ex.D18 are marked through her. In all the documents Ex.D1 to D18 are marked on the side of the defendant.
15. I have heard the arguments. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs and the learned counsel for defendant have filed written synopsis of arguments. 18
16. My findings to the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.3 : In the Affirmative
Addl.Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Addl.Issue No.2 : In the Negative
Addl.Issue No.3 : In the Negative
Issue No.4 : As per the final order
for the following:
REASONS
17. Issue No.1 & Additional Issue No.1 & 2: Since all
these issues are inter-connected therefore they are taken up together for common consideration in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence and also for the sake of convenience.
18. The plaintiffs have filed this suit for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent. It is the specific contention of the plaintiffs is that A schedule property 19 originally belongs to Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi. B schedule property is the part and parcel of the A schedule property. It is the specific contention of the plaintiffs is that the defendant who was in possession of B schedule property as a tenant under Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi continued as a tenant under the plaintiffs after the death of Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi. It is the case of the plaintiffs is that Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi died on 14.1.2013 leaving behind the plaintiffs as her successors and legal representatives for her entire estate including A property. On the other hand the defendant has taken contention that the property which is in possession is belongs to one N.Devarajamma and the same has got nothing to do with Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi. The defendant has taken contention that the property which was given by Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi to him for rent was already acquired by BMRCL for Metro Rail Project. The plaintiffs 20 in order to establish their case relied upon the evidence of PW1 and documents marked at Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. The defendant in order to substantiate his contention relied upon the evidence of DW1 and the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P18.
19.PW1 Smt.Vidyavathi plaintiff No. 1 and GPA holder of plaintiff No.3 and 4 in her affidavit filed in lieu of examination-in-chief has reiterated the plaint averments. In her examination-in-chief she has stated that her mother Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi @ Adilakshmi W/o M.Rajashekar is the owner of the immovable property bearing No.110 (new No.103) situated at Police road, measuring 8341.50 sq.ft. comprising ground and first floor commercial building, in the ground floor 16 commercial shops are located and in the first floor 2 commercial shops are located. She states that her mother acquired the title of the property through the registered Will dated 13.8.1992 21 executed by Smt.P.C.Sundramma. She states that the suit schedule A property measuring 8341.50 sq.ft. which belongs to her mother. The plaintiffs being the successor of said Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi got joint khatha from the BBMP. She further deposed that defendant is the tenant under her mother viz. Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi in a portion of schedule A property, i.e., shop No.6, stone roofed building measuring 10 x 13 feet and 5.6 x 8.8 feet totally measuring 179.28 sq.ft. Out of total measurement of 8341.50 sq.ft. bounded towards east another shop of schedule A property, west by another shop of schedule A property, north by portion of schedule A property, south by police road. It is further deposed that after the death of her mother they approached the defendant in the month of February 2013 and requested him to vacate the premises within 60 days enable them to construct new commercial building to accommodate their children to 22 carry their traditional business of selling of silk saries. Then the defendant orally demanded six months time to vacate the premises. For the same they agreed and granted time till September 2013 and also demanded him arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.1,500 per month. She states that certain portion of the land in schedule A property was acquired by the Bangalore Metro Railway Corporation Limited for public purpose. She has deposed that in the month of December 2013 plaintiff No.2 received notice from Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.51540-51549/2013. Then they came to know that the said Writ petitions were filed by the tenants. She states that they also came to know that the defendant has filed suit in O.S.No.7078/2009 praying for grant of permanent injunction. She has deposed that the said suit O.S.No.7078/2009 dismissed on 26.6.2012. She has stated that they got issued notice under section 106 of TP Act to 23 the defendant through their advocate on 3/2/2014 and the same was duly received by the defendant on 6.2.2014. She has deposed that the defendant has got issued untenable reply notice dated 18-20.2.2014 through his advocate. She has deposed that suit property mentioned in O.S.No.7078/2009 and in the present suit are one and the same. She states that the admissions made in O.S.No.7078/2009 and W.P.No.51540-51549/2003 itself establishes the landlord and tenant relationship. She has got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to 19. The document Ex.P1 is the copy of GPA executed by plaintiff No. 3 and 4 in favour of plaintiff No. 1 / PW1. Ex.P2 is the copy of genealogical tree. Ex.P3 is the copy of Will. Ex.P4 is the copy of death certificate of Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi. Ex.P5 is the copy of khatha certificate. Ex.P6 is the khatha extract. Ex.P7 is the notice dated 28.3.2014 issued by the BBMP. Ex.P8 is the death certificate of 24 plaintiff No. 2. Ex.P9 is the copy of memorandum of Appeal in W.P.No.51540-49, Ex.P10 is the certified copy of the orders passed in W.P.No.51540-51549/2013, Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 are the certified copies of judgment passed in HRC No.5555/2014 and 5556/2014 respectively, Ex.P13 is the certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No. 7078/2009 and Ex.P14 is the certified copy of the written statement in O.S.No. 7078/2009. Ex.P15 is the certified copy of judgment in O.S.No. 7078/2009, Ex.P16 is the copy of legal notice dated 3.2.2014. Ex.P17 is the postal receipt having sent notice to the defendant. Ex.P18 postal acknowldgement having received notice by the defendant, Ex.P19 reply notice issued by the defendant to the plaintiff.
20. During the course of cross-examination by the defence PW1 has denied the suggestion that the property belongs to them and the property which is in possession 25 of the defendant is entirely different. She has denied the suggestion that the property which was given under rent was already acquired for the purpose of construction of Metro. She has denied the suggestion that the property which is in possession of the defendant is standing in the name of one Devarajamma. She has denied the suggestion that in order to give the shop to the third party for higher rate of rent they have filed this suit of eviction against the defendant. She has denied all other suggestions made to her.
21. The defendant examined himself as DW1 in his affidavit filed for examination-in-chief reiterated the written statement contentions. DW1 has deposed that the property bearing new No. 110, old No. 113 standing in the name of one N.Devarajamma and the same has got nothing to do with Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi. He stated that the property which is in his possession is bearing 26 new No. 102 (old No. 120) and new No. 110 (old No.
113) of Police road. He states that the property which is in his possession and the suit property is not one and the same. He has admitted that certain portion of the commercial building had been let out to him, but the said property is not bearing new No. 103 (old No. 117) but the same is part of property bearing new No. 110 and old No. 113. He contends that the property standing in the name of the plaintiffs has already been acquired by the Metro Rail corporation. He contends that the property in his possession not belongs to Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi or any of her heirs. The property which is in his possession belongs to one Smt.Devarajamma N. He has admitted regarding the filing of W.P.No.51540-51549/2013 before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and also admitted about the filing of the suit in O.S.No.7078/2009. He has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and 27 the plaintiffs. He has denied the contention of the plaintiffs regarding requirement of bonafide use of premises. He contends that he has regularly paid the rent in cash to Sri.M.Rajashekar. But said M.Rajashekar was not in the habit of issuing rent receipts. The documents Ex.D1 to D6 are marked through DW1. Ex.D1 is two photos and one CD, Ex.D2 is KEB bills (3 in number), and receipt, Ex.D3 is KEB receipts (3 in number) Ex.D4 Receipt for having purchased scale, Ex.D5 scale verification receipt Ex.D6 copies of document issued by Revenue Authorities under RTI containing 76 pages. During the course of his cross-examination by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs he has deposed that he has not produced any documents to show that he was obtained the property for rent from Devarajamma. He has admitted the suggestion that he has filed the suit in O.S.No.7078/2009 against Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi and on 28 Metro authorities. He has admitted the suggestion that in the Writ petition filed by them before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka the husband of Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi was made as a party because at that time Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi was no more. He has admitted the suggestion that in O.S.No. 7078/2009 he has admitted that Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi was the owner of the property. He has deposed that in para No. 2 of the plaint in O.S.No. 7078/2009 he has contended that he was paying monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- to Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi at initial stage and thereafter he started to pay rent of Rs.1,500/- per month. He has admitted para No. 2 of the plaint in O.S.No.7078/2009. Hence the same is marked at Ex.P13(a).
22. DW2 is the Tahsildar of BMRCL has produced the documents which are marked at Ex.D7 to Ex.D18. Ex.D7 and 8 are the copy of gazette notification for acquisition 29 of property. Ex.D9 and 10 are the rectified notification, Ex.D11 is the copy of sketch, Ex.D12 and 13 are the copy of notifications, Ex.D14 is the LAC register extract (3 in number), Ex.D15 is copy of cheques (4 in number),. Ex.D16 is the resolution copies (3 in number) and Ex.D17 is the rehabilitation document, Ex.D18 is copies of package (3 in number) During the course of her cross- examination by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs she has admitted the suggestion that as per the document Ex.D9 the khatha number 103 PID No. 30-28 belongs to the plaintiffs. She has admitted the suggestion that as per Ex.D9 only 44.25 sq.mtr. property belongs to the plaintiffs was acquired. She admitted the suggestion that as per the document Ex.D9 property bearing No.102 belongs to Nara Narayana Trust and property bearing No. 103 is belongs to the plaintiffs. She admitted the suggestion that as per Ex.D10 47.06 sq.mtr. belongs to the 30 plaintiffs were acquired. She admitted the suggestion that as per Ex.D10 the properties belongs to Nara Narayana Trust and plaintiff property are different properties. She admitted the suggestion that as per Ex.D16 plaintiffs are the owners of the property bearing No. 103. She admitted the suggestion that the documents Ex.D12, Ex.D13 and Ex.D18 are no way connected to this case. She has admitted the suggestion that there is no way connection to this case and BMRCL.
23.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that there is a jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendant. He submitted that the present defendant in the previous suit has clearly admitted the landlord and tenant relationship between him and Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi. He argued that the petitions in HRC No.55/2014 HRC No.56/2014 are decreed the suit filed by the present plaintiffs before the Small Cause 31 Court in S.C.No.476/2014, 477/2014 and 479/2014 are all decreed. He submitted that since the defendant has admitted the landlord and tenant relationship between him and Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi. The admitted facts need not be proved. He submitted that now in this case the defendant has falsely contending that the property belongs to one Smt.Devarajamma. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the following decisions:
(1) AIR 1976 SC 2335 in Sri RamaParsricha Vs.Jagannath & other to contend that it is only the landlord who can terminate the tenancy and institute the suit for eviction.
The tenant in such a suit is estopped from questioning the title of the landlord under section 116 of the Evidence Act. The tenant cannot deny that the landlord had title to the premises at the commencement of the tenancy. Under the general law in a suit between landlord and 32 tenant the question of title to the leased property is irrelevant (2) ILR 2008 Kar 1493 in Sri.Shamrao Rukmnna Talwar Vs. Smt.Suvarna to contend that the landlord who seeks eviction under section 27(2) are need not be an absolute owner of the premises - the word landlord has been defined under the Act, meaning - a person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises.
(3) 2010(3) KLJ 619 in Basavaraju Vs. Puttaraju to contend that under section 109 of T.P.Act transferee steps into shoes of transferor and becomes entitled to receive rent in terms of lease - separate and specific attornment by lease to transferee is not necessary to lend validity to transfer as section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act creates statutory attornment - since transferee is entitled to receive rent in terms of lease, he is deemed to be 33 landlord as defined in the Rent Act - pendency of suit said to have been instituted by another person for specific performance of contract to sell suit property said to have been executed by lessor in favour of that person is of no relevance for deciding lessee's liability to be evicted for non-payment of rent - transferee, held, is entitled to maintain petition under the Rent Act for eviction of lessee for non-payment of rent for period subsequent to transfer and it is not necessary to defer eviction proceedings till decision in suit for specific performance said to be pending against transferor.
24. The learned counsel for the defendant argued that there is no jural relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant. The property which is in possession of the defendant is belongs to one Devarajamma. The learned counsel for the defendant further argued that the property belongs to Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi has already been 34 acquired by the metro Rail Corporation and the 2 nd plaintiff is already received compensation amount.
25. I have appreciated the rival contentions taken by the parties.
26. In this suit in order to prove the death of Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi @ Adilakshmi w/o M.Rajashekar, the plaintiffs have produced the documents Ex.P4 copy of the death certificate of Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi which would go to show that Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi died on 14.1.2013. Ex.P8 is the copy of death certificate of Rajashekar.M which would go to show that plaintiff No.2 Rajashekar.M. died on 20.7.2014. PW1 has clearly deposed that she is the GPA holder of plaintiff No.3 and
4. She has deposed that 2nd plaintiff is her father, 3rd and 4th plaintiffs are her sisters. Her father 2nd plaintiff died on 20.7.2014. Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi died on 14.1.2013 leaving behind the plaintiffs as the legal representatives. 35 The defendant even though in his written statement has denied the relationship of the plaintiffs with Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi but during the course of the cross- examination of PW1 nothing is elicited from her mouth to discard her examination-in-chief with regard to the fact that plaintiff No. 1, 3, 4 are the children and plaintiff No.2 is the husband of Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi. The document Ex.P1 is the copy of power of attorney which would go to show that plaintiff No. 3 and 4 have executed power of attorney in favour of PW1. No doubt during the pendency of the suit PW1 also died, but the relationship of 2nd plaintiff is the husband, 3rd and 4th plaintiff and PW1 are the daughters of Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi cannot be doubted. During the course of cross-examination of DW1 he has admitted the suggestion that while filing the writ petition before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka as 36 Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi was no more, hence they made Rajashekar M, husband of Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi as a party in that writ petition. This admission made by DW1 is sufficient to hold that plaintiff No.2 is the husband of deceased Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi. The plaintiffs have produced the document Ex.P2 genealogy which would go to show that the plaintiff No. 1, 3 and 4 are the daughters, plaintiff No. 2 is the husband of the deceased Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi. During the course of cross- examination of PW1 the defendant has not seriously disputed the document Ex.P2. The oral evidence of PW1 which is supported by the documents Ex.P1 copy of GPA, Ex.P2 genealogical tree, Ex.P11 copy of judgment in HRC No. 55/2014. Ex.P12 certified copy of the judgment in HRC No.56/2014, Ex.P10 orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.51540-51549/2013 are 37 sufficient to hold that the plaintiffs are legal heirs of the deceased Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi.
27. It is the specific contention of the plaintiffs is that suit schedule property originally belonged to Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi as she was acquired the property under the registered Will executed by Smt.Sundaramma. The plaintiffs have produced the document Ex.P3 copy of the registered Will dated 13.8.1992. Ex.P5 is the certified copy of the khatha certificate to show that the property bearing new No.103, (old No. 117) was standing in the name of Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi. The main contention taken by the defendant is that the suit schedule property which is in possession of the defendant is no way connected to Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi. It is the contention of the defendants is that the property bearing new No. 110, old No. 113 stood in the name of one N.Devarajamma. It is the contention of the defendant is 38 that the property in the possession of the defendant is bearing new number 102 old No. 110, new number 103 (old No. 113) of police road is not belongs to Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi. But it belongs to N.Devarajamma. Since the defendant has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendant, hence this court shall give findings whether the plaintiffs prove there exists jural relationship of landlord and tenant in between plaintiffs and defendant in respect of the suit schedule property.
28. In this suit the plaintiffs have mainly relied upon the document Ex.P13, certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.7078/2009 filed by the present defendant against Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi for the relief of permanent injunction. The plaintiffs have also produced the document Ex.P14, certified copy of the written statement filed in O.S.No.7078/2009 and Ex.P15 certified copy of 39 the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.7078/2009. The plaintiffs have also relied upon the documents Ex.P9, certified copy of the Memorandum of Appeal filed by the tenants against the plaintiff No. 2 M.Rajashekar and others, and also relied upon the document Ex.P10 certified copy of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.51540-51549/2013(LA-RES). I have gone through the documents Ex.P9 and Ex.P10. These writ petitions filed before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondent No. 3 to 4 not to demolish the structures which is in occupation of the petitioners being part of new number 110 (old number
113), new number 102 (old number 120) and new number 103 (old No. 117) at present managed by 5 th respondent M.Rajashekar. The said 5th respondent M.Rajashekar is none other than plaintiff No. 2 in the present suit. The 40 Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka disposed of the Writ petitions in W.P.No.51540-51549/2013 (LA-RES) by making certain observations. It is observed that since the respondent No.2 and 3 have not acquired the land of the petitioners the question of granting alternative land would not arise.
29. The document Ex.P13 is the certified copy of the plaint in O.S.7078/2009 filed by the present defendant Abid against Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi and BMRCL seeking for permanent injunction. The document Ex.P14 is the written statement filed by Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi in O.S.No.7078/2009. Ex.P15 is the certified copy of the judgment in O.S.No.7078/2009 passed on 26.6.2012. It is important to note the schedule as well as the portion of pleading mentioned in the said suit in O.S.No.7078/2009. The relevant portion of the plaint at para No. 2 of the plaint in O.S.No.7078/2009 and schedule are as follows: 41
Schedule of O.S.No.7078/2009:
Portion of property no. 110 situated at police road, Bangalore having stone roof seailng with electricity connection wherein the petitioner doing business in the name and style of 'M/s.Abid and sons' measuring east to west 13 ½ feet x 9 feet and north to south 7 ½ x 8 feet, which is bounded on the east by earlier Shivaji Bakery now RFM Fruits Mandi, west by N.Nizam Ruman and Co., north by portion of same building, south by police road.
30. In para No. 2 and 3 of plaint in O.S.7078/2009 which is marked as Ex.P13(a) which reads as follows:
(2)"The plaintiff submits that he is a fruit merchant and he is having a sales unit located in the portion of building No. 110, Police road, Bengaluru - 560 053, he is running the said business under the name and style of 42 "M/s.Abid and sons" the said portion consist of 2 rolling shutters measuring 7 ½ feet x 8 feet, north to south and 13 ½ feet x 9 feet east to west, which is morefully described in the plaint schedule. The plaintiff further submits that he is running the said business in the said portion as a tenant since 1998 under defendant No. 1 and earlier under the father Sri. Chandra Shekar Shetty by orally. The plaintiff submits that he was earlier paying rent of Rs.1,000/- and at present he is paying monthly rent of Rs.1,500/- and had paid advance of Rs.37,500/- to the defendant No. 1, however no receipts are issued by the defendant No. 1 either for the rents collected or for having accepted the said advance. The plaintiff is regular in payment of rents which has been collected by the husband of plaintiff on behalf of plaintiff. The plaintiff submits that the rent is exclusive of electricity and the plaintiff is paying electricity bill to the authority 43 concerned. The photographs of the suit schedule property wherein plaintiff is running business are produced.
Further the scale renewal issued by the state, department of weights and measures dates 4.5.2006 which is renewed upto 3.5.2011, indicating the place of business of plaintiff and the electricity bills, income tax declaration of plaintiff, telephone bills, are produced for the kind reference of this Hon'ble court."
31. In para No. 4 of the plaint in O.S.No.7078/2009 it is mentioned as "the plaintiffs submit that the property bearing No. 102, 103 and 110 situated at Sethurao street and police road, Bangalore - 560053 are having common boundaries and are owned by the 1st defendant.
32.On perusal of the plaint schedule and the pleadings of O.S.7078/2009 would go to show that the present defendant who is plaintiff in O.S.7078/2009 not only admitted the ownership of Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi over 44 the property bearing No. 110 but also admitted her ownership over the property bearing No. 102 and 103. The present defendant also admitted that Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi is the landlord. He has also taken contention that he was a tenant under Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi and her father Chandrashekar Shetty under oral agreement. It is contended that he was paying monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- at initial stage, later he was paying monthly rent at the rate of Rs.1,500/- and had paid advance amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. The schedule property mentioned in plaint in O.S.7078/2009 is property bearing No. 110. In the present suit even though the defendant has taken contention that the property involved in O.S.No.7078/2009 and in the present suit is entirely different, but in order to substantiate the same he has not produced any documents. The present defendant in the earlier suit in O.S.No.7078/2009 has 45 mentioned the boundaries of the property which was in his possession as a tenant under Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi. But in the present suit the defendant has not mentioned the boundaries and extent of the property which is now in his possession. It is not the contention of the defendant is that he was in possession of two properties at the time of filing the suit in O.S.No. 7078/2009. In O.S.No.7078/2009 the defendant has taken contention that the BMRCL acquiring the portion of property No.102. In the judgment of O.S.No.7078/2009 as per Ex.P16 at page No.10, para No.10 it is observed that "in this document the property No.104, 102, etc. are shown as being acquired temporarily, but not the suit schedule property." The findings in O.S.No.7078/2009 is that the suit property of that suit was not acquired. Thus the contention of the defendant is that the property in earlier suit and the present suit is entirely different cannot be acceptable. 46 The defendant who has admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant in O.S.No.7078/2009 cannot recile his admission in the present suit. The admission made in O.S.7078/2009 is judicial admission. It is the admission made in the plaint which comes within the purview of section 58 of the Evidence Act. The facts admitted need not be proved. The admissions made in the plaint of O.S.7078/2009 is very clear and there is no ambiguity. These admissions made in the plaint are judicial admissions.
33. Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as follows:
"No tenant of immovable property or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to 47 such immovable property; and no person who came upon any immovable property by the licence of the person in possession thereof, shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such licence was given."
34. The defendant is estopped from denying the title of Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi over the suit property as he was already admitted the ownership of Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi with respect to the property bearing No. 110, 102, 103 in O.S.No. 7078/2009.
35.The present defendant who is plaintiff in O.S.No.7078/2009 has admitted the ownership of Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi in respect of the property bearing No.110 and the properties bearing No.102 and 103. The said suit filed by the present defendant for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of property bearing 48 No.110 measuring east to west 13 ½ x 9 feet and north to south 7 ½ x 8 feet. It is not the contention of the defendant is that the property which is mentioned in O.S.No.7078/2009 is not belongs to Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi. Since the present defendant has admitted the ownership of Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi with respect to the property bearing No.110, 102, 103 of police road and as he admitted that he is tenant under Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi and paying rent, now the defendant is estopped from denying the ownership of Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi over the property bearing No.110, 102, 103. Now in the present suit the defendant has taken contention that the property bearing No.110 old No.113 standing in the name of N.Devarajamma and the same has got nothing to do with Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi. Now in the present suit it is the contention of the defendant is that he is in possession of property bearing 49 new No.102, (old No.120) and new No.110 (old No.113). I have perused the documents produced by the defendant which is marked at Ex.D1 to Ex.D6 and also perused the document which are produced by DW2 and got marked at Ex.D7 to Ex.D18. The defendant who has taken contention that he was taken the property which is in his possession from one N.Devarajamma for rent, in order to substantiate the same he has not produced any documents such as rent paid receipts, agreement, etc. DW1 in his cross-examination admitted the suggestion that he has not produced any documents to show that he has taken the property from Devarajamma under rent. The very contention of the defendant that he was paying the rent to Sri.M.Rajashekar i.e., plaintiff No.2 itself is sufficient to hold that there exists the landlord and tenant relationship between the plaintiffs and defendant. It is not in dispute that a portion of the property belongs to 50 Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi was acquired for Bangalore Metro Rail Project. DW2 is the Tahsildar who appeared before the court and produced the documents marked at Ex.D7 to Ex.D18 regarding the acquired property. DW2 who is the best authority to say about acquisition has clearly admitted the suggestion that they have acquired only portion of the property bearing No. 103 to the extent of 47.06 sq.mts. belongs to Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi. DW2 has admitted the suggestion that as per the document Ex.D16 the plaintiffs are the owners of the property bearing No.103. DW2 has deposed that as per the document Ex.D9 property bearing No.102 belongs to Nara Narayana Trust and property bearing No.103 is belongs to the plaintiffs. It is not the contention of the defendant is that earlier he was in possession of the property which was acquired for BMRCL and thereafter he was shifted to the property in which he is now in possession. It is the 51 specific contention of the plaintiffs is that suit A schedule property bearing No.110 (new No.103) totally measuring 8341.50 sq.ft. was consisting ground floor, first floor building. In the ground floor 16 commercial shops were located and in the first floor two shops are located. The present suit filed by the plaintiffs for shop No.6. The plaintiffs have produced the document Ex.P11 certified copy of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble SCCH-1 in HRC No.55/2014 in respect of the shop No.9. In the schedule of the shop No. 9 mentioned in HRC No.55/2014 towards western side and northern side it is mentioned that there were shops of schedule A property. In that case in HRC No.55/2014 also A schedule property is bearing No. 110 (new No. 103) measuring 8341.50 sq.ft. The document Ex.P12 is the certified copy of the judgment in HRC No.56/2014 in respect of the shop No.
10. In the said case in HRC No.56/2014 A schedule 52 property is the property bearing No.110 (new No.103) measuring 8341.50 sq.ft. and the B schedule property is shop No.10. The northern and southern boundaries are shown as another shops of A schedule property. In the said two HRC petitions also the respondents have taken such contention that the property belongs to N.Devarajamma. But the Hon'ble court rejected such contention taken by the respondents therein and passed an order directing to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the petition schedule premises to the Petitioners. In the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dismissed HRRP No.121/2015 c/w HRRP No.122/2015 and submitted that the said HRRP which was filed challenging the order passed in HRC No.55 and 56/2014 came to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs have also submitted that the 53 cases in S.C.No.476/2014, S.C.No.477/2014, S.C.No.478/2014 filed by the present plaintiffs against the tenants came to be decreed. The properties involved in all these cases is also with respect to the property bearing No.110 (new No.103) situated at police road. These judgment and decree strengthens the contention of the plaintiffs in the present suit. The very admission made by the plaintiff in O.S.No.7078/2009 that Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi is the landlord in respect of the property bearing No. 110 in which the defendant was in possession and the very admission of the present defendant (plaintiff in O.S.No.7078/2009) that Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi is also owner of the property bearing No. 102, 103 is sufficient to hold that the suit A schedule property belongs to Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi. Suit B schedule property is the portion of suit A schedule property. The document Ex.P2 is the genealogical tree to 54 show that the plaintiff No.2 M.R.Rajashekar is the husband and plaintiff No.1, 3 and 4 are the daughters of Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi. The contention of the defendant is that the document Ex.P3 copy of will must prove as per the law is not acceptable because when the defendant himself already admitted in O.S.No.7078/2009 that Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi is the landlord, under such circumstances merely because the attesting witnesses of the document Ex.P3 are not examined, that cannot be ground to reject the contention of the plaintiffs ownership over the suit property. The plaintiffs being the legal representatives of Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi who succeeds the estate of Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi steps into the shoes of lessor in view of section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. After the death of Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi the plaintiffs being the legal representatives of Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi became the owners of the suit 55 schedule premises. The defendant was tenant under Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi became the tenant of the plaintiffs after the death of Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi automatically and there need not be separate lease agreement between the defendant and plaintiffs. The defendant becomes the tenant of the plaintiffs by implication of law. In my humble view the principles of the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs reported in AIR 1976 Sc 2335, ILR 2008 Kar 1493, 2010(3) KLJ 619 are aptly applicable to the present case. The oral evidence of PW1 and the documents marked at Ex.P1 to Ex.P19 and admissions of defendant in a previous suit in O.S.No.7078/2009 and admissions in W.P.No.51540- 51549/2013 (LA-RES) and the admissions made by DW2 in her cross-examination are sufficient to hold that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule premises and defendant is the tenant under them.
56
36. The plaintiffs have produced the document Ex.P16 copy of legal notice dated 3/2/2004 issued to the defendant calling upon him to quit and deliver B schedule property within one month. In this legal notice the plaintiffs have also mentioned about the arrears of rent of Rs.79,500/- payable by the defendant. According to the plaintiff the defendant has not paid rent from March 2008. PW1 has deposed that they have got issued notice under section 106 of T.P.Act through their advocate on 3/2/2014 to the defendant and the same was duly served to the defendant on 6.2.2014. The plaintiffs have produced the document Ex.P17 postal receipt and Ex.P18 postal acknowledgment. The plaintiffs have also produced the documents Ex.P19 reply notice issued by the defendant. The document Ex.P16 and Ex.P18 are sufficient to hold that the plaintiffs have legally 57 terminated the tenancy of the defendant by issuing notice as required under section 106 of T.P.Act.
37. The defendant in para No.21 has taken contention that the suit of the plaintiff without the prayer of declaration of title and consequential relief by paying court fee on the market value of the property is not maintainable. This contention of the defendant is not acceptable because it is proved that there exits landlord and tenant relationship between the plaintiffs and defendant. The defendant is estopped from claiming that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit schedule property. As already stated the very admission made by the present defendant in O.S.No.7078/2009 is judicial admission and it need not be proved in view of section 58 of Evidence Act. In view of section 116 of Indian Evidence Act the defendant is estopped from denying the title of plaintiff over the suit property. The defendant is 58 estopped from claiming that the suit property belongs to N.Devarajamma. More than that there is no cogent evidence on the side of the defendant to show that the suit schedule property belongs to N.Devarajamma. The documents produced by the defendant which are marked at Ex.D1 to Ex.D6 and documents produced by DW2 which are marked at Ex.D7 to Ex.D18 are not sufficient to hold that the defendant is tenant under Smt.N.Devarajamma. The defendant has failed to prove Additional issue No.2. The plaintiffs have proved that there exists the jural relationship of landlord and tenant in between the plaintiffs and defendant. The plaintiffs have also proved that they have terminated the tenancy of the defendant. Hence I answered Issue No. 1, Additional Issue No. 1 in the Affirmative and Additional Issue No.2 in the negative.
59
38. Additional Issue No.3: The defendant has taken contention that the court fee paid by the plaintiffs is insufficient. The plaintiffs have filed the suit praying to direct the defendant to vacate the suit schedule property and to handover the vacant possession to the plaintiffs and also prayed to direct the defendant to pay arrears of rent of Rs.79,500/-. The plaintiffs have valued the suit as per section 41(2) read with schedule 1(IV) of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act. The plaintiffs have paid court fee of Rs.3,413/- by calculating the amount based on the arrears of rent. There is no illegality in valuing the suit and paying the court fee. The court fee paid by the plaintiffs is sufficient. No arguments addressed regarding this issue. On perusal of the plaint averments and valuation slip it is found that the court fee paid by the plaintiffs is sufficient. Hence I answered Additional issue No. 3 in the negative. 60
39. Issue No.2: The plaintiffs have claimed the arrears of rent of Rs.79,500/-. While discussing Additional issue No.1 I held that there exists jural relationship of landlord and tenant in between the plaintiffs and defendant. In plaint in O.S.No.7078/2009 the defendant himself admitted that he was tenant under Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi and paying monthly rent of Rs.1,500/-. It is the contention of the plaintiffs is that in O.S.No.7078/2009 Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi claimed the arrears of rent from March 2008 till filing of the written statement therein. In order to substantiate this contention the plaintiffs have produced the document Ex.P14 certified copy of the written statement filed by Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi. In O.S.No.7078/2009 in para No. 3 of her written statement in O.S.No. 7076/2009 she has claimed the arrears of rent of Rs.37,500/-. PW1 has deposed that after death of her mother they approached the defendant in the month 61 of February 2013 and requested him to vacate the premises within 60 days enable them to construct new commercial building to accommodate their children, to carrying out traditional business of selling of silk saries. Then the defendant orally requested six months time to vacate the premises. For the same they agreed and granted time till September 2013 and also demanded him to pay arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month. In Ex.P16 legal notice the plaintiffs have clearly mentioned regarding the arrears of rent of Rs.79,500/- towards arrears of monthly rent from March 2008 till the issuance of notice. The defendant has not produced any documents to show that he has paid arrears of rent of Rs.79,500/-. The plaintiffs are entitled for the arrears of rent of Rs.79,500/- as sought for. Hence I answered issue No.2 in the affirmative.
62
40. Issue No.3: While discussing issue No.1 and Additional Issue No.1 I held that there exists the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendant. It is also held that the plaintiffs have legally and validly terminated the tenancy of the defendant by issuing the notice. While discussing issue No.2 it is held that the plaintiffs are entitled for arrears of rent of Rs.79,500/-. It is the contention of the plaintiffs is that the suit property required them for bonafide use. They have also produced the document Ex.P7, copy of the notice issued by the BBMP to demolish the building as the same is in dilapidated condition. The contention of the defendant is that the building is in good and habitable condition and it need not be demolished to erect new building is not acceptable. The contention of the plaintiffs that the suit property required them for bonafide use and occupation after demolition and 63 construction cannot be dis-believed. As the plaintiffs have already terminated the tenancy of the defendant by issuing legal notice the defendant has no authority to continue in possession of the B schedule property. The plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property and also entitled for the arrears of rent of Rs.79,500/- from the defendant. Hence I answered issue No. 3 in the Affirmative.
41. Issue No.6: In view of my findings to the above issues, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiffs is hereby decreed with cost.
The defendant is hereby directed to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs 64 within four months from the date of this judgment.
The defendant is directed to pay arrears of rent of Rs.79,500/- to the plaintiffs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment-Writer, transcribed, computerized and printout taken by her, revised and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of June 2020.) (Mohan Prabhu) XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the plaintiff/s :
PW1 - Vidyavathi
Witness examined for the defendant/s :
DW1 - Abid
DW2 - M.Jayamma
Documents marked for the plaintiff/s :
Ex.P1- - Certified copy of GPA
Ex.P2 - Certified copy of genealogical tree
65
Ex.P3 - Certified copy of Will (subject to
objection)
Ex.P4 - Copy of death certificate of
M.R.Vijayalakshmi
Ex.P5 - Copy of khatha certificate of property
new no.103 (old no.117)
Ex.P6 - khatha extract of property (
old no.117) new no. 103
Ex.P7 - Notice dated 28/3/2014 issued by
BBMP
Ex.P8 - Copy of death certificate of
Rajashekar.M.
Ex.P9 - Copy of memorandum of Writ petition
in W.P.No.51540-51549/2013
Ex.P10 - Certified Copy of orders passed in Writ petition in W.P.No.51540- 51549/2013 Ex.P11 - Certified copy of judgment in HRC no.55/14 Ex.P12 - Certified copy of judgment in HRC no. 56/2014 Ex.P13 - Certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.7078/2009 66 Ex.P14 - Certified copy of written statement filed in O.S.No.7078/2009 Ex.P15 - Certified copy of judgment in O.S.No.7078/2009 Ex.P16 - Copy of legal notice Ex.P17 - Postal receipt Ex.P18 - Postal acknowledgment Ex.P19 - Reply notice Documents marked for the defendant/s :
Ex.D1 - Two photos and one CD
Ex.D2 - 3 KEB bills
Ex.D3 - 3 KEB bill paid receipts
Ex.D4 - Receipt for having purchased scale
Ex.D5 - Certificate of verification of weighing
scale
Ex.D6 - Documents contained 76 pages
obtained under RTI from BBMP in
respect of property no. 110
Ex.D7 - Certified Copy of Gazette notification
Ex.D8 - Certified copy of Gazette notification
Ex.D9 - Certified copy of Rectified Gazette
notification
67
Ex.D10 - Copy of Rectified Gazette notification Ex.D11 - Certified copy of the sketch Ex.D12 - Certified copy of Notification Ex.D13 - Certified copy of Notification Ex.D14 - LAC register extract (3 in number) Ex.D15 - Certified copy of four cheques Ex.D16 - Certified copy of resolution (3 in number) Ex.D17 - Certified copy of rehabilitation document (4 in number) Ex.D18 - Certified copy of the compensation awarded (3 in number) (Mohan Prabhu) XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.68
Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate detailed Judgment) ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiffs is hereby decreed with cost.
The defendant is hereby
directed to quit, vacate and deliver
the vacant possession of the plaint
schedule property to the plaintiffs
within four months from the date of
this judgment.
The defendant is directed to
pay arrears of rent of Rs.79,500/- to
the plaintiffs.
Draw decree accordingly.
XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE.
69