Bangalore District Court
Pankaj Samdariya vs M/S Sound Fusion on 30 April, 2026
KABC170026512024
IN THE COURT OF LXXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH-85)
(Commercial Court)
THIS THE 30th DAY OF APRIL 2026
PRESENT:
SRI. ANAND T. CHAVAN. B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl.)
LXXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
Com.O.S.No.1349/2024
Plaintiff:- SRI. PANKAJ SAMDARIYA,
S/o Sri. Zumberlaji,
Aged about 49 years,
R/at No.34, Silk House,
2nd Floor, MM Lane,
JM Road Cross,
Bengaluru-560 002.
(Rep by Sri. H Manjunath -Adv)
V/s
Defendants:- 1. M/s. SOUND FUSION,
A Partnership Firm,
Rep by its Partner,
Sri. Nirav. A. Rajani,
S/o Sri. Amrish K Rajani,
Aged about 40 years,
Email: [email protected]
2 Com.OS.1349/2024
2. SRI. NIRAV.A.RAJANI,
S/o Sri. Amrish K Rajani,
Aged about 40 years,
Email: [email protected]
Sl No.1&2 address:
B-805, Brigade Palm Springs,
24th Main, JP Nagar 7th Phase,
Bengaluru-560 078.
Also at
No.805, 35th 'C' Cross,
9th Main Road, 4th Block,
Jayanagar, Bengaluru-560 011.
(Rep by Rawley Associates Law Offices -Adv)
Date of Institution of the suit 01.10.2024
Nature of the suit (suit on Suit for eviction, recovery of
pro note, suit for declaration rent arrears, maintenance
& Possession, Suit for and damages.
injunction etc.) Counter claim for recovery of
money and security deposit.
Date of commencement of 05.03.2026
recording of evidence
Date on which judgment was 30.04.2026
pronounced
Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
01 06 29
LXXXIV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
3 Com.OS.1349/2024
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed present suit against defendants seeking following reliefs; A) To direct the defendant No.1 & 2 to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to plaintiff.
B) Rs.56,69,640/- and Rs.4,96,780/- per month rent from the date of suit until the date of vacant delivery of suit schedule property along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the entire dues.
C) To direct the defendant No.1 & 2 to pay a sum of Rs.5,52,000/- towards maintenance charges for the occupation of schedule property and Rs.7,500/- per month maintenance charges from the date of suit until the date of vacant delivery of suit schedule property along with interest on the entire dues of maintenance at the rate of 18% per annum.
D) To direct the defendant No.1 & 2 to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards damages for illegal occupation and unauthorized use of the suit schedule property from the date of suit until the date of vacating or delivery of the suit schedule property.
SCHEDULE 'A' PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the property bearing No.805, 35th "C" Cross, 9th Main Road, 4th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru-560 011, consisting of Ground, Mezzanine, First, Second and Third floors, provided with Lift and covered car-parking in the Basement 4 Com.OS.1349/2024 floor with all civic amenities such as electricity, water and sanitary facilities.
Item No 1: All that piece and parcel of the Mezzanine Floor measuring 1650 Sq. feet super built up area in the Property bearing No.805, 35 th 'C' Cross, 9th Main Road, 4th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru - 560 011.
Item No 2: All that piece and parcel of the Ground Floor measuring 1650 Sq. feet super built up area in the Property bearing No.805, 35 th 'C' Cross, 9th Main Road, 4th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru - 560 011.
2. The brief averments of plaint are that:-
The plaintiff is owner of suit schedule property, which is a commercial property. Defendant No.1 is a Partnership Firm represented by its partner i.e., defendant No.2. Rent agreements were executed by plaintiff in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 dtd.18.01.2018 in respect of portion of A schedule property. As per terms of said agreements, defendants are entitled to run a hotel business in schedule property on monthly rent of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1,60,000/- for both Item Nos.1 and 2 of schedule A property commencing from 01.02.2018 with enhancement of 5%, once in a year on monthly rent. The present rent of said property is 5 Com.OS.1349/2024 Rs.4,96,780/- inclusive of GST on both Item Nos.1 and 2 of schedule property. From November 2023 to 31.05.2024 defendants have not paid monthly rent amounting to Rs.56,69,640/-, which are narrated as under:-
Sl.No. Month Total Due
1. October 2023 Rs.3,56,100/- (Out of
Rs.4,21,260/- defendants
paid Rs.65,160/-)
2. November 2023 Rs.4,21,260/-
3. December 2023 Rs.4,21,260/-
4. January 2024 Rs.4,96,780/-
5. February 2024 Rs.4,96,780/-
6. March 2024 Rs.4,96,780/-
7. April 2024 Rs.4,96,780/-
8. May 2024 Rs.4,96,780/-
9. June 2024 Rs.4,96,780/-
10. July 2024 Rs.4,96,780/-
11. August 2024 Rs.4,96,780/-
12. September 2024 Rs.4,96,780/-
Total Rs.56,69,640/-
Apart from monthly rents, defendants agreed to pay Rs.15,000/- monthly maintenance charges on schedule property i.e., Rs.7,500/- to each floor w.e.f 01.01.2021 to 30.09.2024. Defendant has not paid sum of Rs.5,52,000/- towards maintenance charges 6 Com.OS.1349/2024 for occupation of schedule property. It is averred that, due to non payment of arrears of rent and maintenance, plaintiff is no more interested to continue the tenancy of defendants. Further other various persons are approaching plaintiff seeking to rent the schedule property and inspite of it defendants have not settled the arrears and continued in unauthorized occupation of said property. On 05.03.2024 plaintiff approached defendants requesting them to vacate the premises and to settle the dues. However defendants vide letter dtd.05.03.2024 requested him to grant time until 31.05.2024 and in the meanwhile assuring to settle the rent dues. In the meantime on 02.04.2024 defendants sent an email stating untrue facts and allegations to avoid their liabilities and they sought for one shot settlement. Hence defendants made deliberate attempt to continue the occupation without payment of rental dues and with a greed to extract money from him. Thereafter many times plaintiff requested defendants personally to vacate the schedule property, but defendants postponed the same for one or the other pretext. Hence plaintiff 7 Com.OS.1349/2024 terminated tenancy of defendants with effect from 15.07.2024 by issuing legal notice dtd.18.06.2024.
The said legal notice was duly served upon defendants on 22.06.2024 through email and defendants did not receive legal notice sent through registered post on 19.06.2024. Thereafter plaintiff got filed an application No.1654/2024 before DLSA, Bengaluru Urban and defendants appeared in response to the email notice issued to them. Since they were not ready for mediation, the said petition was closed on 25.09.2024. Hence present suit and it is prayed to decree the same as prayed for.
3. Defendants have appeared before court in pursuant to summons and they have filed their common written statement along with counter claim seeking decree in favour of defendant no.1, directing the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.87,52,800/- along with interest of 18% from the date of payment till it's realization. It is averred in written statement and counter claim of defendants that, the suit is false, frivolous and vexatious. Further suit is filed by suppressing and misrepresenting the true facts and plaintiff has not approached the court with clean 8 Com.OS.1349/2024 hands. It is further averred that suit is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed without looking into merits of the case. It is admitted by defendants that, defendant No.1 is Partnership Firm and defendant No.2 is one of partner of said firm holding 50% of share in it. It is further averred that plaint suffers from non-joinder of necessary party i.e., remaining partners of defendant No.1 firm. It is further averred that defendant No.1 is engaged in business of trading, distributing, manufacturing of electronic goods, audio sounds systems, along side restaurant and hospitality services for over a decade. Defendants approached plaintiff for leasing commercial space in schedule A property consisting of Ground and Mezzanine Floor, owned by plaintiff for the purpose of opening a restaurant and retail store of audio sound systems. Since the Mezzanine Floor was only partially constructed, defendants requested to extend said floor into complete floor at their expenses and plaintiff readily agreed to said request since it is an added benefit for him to lease out the property in future.
9 Com.OS.1349/2024
4. Accordingly defendant No.1 firm was leased aforesaid ground and Mezzanine Floors of suit schedule property by executing two lease deeds dtd.18.01.2018, which commenced the lease from 01.02.2018. Further defendant No.1 paid sum of Rs.21 Lakhs towards security deposit under above agreements. It is further specifically averred that though the lease was agreed for period of 60 months, it was orally promised by plaintiff that lease period will be extended as the business of defendants is mainly dependent on area, location and ambiance. Relying on promises made by plaintiff, defendant No.1 invested huge sums of money on interior of schedule property and made structural changes including construction of Mezzanine Floor in to full fledged floor by engaging services of contractor by name My City Services (Dharani) for renovation.
5. Subsequently defendants set up a retail store of Pro Effects Audio Systems on the extended Mezzanine Floor and a restaurant on the Ground Floor of schedule property. The said restaurant was under the name and style of "Patios 805", which is a vegetarian restaurant with serene ambiance, offering 10 Com.OS.1349/2024 one of a kind food menu, blending traditional India flavours with global influences. The said restaurant quickly earned recognition for its impeccable services, authentic taste and ambiance and plaintiff himself appreciated the same.
6. Further plaintiff used to send two separate invoices for Ground floor towards Patios and other for Mezzanine floor towards sound fusion and rents were paid to him regularly. Unfortunately in the month of March 2020, defendant No.1 was forced to shut down the restaurant due to covid-19 and defendants were burdened with payment of rent, staff salaries. Hence defendants requested plaintiff to forgo rent during lock down period and accordingly plaintiff forgave rents for the months April and May of 2020. Further due to accruing losses, defendants expressed their intention to terminate the lease for Mezzanine Floor to cut the cost, but plaintiff refused the same and encouraged to expand the restaurant by amplifying seating capacity and enhancing the other changes. Thereafter in the month of June 2020 pandemic restrictions were relaxed and though defendant No.1 reopened the restaurant, their business was dull, due 11 Com.OS.1349/2024 to which defendants intended to close the same permanently. However due to persistence encouragement of plaintiff, they continued the business by requesting plaintiff to discount the lease amount. Accordingly plaintiff obliged and gave 50% discount rent payable for the months of June, July, August and September 2020.Thereafter from October 2020 plaintiff changed the rent at the usual rates. Though restaurant was operational and it was not feasible to run it on high rents, based on promises of plaintiff to extend the lease period to allow the gains in investments, defendants revamped the premises. Defendants upgraded the restaurant and relaunched it as "Patios", by making huge investments, making changes of Mezzanine Floor and expanding the restaurant to said floor with enhanced ambiance to attract more customers. In the light of such alterations, plaintiffs sought to execute a renewed lease agreement under new terms and defendants cooperated to complete the formalities for registration of said agreement and paid sum of Rs.67,500/- towards the same in the month of January 2021. However till this date plaintiff has not 12 Com.OS.1349/2024 executed such agreement nor gave any information on the status of the agreement despite having received the above money.
7. Further in the March 2021, due to Covid and restrictions imposed by Government, defendant had to shut down restaurant, which resulted in financial strain to them and plaintiff agreed to discount rent at 50% for the months of April, May and June 2021. Further defendants have narrated the rent from April 2018 to March 2022 under two separate invoices as follows:-
Rent period Ground Floor Rental Invoice (towards Patios) per month (in INR) April 2018 to December 2018 1,72,800/-
January to December 2019 1,90,080/-
January to March 2020 1,99,584/-
April to May 2020 NIL
June to September 2020 99,792/-
(50% Discounted)
October to December 2020 1,99,584/-
January to March 2021 1,99,584/-
April to June 2021 99,792/-
(50% Discounted)
July 2021 to January 2022 1,99,584
February to March 2022 2,19,564/-
13 Com.OS.1349/2024
Rent period Mezzanine Floor Rental Invoice
(towards Sound Fusion) per
month (in INR)
April 2018 to December 2018 1,62,000/-
January to August 2019 1,78,200/-
September 2019 to March 2020 1,33,920/-
April to May 2020 NIL
June to September 2020 66,960/-
(50% Discounted)
October to December 2020 1,33,920/-
January to March 2021 1,33,920/-
April to June 2021 66,960/-
(50% Discounted)
July 2021 to December 2022 1,33,920/-
January to March 2022 1,33,920/-
8. It is further averred that the above rents shows that increment of 5% was never adhered by plaintiffs, but through mutual consent and good faith, rents were paid according to invoices. From April 2022, plaintiff began to send clubbed invoices for the two floor, which are as under:-
Date Rental invoice raised (in INR) per month April to December 2022 3,67,200/-
January to March 2023 3,85,560/-
April to December 2023 4,21,260/-
January to February 2024 5,90,000/-
March to April 2024 4,96,780/-
14 Com.OS.1349/2024
9. Defendants have paid rents diligently, though it was never uniform, but from January 2024 plaintiff unilaterally began charging enhanced rent of more than 5% increase, without any explanation. The defendants resisted these demands, which were contrary to the agreed amount and for said reason plaintiff initiated petty fights with them by raising one or the other frivolous reasons. Plaintiff created ruckus in schedule property by hurling abuses and by using foul language against defendants in front of customers and employees. But defendants did not take any steps against plaintiff in good faith due to past cordial relationship. However due to such behavior of plaintiff, head chef and employees of the restaurant resigned from their positions, which impacted the business. Further in subsequent attempt to disrupt the business of defendants, in April 2024 plaintiff deliberately disconnected water supply to their restaurant and defendants were forced to find alternative source of water. As a consequence restaurant of defendants received undesirable reviews online and hence defendants were forced to shut down their restaurant from 15 Com.OS.1349/2024 12.04.2024 to 19.04.2024 till discovering of water connection. When plaintiff was confronted with said problem over email and calls, he did not respond and defendants suffered loss due to closure of restaurant.
Thereafter defendants shut down the restaurant and vacated the schedule property on 31.07.2024. They handed over the keys of schedule property to the watchman and same was informed to plaintiff orally. Inspite of it plaintiff made frivolous claims before court that the keys of schedule property is still in possession of defendants in order to have wrongful gain by claiming rent for above duration. Thereafter during course of suit, as per order of this court a duplicate key was made and handed over to plaintiff on 13.12.2024.
10. It is further averred that plaintiff increased the rent of schedule property unilaterally and invoices raised by plaintiff are not binding upon defendants. Further at no point of time plaintiff has informed that he has with held security deposit and he evaded to mention his liability to return said deposit to the defendants. Further despite assuring to renew the lease deed in the year 2021, plaintiff has not 16 Com.OS.1349/2024 provided such renewed deed, despite having received above amount of Rs.67,500/- from defendants. The plaintiff demanded increase in rents absurdly by almost 18% and he did not execute renewed lease agreement. Hence plaintiff had no intention to renew the lease deed and he was adopting techniques to drive out defendants, so that he could lease the schedule property to other prospective lessees for higher prices leveraging the interiors already put in place by defendants investment. Hence defendants invested substantial amount in schedule property on assurance of plaintiff to renew the lease and plaintiff by refusing to extend the same and also by arbitrarily raising rent caused significant financial harm to defendants.
11. Hence it is specifically contended by defendants that, plaintiff is liable to compensate defendants as under:-
i. Rs.63,85,300/- towards investment made for improving the interiors and ambiance based on expectation of extension of lease.
ii. Refund of security deposit of Rs.21 Lakhs with interest of 18% from the date of vacating and handing over possession of schedule 17 Com.OS.1349/2024 property on 31.07.2024 till the date of realization.
iii. Rs.2 Lakhs towards loss of business and forced closure of restaurant due to repeated disruption of business operations, including disconnection of water supply and misconduct by plaintiff.
iv. Refund of Rs.67,500/- paid for registration of renewed lease deed with interest of 18% per annum from date of payment till realization.
12. The defendants have denied the entire other averments of plaint which is contrary to their aforesaid contentions. Hence defendants have prayed to dismiss the suit of plaintiff with costs and to pass a decree in favour of defendant No.1, directing plaintiff to pay total sum of Rs.87,52,800/- along with interest at the rate of 18% from date of payment till realization as prayed for in their counter claim.
13. The plaintiff has filed rejoinder/ written statement to aforesaid counter claim of defendant, wherein it is averred that, the claim of defendants is not maintainable. The plaintiff has denied the entire averments of written statement and counter claim 18 Com.OS.1349/2024 filed by defendants, which is contrary to averments of the plaint in para wise remarks. The plaintiff has also denied the cause of action narrated in counter claim and asserts that same has been created for the purpose harassing plaintiff. Apart from aforesaid denials, plaintiff has specifically contended that, he never agreed to return alleged investment amount of Rs.63,85,300/- made by defendants and there is no such contract between them for returning of said investments for the improvement of business of defendants. It is further averred that there was no construction of any floor of schedule property at any point of time by defendants and the lease deed description itself clearly shows the measurement of Mezzanine floor as 1650 sq.ft. Plaintiff further asserts that there is no email communication from defendants claiming the alleged investment either before or after termination of tenancy and it is a cooked up story of defendants without producing any documents in that regard. Hence plaintiff has prayed for rejection of claim of defendants towards aforesaid investment.
19 Com.OS.1349/2024
14. Further plaintiff has relied upon email of defendants dtd.02.04.2024, wherein it is intimated that they do not wish to speak directly to him and they wish to handle this matter via email. Further plaintiff has also extracted the contents of email dtd.02.04.2024 addressed by defendants to plaintiff with regard to their intention of communication via email or lawyers and not by any verbal mode across the table. It is specifically contended by plaintiff that, despite above communication by defendants, for the first time defendants have taken contention of vacating of schedule property on 31.07.2024 in para No.23 of written statement, which is untrue and afterthought. Hence plaintiff seriously denies the contention of defendants that they vacated and handed over the keys of schedule property to the watchman. Further despite service of termination notice on 18.06.2024 defendant did not reply through email or through lawyer intimating above facts and as such the above story being unbelievable makes their counter claim rejectable.
15. It is further averred that lease period of defendants commenced from 01.02.2018 for period 20 Com.OS.1349/2024 of 05 years expiring on 31.01.2023. Absolutely there is no oral or separate document and in spite of lease terms about maintenance amount of Rs.7,500/- for each floor, defendants have denied the said clause. It is further averred that after expiry of lease deed, there was no occasion for plaintiff to collect amount of Rs.67,500/- from defendants during January 2021 and same is a created story for the purpose of counter claim. Further the plaintiff has narrated about increase of rent by adding GST and further asserts that when he insisted defendants to vacate the property, they came up with promise to pay the rent of Rs.4,21,000/- plus GST from January 2024 onwards. It is further averred in rejoinder that business of defendants was running smoothly and defendants suffered loss due to lack of competence in meeting hotel customers and in handling the staffs. The plaintiff is noway responsible for the same and the review documents of customers are evident about aforesaid facts.
16. It is further averred that despite having received termination notice through email, defendants did not reply to it and on approaching 21 Com.OS.1349/2024 DLSA by plaintiff, defendants despite appearing through their counsel did not say anything about vacating the schedule property on 31.07.2024. They simply dragged the application and on intervention of the court they came forward to handing over the keys. Further question of handing over the keys allegedly in the hands of watchman is not the understanding or terms of lease deed and absolutely there is no email communication between parties about handing over the keys of schedule property. Hence defendants have taken said contention to avoid payment of rent.
17. It is further averred that plaintiff is not partner with defendant No.1 firm and question of he should suffer alleged loss of defendants is not tenable under law, since there is no contract between parties to return investment or to compensate defendants in the event of suffering any loss by them in business carried out in schedule property. Further seeking rent free 06 months by defendants shows their intention to extract illegal money from plaintiff. It is further averred that there is no understanding for refund of security deposit amount of Rs.21 Lakhs with interest 22 Com.OS.1349/2024 as per terms of lease deed. The plaintiff filed present suit for ejectment and rent arrears, since defendants deliberately did not handover the keys of said property for reason best known to them. Hence there was no legal or model obligation for plaintiff to refund the deposit amount.
18. It is further contended by plaintiff that the construction of entire building was completed during 2016 and some tenants occupied 2nd floor under separate agreement in the year 2016 itself. Hence question of defendants investing money for construction of suit property is not true. Further plaintiff was never acted detrimental to the interest of defendants. The communication of email dtd.02.04.2024 shows the greed to defendants to extract the money for vacating the schedule property and to seek rent free accommodation. Hence plaintiff is not liable to compensate anything to defendants and they have failed to show the investment over schedule property. It is further averred that when defendant Nos.1 and 2 are parties to lease deed, question of bringing their other partner does not arise, since Managing Partner is already on record.
23 Com.OS.1349/2024 These amongst other grounds plaintiff has prayed for dismissal of counter claim filed by defendants and to award exemplary costs.
19. In view of aforesaid pleadings of both parties, the following issues are framed:
1. Whether plaintiff proves that suit schedule properties was rented to defendants as per terms of Rent Agreements dated 18.01.2018 on monthly rent of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1,60,000/- with enhancement clause of increase in rent by 5% for every year as averred in para No.5 of the plaint?
2. Whether plaintiff proves that defendants have committed default in payment of rent from October 2023 and they are in due of Rs.56,69,640/-
towards rent for the period between October 2023 to September 2024?
3. Whether plaintiff proves that defendants are in due of Rs.5,52,000/- towards maintenance amount of suit schedule properties as averred in para No.6 of the plaint?
4. Whether plaintiff proves that he has terminated the tenancy of defendants over suit schedule property w.e.f.
24 Com.OS.1349/2024 15.07.2024 by issuing legal notice dated 18.06.2024?
5. Whether defendants prove that plaintiff has demanded increased rents absurdly by almost 18% in violation of clauses of Rent Agreement?
6. Whether defendants prove that they have incurred an amount of Rs.63,85,300/- towards investment made for improving interiors and ambiance of suit schedule properties expecting extension of lease and plaintiff is liable to pay the same as compensation?
7. Whether defendants prove that plaintiff has received security deposit of Rs.21,00,000/- and he is liable to refund the same with interest from 31.07.2024 till realization?
8. Whether defendants prove that plaintiff is liable to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to them towards loss of business and forced closure of restaurant as averred in para No.29 of their Counter Claim?
9. Whether defendants prove that they have incurred expenses of Rs.67,500/- for registration of renewed Lease Deed and plaintiff is liable to refund the same with interest as averred in para No.29 of their counter claim?
25 Com.OS.1349/2024
10. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
11. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought?
12. Whether defendants are entitled for relief claimed in their counter claim?
13. What order or decree?
Additional Issue dtd.23.04.2026.
1. What is actual date on which defendants vacated and handed over vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to plaintiff?
20. In support of his case, plaintiff has got examined himself as PW1 and got marked 16 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. On the other hand defendant No.2 has also entered into witness box as DW1 on behalf of both defendants and he has got marked Ex.D22 to D59 documents. However, defendants have got marked Ex.D1 to D21 documents by way of confrontation to PW1 during his cross examination.
21. Heard arguments of counsel for both sides. Perused oral and documentary evidence adduced by 26 Com.OS.1349/2024 both parties.
22. The followings are answers to above:
Issue No.1:- In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2:- Partly in the Affirmative. Issue No.3:- In the Affirmative.
Issue No.4:- In the Affirmative.
Issue No.5:- In the Affirmative.
Issue No.6:- In the Negative.
Issue No.7:- Partly in the Affirmative. Issue No.8:- In the Negative.
Issue No.9:- In the Negative.
Issue No.10:- In the Negative.
Issue No.11:- Partly in the Affirmative. Issue No.12:- Partly in the Affirmative. Addl.Issue No.1:- "13.12.2024". Issue No.13:- As per the final Order for the following;
REASONS
23. Issue No.1:- The pleadings of both parties are already narrated in detail in forgoing paras and same need not be repeated. As already stated above, plaintiff has got examined himself as PW1 and got marked 16 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. On the other hand defendant No.2 has also entered into witness box as DW1 on behalf of both defendants and he has got marked Ex.D22 to D59 documents. It is specific case of plaintiff that suit schedule 27 Com.OS.1349/2024 properties were rented to defendants as per terms of Rent Agreement dated 18.01.2018 on monthly rent of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1,60,000/- with enhancement clause of increase in rent by 5% for every year. In support of said contention plaintiff/ PW1 has filed his chief examination affidavit by reiterating averments of plaint with regard to the aforesaid lease transaction of plaint schedule property in respect of the ground and mezzanine floor, under two separate lease Agreements.
24. Further, PW1 has got marked Ex.P1 Lease Agreement pertaining to Mezzanine floor of suit schedule property, which is said to have been rented for period of 60 Months from 01.02.2018 for the purpose of carrying on a vegetarian restaurant. In Clause 2 of said Agreement, it is specifically mentioned that tenants / defendants have agreed to pay sum of Rs.1,50,000/- during first year i.e. from 01.02.2018 to 31.12.2018 Rs.1,65,000/- during second year i.e. from 01.01.2019 to 31.12.2019. The said clause further shows that lessees have agreed to enhance rate of rent by 5% once in a year on the then existing monthly rent.
28 Com.OS.1349/2024
25. Further, PW1 has got marked copy of another Lease Agreement pertaining to Ground floor of suit schedule property as per Ex.P2, which is also said to have been rented for period of 60 months from 01.02.2018 for the purpose of carrying on a vegetarian restaurant. In Clause 2 of said Agreement, it is specifically mentioned that tenants / defendants have agreed to pay sum of Rs.1,60,000/- during first year i.e. from 01.02.2018 to 31.12.2018, Rs.1,76,000/- during second year i.e. from 01.01.2019 to 31.12.2019. The said clause also shows that lessees have agreed to enhance rate of rent by 5% once in a year on the then existing monthly rent. Further on going through the entire averments of written statement and counter claim filed by defendants, execution of aforesaid initial Lease Agreements is not denied and disputed by other side and the entire defense of defendants is solely based upon claiming excess rent by plaintiff. For these reasons the aforesaid Ex.P1 and P2 lease agreements sufficiently disclose that leasing of item Nos.1 and 2 of suit schedule premises by plaintiff to defendants as averred in plaint. Hence, plaintiff has 29 Com.OS.1349/2024 proved suit schedule properties was rented to defendants as per terms of Ex.P1 and P2 Rent Agreements dated 18.01.2018 on monthly rent of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1,60,000/- with enhancement clause of increase in rent by 5% for every year as averred in para No.5 of the plaint. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
26. Additional Issue dated 23.04.2026:- There is serious dispute between parties with regard to handing over of keys of suit schedule property by defendants. Admittedly, plaintiff has filed present suit against defendants with main relief to direct defendant Nos.1 and 2 to vacate and hand over the suit schedule property to plaintiff. However, defendants have specifically contended in their written statement that due to subsequent attempt to disrupt the business of defendants, in April 2024 plaintiff deliberately disconnected water supply to their restaurant and defendants were forced to find alternative source of water. As a consequence restaurant of defendants received undesirable reviews online and hence defendants were forced to shut down their restaurant from 12.04.2024 to 30 Com.OS.1349/2024 19.04.2024 till discovering of water connection. When plaintiff was confronted with said problem over email and calls, he did not respond and defendants suffered loss due to closure of restaurant. Thereafter defendants shut down the restaurant and vacated the schedule property on 31.07.2024. They handed over the keys of schedule property to the watchman and same was informed to plaintiff orally. In spite of it plaintiff made frivolous claims before court that the keys of schedule property is still in possession of defendants in order to have wrongful gain by claiming rent for above duration. Thereafter during course of suit, as per order of this court a duplicate key was made and handed over to plaintiff on 13.12.2024. However, the said defense of defendants has been seriously denied and disputed by plaintiff's side and counsel for plaintiff has vehemently argued that as per order of this court dated 09.12.2024 and 13.12.2024, defendants had agreed to hand over the keys of suit schedule premises to plaintiff within three days time and accordingly on 13.12.2024 defendants have handed over duplicate keys of suit schedule property to plaintiff. The order sheet of this 31 Com.OS.1349/2024 case dated 13.12.2024 clearly discloses that as per order dated 09.12.2024 defendant No.2 has handed over duplicate key of schedule property to plaintiff and subsequently, despite referring the matter to Lok-adalath on 14.12.2024, the issue of arrears of rent is not settled between parties. However, defendants have sticked on to their defense with regard to handing over the keys to the watchman on 31.07.2024 itself.
27. In this regard, PW1 has been elaborately cross examined by counsel for defendant, wherein he has categorically denied in para No.13 of his cross examination that his watchman was authorized to manage the keys of schedule property and defendants had handed over original keys of said property to said watchman on 31.07.2024. PW1 has specifically stated that, if defendants had handed over such keys, the watchman would have informed him. Under such circumstances the burden lies upon defendant\s to prove that they had handed over the original keys to aforesaid watchman. However, defendants have neither chosen to mention name of said watchman nor to examine him in support of 32 Com.OS.1349/2024 their case to prove that they had handed over keys of schedule property to said watchman on 31.07.2024 itself.
28. Most importantly, in para 5 of his cross examination DW1 has clearly admitted that there is no term in Lease Agreements with regard to handing over keys of premises to watchman. Though, DW1 asserts that since plaintiff was not available, he handed over the keys to watchman, he denies to remember the said watchman. DW1 further admits that he did not inform said fact to plaintiff, but asserts that they had already informed about the date on which their intending to vacate the property. DW1 has denied that they handed over the keys in the month of December 2024 and further states that since plaintiff denied handing over the keys to the watchman, they handed over duplicate keys to plaintiff on 14.12.2024. On questioning as to how did DW1 got the duplicate keys of said premises, he has stated that they went to premises with consent of owner, they took original keys from watchman and then they got prepared duplicate keys. However, when they got the original keys itself from the 33 Com.OS.1349/2024 watchman, they could have handed over the said original keys itself to plaintiff either personally or by summoning said watchman. These all aspects makes evidence of DW1 doubtful with regard to handing over the keys of premises to watchman on 31.07.2024. DW1 has further stated that their person by name Lakshman had called the owner and took such consent. The plaintiff has denied the entire evidence of DW1 with regard to handing over of keys to watchman. In spite of it, defendants have neither to chosen examine the aforesaid watchman or their Representative by name Lakshman to prove aforesaid facts. These all aspects are sufficient to believe that defendants have not handed over any keys of suit schedule property to plaintiff on 31.07.2024 and defendants have handed over such keys of schedule property to plaintiff before this court on 13.12.2024 as evident in proceedings dated 13.12.2024. Accordingly, Additional Issue dated 23.04.2026 is answered as "13.12.2024".
29. Issue Nos.2 and 5:- The plaintiff has specifically contended that defendants have committed default in payment of rent from October 34 Com.OS.1349/2024 2023 to September 2024 and as on the date of filing of the suit, they are liable to pay Rs.56,69,640/- towards arrears of rent.
30. PW1 has got marked Ex.P1 Lease Agreement pertaining to Mezzanine floor of suit schedule property, which is said to have been rented for period of 60 Months from 01.02.2018 for the purpose of carrying on a vegetarian restaurant. In Clause 2 of said Agreement, it is specifically mentioned that tenants / defendants have agreed to pay sum of Rs.1,50,000/- during first year i.e. from 01.02.2018 to 31.12.2018 Rs.1,65,000/- during second year i.e. from 01.01.2019 to 31.12.2019. The said clause further shows that lessees have agreed to enhance rat e of rent by 5% once in a year on the then existing monthly rent.
31. Further, PW1 has got copy of another Lease Agreement pertaining to Ground floor of suit schedule property as per Ex.P2, which is also said to have been rented for period of 60 Months from 01.02.2018 for the purpose of carrying on a vegetarian restaurant. In Clause 2 of said 35 Com.OS.1349/2024 Agreement, it is specifically mentioned that tenants / defendants have agreed to pay sum of Rs.1,60,000/- during first year i.e. from 01.02.2018 to 31.12.2018 Rs.1,76,000/- during second year i.e. from 01.01.2019 to 31.12.2019. The said clause further shows that lessees have agreed to enhance rate of rent by 5% once in a year on the then existing monthly rent. The said lease deeds further discloses that defendants themselves have agreed to pay the applicable taxes such as GST on above rents, which has to be calculated at 18% on rent dues.
32. Thus, as per Ex.P1 and P2 Lease Deeds the actual rent of suit schedule property with GST has to be calculated as under:
RENT CALCULATION Ex.P1- Mezzanine Floor Ex.P2- Ground Floor I year From 01.02.2018 to 31.12.2018 Rs.1,60,000/- + GST Rs.1,50,000/- + GST II year From 01.01.2018 to 31.12.2019 Rs.1,76,000/- + GST Rs.1,65,000/- + GST III year From 01.01.2020 to 31.12.2020 Rs.1,76,000/- + 5% Rs.1,65,000/- + 5% (Rs.8250/-) (Rs.8800) = Rs.1,84,800/- = Rs.1,73,250 IV year From 01.01.2021 to 31.12.2021 Rs.1,84,800 + 5% Rs.1,73,250/- + 5% (Rs.8663) (Rs.9240) = Rs.1,94,040/- = Rs.1,81,913/-
36 Com.OS.1349/2024 V year From 01.01.2022 to 31.12.2022 Rs.1,94,040+ 5% (Rs.9702) Rs.1,81,913/- + 5% (Rs.9096) = Rs.2,03,742/-
= Rs.1,91,009/-
VI year From 01.01.2023 to 31.12.2023 Rs.2,03,742/- + 5% Rs.1,91,009 + 5% (Rs.9550/-) (Rs.10187) = Rs.2,13,929/- = Rs.2,00,559/-
VII From 01.01.2024 to 31.12.2024 Rs.2,13,929/- + 5% year Rs.2,00,559/- + 5% = Rs.10028/- (Rs.10,696) = Rs.2,24,625 Rs.2,10,587/-
Therefore liability of =Rs.4,35,212/- + 18% defendants to pay rent from GST Rs. 78,338/-= 01.01.2024 to 31.12.2024 with Rs.5,13,550/- GST
33. However, defendants have seriously denied aforesaid alleged default committed by them in payment of rent and they assert to have paid the rent regularly till January 2024. It is specifically contended that since plaintiff unilaterally began charging rent much higher than 5% percent increase from January 2024, they resisted such demands. Hence, according to defendants they have paid rent of schedule premises till January 2024 and they further assert to have vacated the premises on 31.07.2024.
34. However as already answered on Addl.Issue dtd.23.04.2026, it is already proved that defendants have vacated the Item Nos.1 and 2 of suit schedule 37 Com.OS.1349/2024 premises on 13.12.2024. Now the only question to be determined is that, till what period defendants have paid rent of schedule premises. Though PW1 has asserted that, defendants are in due of rent from October 2023 to September 2024 amounting to Rs.56,69,640/-, in his cross examination at para No.16, he has been confronted with invoices issued by him towards rent and he has admitted the same. The said invoices are marked as Ex.D6 to Ex.D12. Further DW1 has also got marked additional invoices issued by plaintiff towards aforesaid rent of schedule premises as per Ex.D56, which are pertaining from November 2018 to February 2024. Most importantly DW1 has produced copy of his bank account statements of Indusind Bank, HDFC Bank and Yes Bank as per Ex.D52 & Ex.D53 by highlighting relevant entries showing payment of rent to plaintiff till the month of January 2024. The statement of Yes Bank for the month of January 2024 shows transfer of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each to plaintiff on 24.01.2024 and 30.01.2024. The said aspect and other relevant entries of said bank statements sufficiently disclose that defendants have paid rent to 38 Com.OS.1349/2024 plaintiff upto the month of January 2024 and said documents are not deemed to have been disputed by plaintiff side in any manner. Moreover, the DW1 has produced copy of ledger account of defendants showing payment of rent from the year 2019 to 2024, showing regular payment of rents by defendants to plaintiff till January 2024 as per invoices raised by him. Though it shows that the said ledger and bank statements disclose payment of Rs.2,50,000/- for the month of January 2024, same has to be taken for consideration in calculating the rent dues. In para No.10 of cross examination though DW1 admits that they have not paid rent as per lease deed, he states that they have paid it as per invoices raised by plaintiff upto January 2024. He has further asserted that they raised dispute with regard to raising of rent by plaintiff from January 2024 as per email, which is marked as Ex.P12(a) and also by verbally. In this regard the counsel for defendants has drawn attention of this court to Ex.D9 and Ex.D10 invoices showing sudden increase of rent by plaintiff to Rs.5,40,000/- for the month of January and February 2024, which was just 39 Com.OS.1349/2024 Rs.3,85,560/- in the month of December 2023. This aspect shows that the aforesaid rent has been calculated by plaintiff at nearly 18% of existing rent, which is contrary to terms of Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 Lease Agreement and same is not based upon proper calculation as per terms of lease. Hence defendants has proved that the plaintiff has absurdly increased the rent in violation of Rent Agreement.
35. Moreover the aforesaid invoices issued by plaintiff clearly discloses that, he has charged GST of 18% on rent and the aforesaid bank statements of defendants sufficiently disclose payment of such rent by them till January 2024. Further in para No.13 of cross examination of DW1, plaintiff themselves have suggested to him that documents produced by him relate to payment of rent only till December 2023. DW1 has specifically denied that as on January 2024 the rent of both floors was Rs.4,96,780/-. Thereafter it is suggested to DW1 in para No.25 of the cross examination that they have not paid invoice amount from October 2023 to September 2024, which is contrary to aforesaid suggestions of plaintiff himself and to the bank account statements and ledger 40 Com.OS.1349/2024 statements produced by defendants as per Ex.D53 and Ex.D54. Thus the plaintiff is entitled to receive rent from defendants from January 2024 to 13.12.2024 that is 11 and half months at the rate of Rs.4,35,212/- with 18% GST, that amounts to Rs.5,13,550/- and an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- paid by defendants for the month of January 2024 has to be deducted in said amount. Hence the plaintiff is entitled to receive Rs.59,05,825 - Rs.2,50,000/- that is Rs.56,55,825/- from defendants towards arrears of rent from January 2024 to 13.12.2024 including GST. For these reasons though plaintiff has failed to prove that defendant is liable to pay Rs.56,69,640/- towards rent of October 2023 to September 2024, it is proved that, defendants are liable to pay arrears of rent of Rs.56,55,825/- to him. On the other hand, defendants have proved that plaintiff has increased rent upto 18% from January 2024 in violation of Clause of rent Agreements. Accordingly Issue No.2 is answered Partly in the Affirmative and Issue No.5 is answered in the Affirmative.
36. Issue No.3:- The plaintiff has further taken specific contention that, as per terms of Ex.P1 and 41 Com.OS.1349/2024 Ex.P2 Lease Agreements defendants are bound to pay maintenance amount of Rs.7,500/- to each premises, which amounts to Rs.15,000/- per month. On the other hand defendants have flatly denied their liability to pay said maintenance amount by asserting that since they themselves had their own generator connection and their own housekeeping services, there was no need for defendants to pay any maintenance charges towards suit schedule premises. However on perusal of Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 Lease Agreements, it is specifically mentioned in Clause No.2 of said Agreements that, the lessees shall pay Rs.7,500/- per month towards maintenance charges to owner, which is exclusive of rental amount. The said Clause has not been denied and disputed by defendants side. Further in para No.13 of this cross examination, though DW1 has denied the suggestions that as per Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 Lease Agreements, they were liable to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to plaintiff and though in para No.14 of his cross examination he has denied liability of defendants to pay aforesaid maintenance arrears of Rs.5,52,000/-, absolutely no documents 42 Com.OS.1349/2024 are produced by defendants to the contrary to the above terms of Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 Agreements, which mandates payment of maintenance amount by defendants. It is suggested to DW1 that in order to avoid payment of maintenance, they have falsely alleged disruption of business and harassment by plaintiff and DW1 asserts that since they had their own generator and housekeeping, they were not liable to pay the maintenance amount. However in view of specific clause of maintenance agreed by defendants, they are bound to pay said amount to plaintiff and admittedly they have not paid maintenance to above disputed period. For these reasons plaintiff has sufficiently proved that defendants are liable to pay an amount of Rs.5,52,000/- to him towards maintenance from 01.01.2021 to 30.09.2024. Accordingly Issue No.3 is answered in the Affirmative.
37. Issue No.4:- The plaintiff has specifically contended that, in view of default committed by defendants in payment of rent, he has terminated their tenancy over schedule property with effect from 15.07.2024 by issuing legal notice dtd.18.06.2024.
43 Com.OS.1349/2024 In support of said plea, plaintiff /PW1 has got marked office copy of legal notice dtd.18.06.2024 addressed to defendants as per Ex.P3, which specifically shows that plaintiff has called upon defendants to vacate and handover the possession of suit schedule property and also to pay arrears of rent and damages and also arrears of maintenance charges by way of said notice. Ex.P4 to Ex.P7 postal receipts, Ex.P8 to Ex.P11 postal unserved covers sufficiently disclose dispatch of said notice to the defendants. Most importantly Ex.P12 email dtd.13.07.2024 discloses that counsel for plaintiff has forwarded the said notice to defendants through email. The said documents are not deemed to have been disputed by defendants. Further in para No.4 of cross examination, DW1 has clearly admitted that they have received termination notice through email also and he admits that they have not replied to said termination notice, since they had verbal communications with plaintiff. However the issuance of notice by plaintiff is not disputed and same is issued well with purview of Sec.106 of Transfer of Property Act by terminating the tenancy of 44 Com.OS.1349/2024 defendants on specific date i.e. on 15.07.2024. Hence plaintiff has sufficiently proved that he has terminated the tenancy of defendants over suit schedule property with effect from 15.07.2024 by issuing Ex.P3 Legal Notice dtd.18.06.2024. Accordingly Issue No.4 is answered in the Affirmative.
38. Issue No.6:- The defendants have taken specific contention in their written statement and counter claim that, they have incurred an amount of Rs.63,85,300/- towards investments made by them for improving interiors and an ambiance of suit schedule property expecting extension of lease by plaintiff and they have further contended that plaintiff is liable to pay the said amount to them as compensation. However the plaintiff has seriously denied and disputed the aforesaid investment made by plaintiff and his liability to pay said amount.
39. In support of aforesaid contention, DW1 has specifically testified in his chief examination with regard to alleged huge amount spent by defendants for improvement and development of suit schedule 45 Com.OS.1349/2024 premises and they have also contended that the said premises of Mezzanine floor, which was incomplete at the time of leasing of the property was completed by them with their own funds expecting that plaintiff would continue the lease for further period. DW1 has further testified with regard to alleged encouragement made by plaintiff, when defendants had decided to wind up their business due to loss suffered at the time of Covid pandemic and they further assert that defendants by assuring to renew the lease deed had collected stamp duty of Rs.67,500/- from them. Hence defendants assert that expecting such continuation of lease deed in order to have proper return to their investments, they incurred aforesaid huge amount towards development and interiors of schedule property. DW1 has got marked Copy of their Partnership Deed as per Ex.D22, Original bills and journal vouchers for payments made by defendants towards investments on demised premises as per Ex.D51. Further DW1 has got marked Cash vouchers of defendant No.1 firm Sound Fusion issued in the name of one Dharani Naik who is said to be a person who has carried out 46 Com.OS.1349/2024 the alteration of petition schedule premises as per convenience of business of defendants as per Ex.D25 to Ex.D50. The said vouchers clearly discloses that defendants have paid amounts towards labour charges, tiles works, structural alterations, electrical works, plywood works, plumbing works, cable and painting work of schedule premises. However these invoices and documents are not admitted by plaintiff side and the genuineness of Ex.D25 to Ex.D50 cash vouchers are also seriously disputed. Further as rightly argued by counsel for plaintiff, the aforesaid cash vouchers are not sufficient to prove payment of aforesaid amount to said contractor by way of cash for various works without supporting invoices raised by said contractor. Moreover despite disputing said vouchers, defendants have neither examined the said contractor by name Dhjarani Naik nor they have called for any invoices or related documents in order to prove the aforesaid interior and structural works alleged to have been carried out in said premises.
40. Further though PW1 has been confronted with Ex.D1 to Ex.D5 photographs during his cross examination and though he has admitted the said 47 Com.OS.1349/2024 photos relating to Patio 805 Restaurant of defendants, he has specifically asserted that his permission was required for structural changes of the premises and same was not required for interior works. In para No.10 of his cross examination PW1 has specifically denied that defendants undertook massive renovation work of suit premises with his consent and such work included breaking of Mezzanine floor, changing the tiling, external grills, plumbing and electrical work etc., He has specifically asserted that whatever interior carried out by defendants was for business purpose and same did not require his consent. Though in para No.11 of his cross examination, PW1 admits that Clause No.6 of Ex.P1 mandates that tenant shall not alter the premises without his consent, he has volunteered that it refers to only structural changes and defendants were authorized to renovate the premises under Lease Agreement. He has further denied that the aforesaid renovation has added value to schedule premises and defendants carried out such renovations with expectation that the lease may continue for long period. He has further denied that 48 Com.OS.1349/2024 he executed to other agreements for renewal for the lease and defendants incurred Rs.67,500/- for said purpose. Absolutely nothing worth while has been elicited from the mouth of PW1 in order to believe that, he had consented for aforesaid renovations of suit schedule property and he had agreed to compensate the defendants towards such expenses after termination of the tenancy.
41. Most importantly in para No.3 of his cross examination, DW1 has admitted that there was no written contract between themselves and plaintiff with regard to prayer of payments of Rs.63,85,300/- by plaintiff towards investment made by defendants for improvement and interiors of the premises and it is also suggested to DW1 that, except Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 no other agreements were executed between them. Further in para No.9 of his cross examination, DW1 admits that he has not valued the interiors works carried out by them through any engineer. DW1 further admits that Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 Lease Deeds do not disclose any clause with regard to handing over interiors or structures by plaintiff to defendants while vacating the premises. Further in 49 Com.OS.1349/2024 para No.11 of his cross examination, DW1 asserts that though the premises was in shell condition in the year 2018, they modified such building according to the requirements of hotel business and he has clearly admitted that there is no clause in lease agreement that plaintiff has to reimburse loss suffered by them in hotel business. The entire evidence of DW1 with regard to alleged expenses incurred by defendants towards improvement and interiors is denied by plaintiff side by way of cross examination.
42. Moreover the records disclose that the tenancy has been terminated after efflux of time and there is no premature termination. Further though defendants assert that they carried out such renovations with great expectation of continuation of lease and plaintiff had renewed the lease agreements, no cogent documents are produced by them to prove said aspect. The self serving Ex.D25 to Ex.D50 Cash vouchers and Ex.D51 invoices/ Cash bills do not help defendants in any manner to prove the aforesaid expenses incurred by them to the satisfaction of the court. Further as already stated 50 Com.OS.1349/2024 above, though aforesaid documents are admitted to be true, when there is no specific clause in Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 Lease Agreements with regard to liability of plaintiff to reimburse defendants towards any such loss suffered, plaintiff cannot be personally held liable to compensate defendants, unless he is personally liable for alleged loss suffered by defendants in hotel business. Admittedly defendants have asserted loss in business due to covid-19 pandemic and they themselves have pleaded that plaintiff used to encourage them for said business and he has even extended exemption and discount in payment of rent during the period of aforesaid pandemic. Further though there are allegations of disconnection of water supply against plaintiff, absolutely no cogent documents are produced to show that plaintiff had disrupted business of defendants in any manner. For all these reasons, it is difficult to believe that defendants have incurred an amount of Rs.63,85,300/- for investment towards interiors and ambiance of suit schedule premises and plaintiff is liable to reimburse the same as compensation to them. Accordingly Issue No.6 is 51 Com.OS.1349/2024 answered in the Negative.
43. Issue No.7:- The defendants have specifically contended that plaintiff has received security deposit of Rs.21,00,000/- and he is liable to refund the same with interest from 31.07.2024 till realization. Defendants specifically contended that plaintiff has retained said deposit without any justifiable reasons, despite vacating suit schedule premises by defendants on 31.07.2024 itself by handing over the keys to his watchman. However as already stated above on Addl.Issue dtd.23.04.2026, it is proved that defendants have vacated and handed over the keys of schedule premises on 13.12.2024.
44. As far as receiving of aforesaid refundable deposit is concerned, Ex.P1 Agreement clearly discloses that plaintiff has received Rs.10,00,000/- security deposit towards Mezzanine floor and as per Ex.P2 Agreement plaintiff has received Rs.11,00,000/- security deposit towards Ground floor of schedule premises. The averments of said agreements are sufficient to believe that plaintiff has received total security deposit of Rs.21,00,000/-
52 Com.OS.1349/2024 from defendants. Further Ex.D54 ledger account of plaintiff produced by defendants sufficiently disclose transfer of said amount to plaintiff. Further though PW1 has clearly admitted that he has received said amount of Rs.21,00,000/- from defendants as refundable security deposit, he asserts to have adjusted said amount towards rent arrears. He further asserts to have produced ledger statement to show adjustment of said amount towards rent. However no such ledger account are produced by plaintiff to show adjustment of deposit amount towards rent. Further despite several contentions raised by plaintiff in the plaint, he has not whispered anything with regard to his liability to refund the said security deposit to defendants nor he has proposed any adjustment of said deposit amount towards arrears of rent.
45. Further, it is specifically contended by defendants that, since defendants deliberately did not handover the keys of said property for reason best known to them. Hence there was no legal or model obligation for plaintiff to refund the deposit amount. However failure of defendant, to vacate the 53 Com.OS.1349/2024 premises in time after termination of lease deed cannot be a ground to forfeit their funds, in the absence of express clause in agreement.
46. For these reasons defendants have sufficiently proved that plaintiff has received aforesaid refundable security deposit amount from defendants towards lease transactions of schedule premises and he is liable to refund the same to defendants. However it shows that defendants have vacated the schedule property on 13.12.2024, that is after filing of present suit and plaintiff has proved that defendants have committed default in payment of one year rent from February 2024 to December 2024. Under such circumstances, though defendants are entitled for refund of aforesaid security deposit of Rs.21,00,000/- from plaintiff, they are not entitled to claim any interest from 31.07.2024. Accordingly Issue No.7 is answered Partly in the Affirmative.
47. Issue No.8:- The defendants have specifically contended that, plaintiff is liable to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to them towards loss of business and 54 Com.OS.1349/2024 forced closure of restaurant as averred in para No.29 of their counter claim.
48. Defendants have specifically contended in their written statement that, though they paid rents diligently, from January 2024 plaintiff unilaterally began charging enhanced rent of more than 5% increase, without any explanation. The defendants resisted these demands, which were contrary to the agreed amount and for said reason plaintiff initiated petty fights with them by raising one or the other frivolous reasons. Plaintiff created ruckus in schedule property by hurling abuses and by using foul language against defendants in front of customers and employees. But defendants did not take any steps against plaintiff in good faith due to past cordial relationship. However due to such behavior of plaintiff, head chef and employees of the restaurant resigned from their positions, which impacted the business. Further in subsequent attempt to disrupt the business of defendants, in April 2024 plaintiff deliberately disconnected water supply to their restaurant and defendants were forced to find alternative source of water. As a consequence 55 Com.OS.1349/2024 restaurant of defendants received undesirable reviews online and hence defendants were forced to shut down their restaurant from 12.04.2024 to 19.04.2024 till discovering of water connection. It is further contended by defendants that, When plaintiff was confronted with said problem over email and calls, he did not respond and defendants suffered loss due to closure of restaurant. Thereafter defendants shut down the restaurant and vacated the schedule property on 31.07.2024.
49. In support of their contentions, defendants have produced statement of sales of their restaurant as per Ex.D55, Copies of Google reviews of customers showing negative remarks with regard to business of plaintiffs as per Ex.D58. However plaintiff has resisted said allegation of causing any disruption of business of defendants or disconnecting any essential like water to their business premises. Further except aforesaid allegations in written statement, defendants have not put forth any documents to show alleged inconvenience caused by plaintiff for running their hotel business or to show his liability in decrease in sale of said hotel business. Further when 56 Com.OS.1349/2024 Ex.P12(a) email specifically shows that defendants have insisted for conversations only through email, if at all any such disruption was made by plaintiff to the business of defendants, he could have definitely addressed mail to plaintiff with such allegations or he could have taken suitable steps under law to resist the act of plaintiff. In the absence of such documents, it is difficult to believe that plaintiff has caused any loss to the business of defendants. As a result plaintiff cannot be held liable to pay any compensation to defendants towards alleged loss suffered by them or towards forced closure of the restaurant. Hence Issue No.8 is answered in the Negative.
50. Issue No.9:- Defendants have taken specific contention that subsequent to covid-19 in view of loss suffered by them, they intended to close their business of restaurant. However in pursuant to encouragement of plaintiff themselves and on his promise to renew the lease transaction for subsequent period, they undertook several developments of said premises. Defendants have specifically contended that plaintiff by agreeing to 57 Com.OS.1349/2024 execute renewed lease agreement collected an amount of Rs.67,500/- from them towards registration charges. On the other hand the plaintiff has denied the said aspects and contended that he never agreed for renewal of lease transaction.
51. In support of his contention DW2 has produced copy of an account statement of Indusind Bank as per Ex.D23 showing transactions dtd.11.01.2021 wherein an amount of Rs.120.36 is deducted towards commission for draft of Rs.67,500/- and it further shows debiting of said amount of Rs.67,500/- from the account of defendant No.1. However the said entries do not reveal the name of plaintiff nor same are helpful to show that the said amount was paid by defendants towards executing renewal rent agreement itself. Further nowhere in cross examination, PW1 admitted with regard to executing renewed rent agreements. On the other hand it is suggested to DW1 in para No.3 of cross examination that the amount of Rs.67,500/- mentioned in para No.29 of their written statement relates to arrears of rent. Under such circumstances, though burden lies upon defendants to prove that, he has paid said 58 Com.OS.1349/2024 amount towards registration charges of alleged renewal of agreement, absolutely no cogent evidence is produced to prove the same. For these reasons, defendants have failed to prove that plaintiff is laible to pay aforesaid amount of Rs.67,500/- to them towards expenses incurred for renewal of lease agreement. Accordingly Issue No.9 is answered in the Negative.
52. Issue No.10:- Defendants have taken specific contention in para No.5 of their written statement that, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, since defendant No.2 is only 50% shareholder and remaining partners are not made as a party to the suit. In support of their arguments, defendants have relied upon following caselaw:-
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1345 of 2017 between Richard Lee V/s Girish Soni and Anr.
"5. ...... No doubt, they are not necessary parties form the point of view of the Eviction Petitioners, but the court has a duty to see whether the persence of the proper parties would facilitate the complete determination of the matter in dispute."
53. However though defendants have produced copy of Partnership Deed of defendant No.1 as per 59 Com.OS.1349/2024 Ex.D22 showing one A Rajini W/o Ambreesh K Rajini as other partner, Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 discloses that defendant No.2 has solely represented the said Partnership firm in aforesaid lease agreements and nowhere name of other partner is mentioned. Moreover when defendant No.2 himself has been managing the business of defendant No.1 firm in capacity of managing partner and when he has absolute knowledge with regard to lease transaction and further developments, there is no need of impleading the other partner of the firm. Further defendant No.2 himself has filed counter claim in present suit on behalf of defendant No.1 without impleading the other partner of said firm and for said reason defendants cannot plead issue of non-joinder of necessary parties against plaintiff. For these reasons defendants have failed to prove that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Accordingly, Issue No.10 is answered in the Negative.
54. Issue No.11:- It is necessary to mention that though the main relief claimed by the plaintiff in present suit is eviction of defendants and delivery of 60 Com.OS.1349/2024 possession of schedule property, as already stated above the defendants have handed over the keys of schedule property during pendency of the case as per order dtd.13.12.2024 and as such the said main relief does not survive for consideration.
55. As far as the other reliefs claimed in the plaint, the plaintiff has sufficiently proved leasing of Item No.1 and 2 of suit schedule properties to defendants in terms of Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 Lease Agreements and liability of defendants to pay an amount of Rs.56,55,825/- towards rent for the period between January 2024 to 13.12.2024. Plaintiff has further proved that defendants are liable to pay Rs.5,52,000/- towards maintenance. Hence the plaintiff is entitled for said reliefs.
56. Further plaintiff has claimed damages of Rs.10 lakh from defendant for unauthorised occupation of schedule shop despite termination of lease. The counsel for plaintiff has relied upon following caselaws with regard to right of plaintiff to seek damages and relevant portions are extracted as under:-
61 Com.OS.1349/2024 Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA No.483 c/w 484/2005 between M/s. Maniram Industrial Enterprises V/s B S Sathya Kumar.
"8. After termination of the lease, since the tenant has has not vacated the suit schedule premises, the plaintiff filed the suits for ejectment of the defendants and rightly the trial Court decreed the suits after answering the contentious issues in favour of the plaintiff in the impugned judgments by recording valid and cogent reasons, which findings of fact are accepted by me in these Appeals, as the same are based on proper appreciation of legal evidence on record. The trial Court also rightly ordered for payment of damages by the defendants to the plaintiff towards the occupation charges for the schedule premises as they have continued in unauthorized occupation in respect of the schedule premises in both the suits and defendant has failed to discharge her statutory duty as provided under Section 108(q) of the Transfer of Property Act by not handing over the vacant possession of the schedule premises to the plaintiff even after termination of tenancy in respect of the schedule premises. Therefore, no fault can be found with the same by this Court".
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 744 between Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., V/s Sudera Realty Private Limited. (Hon'ble Supreme Court) "77. It is true that Section 2(12) of the CPC defines 'mesne profits' as follows:
"2(12) "mesne profits" of property means those profits which the person in wrongful possession of such 62 Com.OS.1349/2024 property actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received therefrom, together with interest on such profits, but shall not include profits due to improvements made by the person in wrongful possession;"
82. We have however noticed what this Court has laid down in Atmaram (supra). This Court has declared that in the case of determination of a lease by the lease coming to an end, tenant would be liable to pay damages for use and occupation at the rate at which the landlord could have let out the premises on being vacated by the tenant. Without disagreeing with the said view for which we see no reason, we cannot adopt the principle which in the facts of the case commended itself to the High Court of Delhi in Rattan Lal (supra). What the landlord is entitled is, to get damages for the use and occupation at any rate, at which, the landlord could have let out the premises on being vacated by the tenant. Section 2(12), no doubt, includes profits, which the person, in wrongful possession, might, with ordinary diligence, have received therefrom. The liability of the tenant, to pay damages on the basis of the rate at which landlord could have let out the premises, may not be the same as the profit the tenant might have received with ordinary diligence. In the first place, equating the same must involve a right with a tenant to transfer or sub-let the premises. In other words, the Court would have to find whether the tenant could have, in law, let out the premises and derived a higher amount.
85. Therefore, it may not be appropriate to allow the appellant to raise the contention of limitation or to allow him to succeed on the same, based on the case falling under Article 51. This is, no doubt, despite noticing the averment in the plaint which appears to have been made with reference to Section 2(12) of the 63 Com.OS.1349/2024 CPC. We would have to, however, bear in mind the principle laid down in Atmaram (supra) and the principles we have already considered. We are of the view that landlord by the suit seeks to realise, what in law is described as damages for unauthorized occupation by the tenant after the expiry of the lease. It is not to be conflated to the profits received within the meaning of Article 51 of the Limitation Act, as it involves finding out the rate at which the landlord could have let out the premises. It would be the residuary Article, namely, Article 113, which should apply."
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 936 between Sumer Corporation V/s Vijay Anant Gangan & Ors., (Hon'ble Supreme Court) "7.2 The decision in the case of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. (supra) has been subsequently followed by this Court in the case of Super Max International Private Limited and Ors., (supra). In the said decision, it is further observed and held that in fixing the amount subject to payment of which the execution of the order/decree is stayed, the Court would exercise restraint and would not fix any excessive, fanciful or punitive amount. Therefore, in a revision / appeal preferred by the tenant, who has suffered an eviction decree, the appellate / revisional court while staying the eviction decree can direct the tenant to pay the compensation for use and occupation of the tenancy premises upon the contractual rate of rent and such compensation for use and occupation of the premises would be at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises and earn rent if the tenant would have 64 Com.OS.1349/2024 vacated the premises. In the present case, the High Court has not done that exercise and has determined the compensation considering the market value / value at which original respondent No. 19 acquired the rights of the suit property for a sum of Rs. 5.50 cores and thereafter, considering estimated return @ 6.5% per annum, the High Court has determined/ awarded the compensation for use and occupation of the premises by the tenant @ Rs.2,50,000/- per month. The aforesaid method adopted by the High Court while determining the compensation cannot be accepted. The High Court was required to undertake exercise and to determine the compensation at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises and earn rent if the tenant would have vacated the premises."
57. However, when plaintiff has been awarded the relief of recovery of rent till December 2024 and when defendants have handed over the keys of schedule premises to plaintiff during initial stage of suit itself, question of awarding damages or any interest on aforesaid arrears of rent does not arise. Hence plaintiff is not entitled for other reliefs claimed in the suit. Hence suit of the plaintiff deserves to be decreed in part in above terms. Hence Issue No.11 is answered Partly in the Affirmative.
58. Issue No.12:- As far as the counter claim of defendants is concerned, defendants have failed to 65 Com.OS.1349/2024 prove their entitlement to recover Rs.63,85,200/- towards alleged investment made by them for improvement of schedule property and also to recover Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of business and also towards Rs.67,500/- towards registration charges of alleged renewed lease deed. Hence defendants are not entitled for those counter claims. However defendants have sufficiently proved that plaintiff is in possession of security deposit of Rs.21 Lakh and they are entitled to recover the same. Though defendants have claimed interest on said security deposit, it is proved that defendants have handed over possession of schedule property on 13.12.2024 i.e., during pendency of the suit. For these reasons defendants are not entitled for any interest on aforesaid security deposit. Hence counter claim of defendants is also deserves to be allowed in part in above terms. Hence Issue No.12 is answered Partly in the Affirmative.
59. Issue No.13:- For the reasons stated and finding given on Issue Nos.1 to 12 and Addl.Issue dtd.23.04.2026, following is;
66 Com.OS.1349/2024 ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed in part with costs.
Defendants are liable to pay sum of Rs.56,55,825/- to plaintiff towards arrears of rent.
The defendants are also liable to pay Rs.5,52,000/- to plaintiff towards arrears of maintenance amount.
The counter claim filed by defendants is also allowed in part.
The plaintiff is liable to refund security deposit of Rs.21,00,000/- to defendants.
The counter claim of defendants stands rejected with regard to other reliefs claimed in para No.29 i, iii, and iv of counter claim.
Draw decree accordingly.
Office to send soft copies of the judgment to the e-mail Id's of the both parties, if email IDs are furnished.
[Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, directly on the computer, typed by her, then corrected and signed by me and pronounced in the Open Court, dated this the 30th day of April 2026] Digitally signed by ANAND T ANAND T CHAVAN CHAVAN Date: 2026.05.08 11:56:11 +0530 (ANAND T. CHAVAN) LXXXIV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
67 Com.OS.1349/2024 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF PW.1 Pankaj Samdariya.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF Original registered lease deed dated 18.01.2018 Ex.P1 executed between myself and defendants in respect of Mezzanine floor Digital certified copy of a registered lease deed Ex.P2 executed between myself and defendants in respect of ground floor Ex.P3 Office copy of legal notice dated 18.06.2024 Ex.P4 Postal receipts to P7 Ex.P8 Unserved postal cover addressed to defendant No.2 Ex.P9 Unserved postal cover addressed to defendant No.1 Ex.P10 Unserved postal cover addressed to defendant No.2 Ex.P11 Unserved postal cover addressed to defendant No.1 Ex.P12 Copies of emails (03 pages) (marked subject to & production of certificate U/Sec.63 of BSA, 2023) 12(a) Undertaking letter given by defendants dated Ex.P13 05.03.2024 Ex.P14 Copy of application filed in PIM No.1654/2024 Non starter report issued by DLSA, Bengaluru Urban Ex.P15 in PIM No.1654/2024 Ex.P16 Certificate U/Sec.65B of Evidence of Act 68 Com.OS.1349/2024 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS DW1 Nirav A. Rajani LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS Ex.D1 & Copy of two pages of photographs of Patil 805. 2 Ex.D3 Photographs.
to 5 Ex.D6 Copies of 07 invoices.
to 12 Ex.D13 Copies of 09 invoices.
to 21 Copies of partnership deed of defendants with Ex.D22 necessary enclosures Account statement of defendant no.1 held in Ex.D23 IndusInd Bank from 01.12.2020 to 31.01.2021. Certificate under Section 63 of BSA with Ex.D24 screenshots of computer system Ex.D25 Cash vouchers issued by defendant no.1 (page to nos.1 to 13) Ex.D50 Original bills and Journal Vouchers for payments Ex.D51 made by defendants towards investments on the demised premises (page nos.14 to 64) Bank statement of defendant no.1 in respect of account held in IndusInd Bank and HDFC Bank Ex.D52 reflecting payment of security deposit of Rs.21,00,000/- (page nos.65 to 165) 69 Com.OS.1349/2024 Bank statement of defendant no.1 in respect of account held in HDFC Bank and Yes Bank reflecting Ex.D53 payment of rent between April 2023 to January 2024 (page nos.166 to 303) Ex.D54 Ledger account of security deposit Statement showing sales of defendant no.1 (page Ex.D55 nos.24 to 47) Copies of Rent Invoices issued by plaintiff in the Ex.D56 name of defendant no.1 through email (page nos.56 to 168) Copy of ledger account of plaintiff maintained by Ex.D57 defendant for the years 2018 to 2024 (page nos.185 to 194) Copy of Google Reviews/platforms reviews (page Ex.D58 nos.195 to 219) Copy of statements showing depleting sales of the Ex.D59 restaurant in the month of April, May and June (page nos.224 to 279) Digitally signed by ANAND T ANAND T CHAVAN CHAVAN Date: 2026.05.08 11:56:18 +0530 (ANAND T. CHAVAN) LXXXIV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.