Bangalore District Court
Lingaraju vs Shiva Kumar G on 8 October, 2025
KABC010128662023
IN THE COURT OF LXVII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE; BENGALURU CITY (CCH.No.68)
PRESENT
SMT.RASHMI.M.
BA.LL.B., LL.M.
LXVII ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
Dated this the 8th day of October 2025.
O.S.No.3126/2023
PLAINTIFF : Sri.Lingaraju,
S/o.Ramakrishnappa,
Aged about 66 years,
R/at.No.1412, 23rd Main,
BSK 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.M.B.R., Advocate)
.Vs.
DEFENDANTS : 1. Sri.Shivakumar.G.
S/o.Gopal.L.
Aged about 41 years,
R/at.No.2191,
Vijaya Rathna Building,
Behind S.Ramesh Road,
New Sweet Land Bakery,
Prashanth Nagar,
T.Dasarahalli,
Bengaluru.
O.S.No.3126/2023
2
Also at :
Sri.Shivakumar.G.
S/o.Gopal.L.
Aged about 41 years,
UTP No.5812/2022,
Central Prison,
Hosa Road,
Parappana Agrahara,
Electronic City,
Bengaluru.
.... (Exparte)
2. Smt.Tejaswini,
D/o.Prakash,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at.Flat No.51221, Level 22,
Tower-1, Building 5,
Prestige Falcon City,
Kanakapura Road,
Konanakunte Junction,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.S.D.G., Advocate)
Date of institution of suit : 22.05.2023
Date of Registration of suit : 22.05.2023
Nature of Suit : Suit for Ejectment
Date of commencement of 16.01.2024
evidence :
Date on which the judgment 08.10.2025
is pronounced:
Duration taken for disposal : Year/s Month/s Day/s
2 4 16
(RASHMI.M)
LXVII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge,
BENGALURU.
O.S.No.3126/2023
3
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant praying the court to direct the defendant to quit, vacate and handover vacant possession of the schedule property and also to direct the defendant to pay Rs.56,000/- per month to the plaintiff towards damages for his unauthorised use and unlawful and wrongful occupation of the suit schedule property from the date of suit till he delivers the vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff. Also direct the defendant to pay Rs.15,98,201/- towards the arrears of rent along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the arrears due and to grant such other reliefs.
2. The plaint averments in brief :
The plaintiff is the owner and landlord of the schedule property having acquired the schedule property through a registered Sale Deed dated:1.01.2021. Soon after the execution of the Sale Deed in his name, he got mutated the revenue records to his name and he is paying taxes to the concerned authority. The defendant No.1 was inducted as a tenant under a rent agreement dated:1.09.2021 in respect of the entire portion of the premises on a monthly rent of Rs.60,000/- and advance of Rs.3,60,000/-. Also the original rent agreement is in O.S.No.3126/2023 4 the custody of the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 has paid the rent only till January 2022, but he has not paid the rent from February 2022 and he is due a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- towards the arrears of rent and also he has not paid the maintenance charges to the Apartments Owners Association since beginning, for which he is liable to pay Rs.3,28,201/-. The plaintiff was not able to contact the defendant No.1 and when he went near the schedule property, he found that it was in occupation of the defendant No.2. On enquiry the defendant No.2 did not give proper details of her occupation of the schedule property. As such the defendant No.1 has violated the conditions of the rent agreement dated:1.09.2021 by subletting the schedule property to the defendant No.2 and the defendant No.2 is in the illegal occupation of the suit schedule property. The defendant No.2 had filed a false and frivolous suit seeking bare injunction against the plaintiff herein in O.S.No.2968/2022, which is pending for adjudication. The plaintiff requires the suit schedule property for his bonafide use and occupation. Even he requested the defendants to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property. But the defendants failed and neglected to vacate the property. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated:6.02.2023 by way of RPAD to the defendants terminating the tenancy and called upon them to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the O.S.No.3126/2023 5 plaintiff. The notice was duly served on the defendant No.2, while the notice sent to the defendant No.1 was returned with a shara "No such person in this address". Even though the defendants have received the notice, have failed to reply the same. The defendants are in unauthorised occupantion of the suit schedule property after termination of tenancy. As such they are liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.56,000/- per month. Hence this suit.
3. Even after service of summons, the defendant No.1 has not appeared before the court. Hence the defendant No.1 is placed exparte.
4. The defendant No.2 in her written statement has specifically denied the plaint averments. It is her contention that she had entered into a lease agreement with one JABM 1 SOURCE PVT. LTD., also known as Oye Space through its representative Mr.Shivakumar who is defendant No.1 on 3.09.2021 by paying Rs.3200000/- for a period of two years which includes the maintenance charges of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has admitted that he has rented out the suit schedule property to the defendant No.1 on 1.09.2021. Also it is contended by the plaintiff that there is no relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant No.2. When that being so, there is no jural relationship between the plaintiff and defendant No.2.
O.S.No.3126/2023 6 The plaintiff has dragged the name of defendant No.2 in this case with an intention to harass her. The question of defendant No.2 vacating the suit schedule property does not arise. The plaintiff is not entitled for the relief claimed. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit.
5. The plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and marked 12 documents from Exs.P.1 to 12. While defendant No.2 has chosen not to adduce any defense evidence.
6. Heard.
7. From the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property ?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendant No.1 was tenant in the suit schedule property under him ?
3. Whether the defendant No.2 proves that she is in legal possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property ?
4. Whether the plaintiff further proves the termination of tenancy of the defendants from the suit schedule property ?
O.S.No.3126/2023 7
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of ejectment of the defendants from the suit schedule property as prayed ?
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages as prayed ?
7. What Order or Decree ?
8. My findings to the above issues are as under:
ISSUE No.1 - Affirmative,
ISSUE No.2 - Affirmative,
ISSUE No.3 - Negative,
ISSUE No.4 - Affirmative,
ISSUE No.5 - Affirmative,
ISSUE No.6 - Affirmative,
ISSUE No.7 - As per the final order,
for the following :
REASONS
9. ISSUE Nos.1 & 2 : Since both these issues are interconnected to each other, they have been taken up together for discussion in order to avoid the repetition of facts and evidence.
10. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the owner and landlord of the schedule property having acquired O.S.No.3126/2023 8 the schedule property under a registered Sale Deed dated:1.01.2021. Soon after the execution of the Sale Deed, his name is mutated in the revenue records and he is paying up to date taxes to the concerned authority. The defendant No.1 was inducted as a tenant in respect of the entire portion of the premises on a monthly rent of Rs.60,000/- and advance of Rs.3,60,000/- under a rental agreement dated:1.09.2021. Also the original rent agreement is with defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 has paid the rent only till January 2022, but he has not paid the rent from February 2022 and he is due a sum of Rs.900000 towards the arrears of rent and also he has not paid the maintenance charges to the Apartments Owners Association since the beginning, for which he is liable to pay Rs.328201/-. The plaintiff was not able to contact the defendant No.1, so he went near the schedule property and he found that it was in occupation of the defendant No.2. On enquiry the defendant No.2 did not give proper details of her occupation of the schedule property. As such the defendant No.1 has violated the conditions of the rent agreement dated:1.09.2021 by subletting the schedule property to the defendant No.2 and the defendant No.2 is in illegal occupation of the suit schedule property. The defendant No.2 had filed a false and frivolous suit seeking bare injunction against the plaintiff herein in O.S.No.2968/2022, which is pending for adjudication. The plaintiff requires the suit O.S.No.3126/2023 9 schedule property for his bonafide use and occupation. Even though he requested the defendants to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property, but they failed and neglected to vacate the property. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated:6.02.2023 by way of RPAD to the defendants terminating the tenancy and called upon them to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. The notice was duly served on the defendant No.2, while the notice sent to the defendant No.1 was returned with a shara "No such person in this address". Even though the defendants have received the notice, they have failed to reply to the same. The defendants are the unauthorised occupants of the suit schedule property after termination of tenancy. As such they are liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.56,000/- per month.
11. The plaintiff has filed an affidavit evidence in lieu of examination in chief. He has reiterated the facts stated in the plaint. He has got marked the documents Exs.P.1 to 12 namely Digital copy of Sale Deed (Ex.P.1), Certificate under Section 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act (Ex.P.2), Endorsement (Ex.P.3), Certificate issued by BBMP (Ex.P.4), Revenue Register Extract of schedule property (Ex.P.5), Postal Acknowledgments (Exs.P.6 and 7), Copy of legal notice (Ex.P.8), Certified copy of the order sheet in O.S.No.2968/2022 (Ex.P.9), Certified O.S.No.3126/2023 10 copy of the withdrawal memo (Ex.P.10), Certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.2968/2022 (Ex.P.11) and Certified copy of deed of lease (Ex.P.12).
The defendant No.2 has not cross examined the plaintiff. Hence the cross examination of P.W.1 is taken as nil. Also the defendant No.2 has chosen not to lead her defense evidence.
12. The plaintiff in order to prove that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property has furnished a registered Sale Deed (Ex.P.1), dated:1.01.2021 for having purchased the same from his vendor for a valuable consideration. He has also furnished Katha Certificate, Tax Paid Receipts with respect to the suit schedule property. As the defendant has not cross examined P.W.1, the documents furnished by the plaintiff regarding his ownership of the property stands undisputed. Hence it can be safely said that the plaintiff has proved that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property.
13. The plaintiff has contended that the original rent agreement is with the defendant No.1 and he has furnished certified copy of rent agreement (Ex.P.12) wherein the plaintiff is shown as LESSOR and the defendant No.1 is LESSEE. The said Lease Deed is for a period of 3 years commencing from 1.09.2021 to 31.08.2024. The defendant No.1 has entered into O.S.No.3126/2023 11 registered agreement in his individual capacity not on behalf of any Organization or Pvt. Ltd. The said Lease Agreement stands undisputed as defendant No.1 has failed to appear before the court even after service of suit summons. In view of the discussion made supra, it can be safely said that the plaintiff has proved that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and the defendant No.1 is his tenant under him with respect to the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the Issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the Affirmative.
14. ISSUE No.3 : It is the specific contention of the defendant No.2 that she had entered into 2 years lease agreement dated:3.09.2021 with "JABM One Source Pvt. Ltd." represented by the defendant No.1 paying Rs.32,00,000/-. It is further stated in the written argument filed by the learned advocate for defendant No.2 that admittedly there is no jural relationship between the plaintiff and defendant No.2. The defendant No.2 is an improper party joined contrary to Order I Rule 3 of C.P.C. Hence no relief can be affectively claimed against her. The exparte status of defendant No.1 cannot be used to indirectly evict the defendant No.2 because the defendant No.2 is not claiming rights through plaintiff, but through an independent contract with a third party. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit against defendant No.2.
O.S.No.3126/2023 12
15. The learned advocate for plaintiff has relied upon the following decisions.
1. 2004 0 Supreme (SC) 876, wherein Their Lordships have held as under:
"Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XXI - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Decree sought to be executed held as void ab initio - Powers of High Court - Land was let out by father of appellants to one P, predecessor of respondents - Termination of tenancy - Notice served by registered post - Copy of notice affixed on outdoor of suit premises - Suit for possession filed against heirs and L.Rs., of deceased P - Defendants had remained absent - Suit decreed, defendants were ordered to quit and vacate premises - Execution proceedings - Obstructions by respondents - Executing Court held that decree holders were entitled to execute decree - Writ Petition filed by obstructionists - Whether High Court was justified in holding the decree to be void ab initio (No) - Distinction between a decree which is void and a decree which is wrong, incorrect, irregular or not in accordance with law".
2. 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1017, wherein Their Lordships have held as under :
" The respondent has filed a suit seeking appellant's eviction and for O.S.No.3126/2023 13 recovery of unpaid arrears of rent and grant of permanent injunction.
The appellant filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. According to the appellant, since the suit was founded on the lease deed dated:31.08.2019, which contained an arbitration clause (9.8) for resolving the dispute arising out of the lease deed between the parties, and when admittedly the disputes had arisen in relation to the suit premises, the same were governed by the terms of the lease deed. The contention of the appellant was that since the disputes for which the civil suit is filed arise out of the lease deed dated:31.08.2010 which contained an arbitration clause (9.8) for their adjudication through the arbitrator, the civil suit to get such disputes decided by the Civil Court was barred ".
16. The learned advocate for defendant No.2 has relied upon the following decisions.
1. AIR 1958 SC 886 (Razia Begum .Vs. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum & Others), wherein Their Lordships have held as under :
"(A) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908), Sections 115, 11, Order 1 Rule 10(2), Order 8 Rule 5 - Question of addition of parties, whether of initial jurisdiction of court O.S.No.3126/2023 14 or of judicial discretion - Suit for declaration of status - Addition of parties - Rule of direction interest -
Grant of declaration on admissiion of claim - Result of declaratory decree - Rule in Section 43, Specific Relief Act, whether one of res judicata".
2. AIR 1968 SC 620 (Lallu Yeshwant Singh (dead) by his legal representative .Vs. Rao Jagdish Singh & Others", wherein Their Lordships have held as under :
" (A) Qanoon Ryotwari Gwalior State (1974 Smvt), Sections 82(3), 187, 163 -
Tenancy Laws - Extinguishment of tenancy right under Section 82(3) -
Landlord has no right to re-enter - He must approach Court for dispossession of tenant under Section 137 - Forcibly taking possession is illegal".
3. (1987) 4 SCC 193 (Smt.Shanti Sharma & Others .Vs. Smt.Ved Prabha & Others), wherein Their Lordships have held as under :
" Rent Control and Eviction -
Eviction - Bonafide requirement of owner - 'Owner' - Meaning of, in the context of expression "if he is the owner thereof" - in proviso (e) to Section 14(1) in Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Person taking land on long term lease from Development Authority and constructing building O.S.No.3126/2023 15 thereon, is 'owner' of the building within the meaning of proviso (e) - Such person will not cease to be the owner merely on issuance of a notice of the Authority terminating the lease when on representation further action had been stayed by the Authority".
17. In view of the aforesaid decisions relied by both sides and the contention taken by the defendant No.2 that she has entered into 2 years lease agreement dated:3.09.2021 with JABM 1 Source Pvt. Ltd." represented by the defendant No.1. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the Lease Agreement (Ex.P.12) entered between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. From the Lease Agreement (Ex.P.12), it is evident that Shivakumar.G. has taken the suit schedule property for lease in his personal capacity and not on behalf of JABM 1 Source Pvt. Ltd. Under the heading "USE OF PREMISES" in Col.No.5(a), it is stated that "The Lessee shall use the rented premises for the residential purpose of M.Shivakumar.G. and family only". Further in Col.No.5(b), it is stated that "The Lessee shall not use the rented premises for any illegal, objectable trade or business or subject, underlet, assign or otherwise part with the portion of the premises or any part thereof or run any guest house herein during the continuance of the tenancy".
O.S.No.3126/2023 16
18. In view of the lease agreement (Ex.P.12) entered between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, it can be safely said that the defendant No.1 had no authority to sublease the property to any third party. Also the suit schedule property was given to the defendant No.1 only for his personal use and not for the purpose for which he has used the suit schedule property i.e., subletting it to the defendant No.2.
19. Even though the defendant No.2 has claimed that she had entered into lease agreement agreement dated:3.09.2021 with JABM 1 Source Pvt. Ltd." represented by the defendant No.1. But the defendant No.2 has chosen not to furnish the said lease agreement dated:3.09.2021 alleged to have been entered by the defendant No.2 with the defendant No.1.
20. Further the suit was filed for eviction, and the ground for eviction was two-fold, viz., the rent was not paid and that the defendant No.1 has sublet the premises to defendant No.2. The main question before the court is whether the plaintiff consented to the subletting the premises and if so, when and to what effect? In this regard, there was no evidence that the plaintiff was ever consulted and it is to be noted that the sub-tenant (defendant 2) have not established their induction to the tenanted premises was with written consent and knowledge of the landlord/plaintiff. Hence O.S.No.3126/2023 17 in view of the discussion made supra, it can be safely said that the defendant No.2 who is a sublessee has failed to prove that she is in legal possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the Issue No.3 is answered in the Negative.
21. ISSUE Nos.4 & 5 : Since both these issues are interconnected to each other, they have been taken up together for discussion in order to avoid the repetition of facts and evidence.
22. The plaintiff has contended that he has terminated the tenancy and for the relief of ejectment of the defendants from the suit schedule property. In this regard the plaintiff has furnished the legal notice (Ex.P.8) dated:6.02.2023 addressed to the defendant No.1-Sri.Shivakumar.G. and the defendant No.2- Smt.Tejaswini, calling upon them to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property on or before 30.04.2023 and to pay Rs.7,95,000/- towards arrears of rent in respect of the suit schedule property and Rs.2,80,466-86ps., towards arrears of maintenance amount of the apartment. In the lease agreement (Ex.P.12), it is stated the lease period commenced from 1.09.2021 to 31.08.2024. In Col.No.9(b) under the heading "TERMINATION", it is stated that "The LESSOR shall also be entitled to terminate the Rental Period before the expiry of the lease by O.S.No.3126/2023 18 giving sixty (60) days written notice to the LESSEE of its intention to terminate the lease of the rented premises by paying the balance rent as per the lock in period condition, herein above mentioned, if there is any breach of the terms and conditions set forth in this lease deed". As the notice was issued on 6.02.2023 and in the notice, the defendants are called upon to quit and deliver the vacant possession on or before 30.04.2023. As such in compliance of Clause 9(b) of the lease agreement (Ex.P.12), the plaintiff had issued notice giving 60 days to the defendants expressing his intention to terminate the lease of the rented premises and also asked him to pay the balance rent. It is also stated that the defendant No.1 is a chronic defaulter in payment of rent and he had violated the conditions of rent agreement dated:1.09.2021 and sublet the suit schedule property to the defendant No.2. As such it can be safely said that the plaintiff has terminated the tenancy of the defendant No.1 in terms of Clause 9 of the Lease Agreement.
23. Further in the present case the LESSEE (defendant No.1) has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of rent due within one month of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served on him by the plaintiff in the manner provided in Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
O.S.No.3126/2023 19 The eviction of the tenant and sub-tenant can be claimed if the landlord establishes that the tenant has unlawfully sublet the premises to the sub-tenant. As discussed supra, the plaintiff has proved that the defendant No.1 has violated the conditions of the lease agreement (Ex.P.12) and has sublet the suit schedule property to the defendant No.2.
24. The law does not require that the sub-lessee need to be made a party in the suit. It has been observed in catena of decisions that in all cases where the landlord institutes a suit against the lessee for possession of the land on the basis of a valid notice to quit served on the lessee and does not implead the sub- lessee as a party to the suit, the object of the landlord is to eject the sublessee from the land in execution of the decree and such an object is quite legitimate. The decree in such a suit would bind the sub-lessee. This may act harshly on the sub-lessee; but this is a position well understood by him when he took the property on sub-lease. Since defendant No.2 is claiming through the defendant No.1, he will be bound by the decree passed in the suit.
25. In Importers and Manufacturers Ltd. .Vs. Pheroze Framroze Taraporewala and Ors.,MANU/SC/0071/1952 : [1953]4SCR226 H , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "In a suit for O.S.No.3126/2023 20 possession by a landlord against a tenant, sub- tenant is merely a proper party and not a necessary party". In view of the discussion made supra, it can be safely said that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of ejectment of the defendants i.e., defendant No.1 who is the tenant under the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 who is the subtenant with respect to the schedule property is claiming to be a tenant under defendant No.1 from the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the Issue Nos.4 and 5 are answered in the Affirmative.
26. ISSUE No.6 : The plaintiff has specifically contended that the defendant No.1 has not paid the rents to him since February 2022 and also the defendant No.2 who is the sublessee in illegal occupation of the suit schedule property has not paid the rents and maintenance amount to the Apartment Owners Association since beginning and the defendants are due to Rs.3,38,201/- towards arrears of maintenance. Also he has sought Rs.56,000/- towards damages and a sum of Rs.15,98,201/- towards arrears of rent along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
27. In the present case, the defendant No.2 who is claiming to be the sublessee under defendant No.1 admittedly has not paid the rents and maintenance O.S.No.3126/2023 21 charges to the plaintiff and Apartment Owners Association. Taking note that under the Deed of Lease (Ex.P.12), the defendant No.1 is the tenant under the plaintiff and he has not paid the arrears and maintenance. As such the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.15,98,201/- towards the arrears of rent from defendant No.1 and damages of Rs.56,000/- per month from the defendant No.1 for his unauthorised dues and failure on his part to pay towards the maintenance of the apartment pertaining to the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the Issue No.6 is answered in the Affirmative.
28. ISSUE No.7 : In view of my findings on Issue Nos.1 to 6, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with costs.
The defendant is directed to quit, vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within 3 months from the date of this judgment.
Further the defendant is directed to pay Rs.56,000/- per month to the plaintiff towards damages from the date of suit till delivery of the vacant O.S.No.3126/2023 22 possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff.
Further the defendant is directed to pay Rs.15,98,201/- to the plaintiff towards arrears of rent with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of the suit till its realization. Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II directly on computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of October 2025) (RASHMI.M) LXVII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, BENGALURU.
SCH EDULE All that piece and parcel of the property bearing Flat No.51221, Level 22, Tower 1, Building 5, Prestige Falcon City, Kanakapura Road, Konanakunte Junction, Bengaluru -560 062 consisting of three bed room with attached toilets, kitchen, hall and portico, bounded on :
East by : Staircase/corridor/life West by : Open towards open space North by : Open towards open space South by : Apartment bearing Flat No.51224.
O.S.No.3126/2023 23 ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED IN FAVOUR OF THE PLAINTIFFS :
P.W.1 Lingaraju
2. WITNESSES EXAMINED IN FAVOUR OF THE DEFENDANT :
-NIL-
3. DOCUMENTS MARKED IN FAVOUR OF THE PLAINTIFFS :
Ex.P.1 Digital copy of Sale Deed
Ex.P.2 Certificate under Section 65(B) of
Indian Evidence Act
Ex.P.3 Endorsement
Ex.P.4 Certificate issued by BBMP
Ex.P.5 Revenue Register Extract of
schedule property
Exs.P.6 & 7 Postal Acknowledgments
Ex.P.8 Copy of legal notice
Ex.P.9 Certified copy of the order sheet in
O.S.No.2968/2022
Ex.P.10 Certified copy of the withdrawal
memo
Ex.P.11 Certified copy of the plaint in
O.S.No.2968/2022
Ex.P.12 Certified copy of deed of lease
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED IN FAVOUR OF THE DEFENDANT :
-NIL-
(RASHMI.M) LXVII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, BENGALURU.Digitally signed by RASHMI M
RASHMI Date:
M 2025.10.08
17:31:27
+0530