Bangalore District Court
Smt. Vidyavathi vs Sri Mohammed Afsar on 7 October, 2016
C.R.P. 67] Government of Karnataka
Form No. 9
(Civil) TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGEMENTS IN SUITS
Title Sheet for
Judgment in IN THE COURT OF THE SMALL CAUSES AT BANGALORE
Suits
PRESENT: Basavaraj Chengti., B.Com.,LL.B.,(spl)
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BANGALORE.
Dated this the 7th day of October 2016
S.C.No.480/2014
PLAINTIFF: 1. SMT. VIDYAVATHI
W/o M.Omprakahsh
Aged about 60 years
2. SRI.M.RAJASHEKAR
S/o late Sanjeevaiah Shetty
Aged about 87 years
(plaintiff no.2 died
Represented as legal heirs as
Plaintiff no.1, 3, 4)
3. SMT.SUVRATHA
W/o C.S.Gopalakrishna
Aged about 54 years,
4. SMT. BHANUMATHI
W/o D.P Sathyam
Aged about 50 years,
2nd, 3rd and 4th plaintiffs are
Represented by their Power of
Attorney Holder,
Smt.Vidhyavathi
W/o M.Omprakasha
SCCH-14 2 SC No.480/2014
All are presently R/at No.14,
Pampa Mahakavi road,
Shankarpuram, Basavanagudi,
Bangalore-04.
(By pleader Sri MVB)
Vs.
DEFENDANT : SRI MOHAMMED AFSAR
S/o late Mohammed Haneef
Aged about 54 years,
M/s M.A.B Fruits,
Shop No.17,
At No.110, Police road,
Bangalore-560 053.
(By pleader Sri CSR)
SCCH-14 3 SC No.480/2014
Date of institution of the suit: 08.04.2014
Nature of the suit (suit on pronote,
suit for declaration and possession
suit for injunction, etc.,): Ejectment
Date of the commencement of 11.09.2014
recording of the evidence:
Date on which the Judgment 07.10.2016
was pronounced:
Year/s Month/s Days
Total duration: 02 06 00
Additional Judge
SCCH-14 4 SC No.480/2014
JUDGMENT
This is a small cause suit for ejectment and arrears of rent.
2. Brief averments of the plaint are as under:
The plaintiff no.1 is the GPA holder of the plaintiff no.3 and 4. Smt.M.R.Vijalakshmi @ Adilakshmi W/o M.Rajashekar was the owner of the immovable property bearing No.110 (New No.103) situated at Police road, Bangalore measuring 8341.50 sq.ft with specific boundaries comprising ground and first floor building. They are 16 commercial shops in the ground floor and two shops are located in first floor with electricity connection. The title of the same was acquired by her by means of registered Will dated 13.08.1992 executed by her mother viz., Smt.P.C Sundramma W/o late Sri.P.C Chandrashekara Shetty @ P.C.Shetty vide document bearing No.141/1992-93. The property acquired by her is hereinafter referred as SCHEDULE 'A' PROPETY'. She got registered her name in the Khata maintained by the appropriate authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 and its Rules. The said Smt. M.R Vijayalakshmi died on 14.01.2013 intestate. The plaintiffs are the successors and legal heirs for her entire estate including the schedule A property. The plaintiff no.2 is the husband of Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi and plaintiff no.1, 3, 4 are her children. The khata of the suit schedule property is stands in the name of the plaintiff no.1,3 and 4. Meanwhile, Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., has acquired certain portion of schedule 'A' property. The defendant is the tenant under Smt.M.R Vijayalakshmi in portion of schedule A property i.e., Shop No.17, RCC roofed 1st floor building SCCH-14 5 SC No.480/2014 measuring 67+70/2 x 14.9' + 17/2' = 68.5' x 15.95' totally measuring 1092.57 Sq.ft having electricity supply is hereinafter referred to as the schedule 'B' property i.e., suit schedule property. The defendant is carrying fruits business in the name and style of M/s M.A.B Fruits in the schedule property. In the month of February, 2013, the plaintiffs have approached the defendant i.e., after the death of said Smt.Vijayalakshmi and demanded to vacate the premises within 60 days to enable them to construct new commercial building to accommodate their children to carry their traditional business of silk saris. The defendant has requested 6 months time to vacate the premises. The plaintiffs sympathetically agreed and granted time till September, 2013 and demanded arrears of rent and further directed the defendant to pay rent @Rs.1,000/- rent per month. In the month of December,2013, the plaintiff no.2 has received notice from Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P no.51540-51549/2013 wherein his name is found as the defendant no.5. The said writ petitions were filed by the defendant along with other tenants and he has also filed OS No.6072/2010 before Hon'ble Prl.City Civil Court, Bangalore on 27.08.2010 for permanent injunction against late M.R.Vijayalakshmi and others restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. On receipt of the court notice, said Vijayalakshmi appeared and filed her defence by way of written statement wherein she made a statement that, suit was filed based on false and fabricated statements and denied the payment of rental advance of Rs.2,25,000/- without placing any material, but the defendant stated that he is paying rent of Rs.2,500/-pm., but in fact, he was paying Rs.1,000/- pm., There was due of Rs.11,000/- till the date of notice. The defendant intentionally SCCH-14 6 SC No.480/2014 and deliberately withhold the information of pendency of suit i.e., OS No.6072/2010 when the plaintiff's approached him in February-
2013. The plaintiffs on receipt of the notice from the Hon'ble High Court got issued a notice in compliance of Sec.106 of the Transfer of Property Act through their advocate on 03.02.2014. Same was sent through RPAD. The defendant duly received the same on 06.02.2014. In the notice, the plaintiffs have demanded the defendant to quit the premises within one month from the date of receipt of the notice and to pay arrears of rent of Rs.11,000/- till the date of notice. Meanwhile the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has disposed off WP No.51540- 51549/2013 on 12.02.2014. The defendant got issued untenable reply notice dt.18.02.2014 through his advocate. Adjacent to the suit schedule property the Metro construction is going on. Due to use of heavy machinery digging underground canals, the schedule property got damaged, developed cracks in the wall and ceilings. Since, it is old building and it is dilapidated condition, it has become un-usable property. Thereby with an intention of putting up new construction in the schedule property, the plaintiffs approached the planning authority for sanction of plan and license. On 28.03.2014 the BBMP authority has issued an endorsement directing them to take immediate steps to demolish the building since the same is in dilapidated condition. After termination of contract, the defendant without having any legal right, is still in possession of the suit schedule property. Therefore, the defendant bound to pay damages on the prevailing market rate of rent with interest for compensating the inconvenience and harassment being faced by them due to not vacating and not handing over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property by the defendant. The defendant is in arrears of SCCH-14 7 SC No.480/2014 rent of Rs.11,000/- till Feb.2014. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed this suit for a judgment and decree directing the defendant to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property and to pay arrears of rent of Rs.11,000/- to them.
3. In response to the suit summons, the defendant has appeared before the Court through his counsel and filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint as false. He has contended that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that property bearing new no.110 had old no.113 and it stood in the name of N.Devarajamma, that the property in his possession bears new no.102 (old no.120) and new no.110 (old no.113) situated in Police road, Bangalore, that description of property given by the plaintiffs is not fully correct and identity of the property in his possession involves complicated questions which can not be gone into by this Court, that alleged Will executed by Smt. Sundramma does not relate to the schedule property. He has admitted the death of Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi, but he has disputed that the plaintiff no.1, 3 and 4 are her only successors and legal heirs. He has admitted as to letting out of the property in commercial building in his favour, but he has contended that the said property is part of property bearing new no.110 (old no.113) and not of property bearing new no.103 (old no.117), that the property standing in the name of the plaintiffs has already been acquired by Metro Rail Corporation and the plaintiff no.2 has already received compensation in this behalf in terms of several crores, that measurement of property shown by the plaintiffs is incorrect, that there is no shop number to the property in his possession, that he is not inducted as licensee, SCCH-14 8 SC No.480/2014 but as a monthly tenant, that relationship between M.R.Vijayalakshmi and himself in respect of property bearing new no.103 and old no.117 is not that of licensor and licensee, but that of landlord and tenant prior to acquisition of said property by Metro, that boundaries given by the plaintiffs are fictitious, that the plaintiffs have not given details of property acquired by Metro and of property remaining. He has admitted as to filing of WP No.51540 to 51549/2013 before Hon'ble High Court by the tenants and as to filing of original suits by the tenants and passing of decree in those suits and contended that the suits are not related to present suit schedule property, but in respect of property acquired by Metro, that he has not received any legal notice as alleged by the plaintiffs and as such, the suit is not maintainable for want of mandatory notice, that the pleading of the plaintiffs is inconsistent and they can not breathe hot and cold at the same time. He has denied that the suit schedule property is in dilapidated condition and it is unsafe for human habitation and BBMP has issued demolition notice to the plaintiffs and jural relationship of tenant and landlords is not in existence between him and the plaintiffs, that the claim for arrears of rent has become time barred, that he is not liable to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the premises under his occupation as the property is altogether different from the one indicated in the plaint, that he is a monthly tenant in respect of a different property and not a licensee, that he is not in arrears of rent and on the other hand, he has regularly paid rents earlier in cash to M. Rajashekar who was not in habit of issuing rent receipts and later under money order and the same has been duly acknowledged by the plaintiffs, that Smt. M.R.Vijayalakshmi has received rents by way of money order during SCCH-14 9 SC No.480/2014 her life time, that there was no cause of action to file the suit, that proper Court fee is not paid, that this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, that the plaintiffs ought to have filed comprehensive suit for declaration and possession by paying proper Court fee on market value. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the suit with exemplary cost.
4. During evidence, the plaintiffs have examined the plaintiff no.1 as PW-1 and got marked documents as Ex.P-1 to 16. The defendant has examined himself as DW-1 and got marked documents as Ex.D-1 to 22.
5. Heard arguments. The counsel for the plaintiffs has relied upon following rulings:
1. ILR 2008 KAR 1493: SriShamarao Rukamanna Talwar Vs., Smt., Suvarna
2. 2010(3) KAR.L.J 619: Basavaraj Vs., Puttaraju (since deceased) by his LRs & Anr., The counsel for the defendant has relied upon following rulings:
1. ILR 2007 KAR 3309(DB) : Sarojamma W/o Narasaiah Vs., K.M Venkatesh
2. Mysore L.J 1972(1) P : M/S V.M.K Marimuthu Vs., State of Mys., I have gone through the said rulings and perused the records.
6. The points arise for my consideration are:
SCCH-14 10 SC No.480/20141. Whether the plaintiffs have proved that the defendant is their tenant in respect of suit schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiffs have proved that the tenancy of the defendant is duly terminated?
3. Whether the plaintiffs have proved that the defendant is in arrears of rent of Rs.11,000/-?
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief sought for?
5. What order or decree ?
7. My findings are as under:
POINT NO.1 TO 4: AFFIRMATIVE POINT NO.5 : AS PER FINAL ORDER REASONS
8. POINT NO.1 TO 4: These points are interlinked and hence, I have taken them together for common discussion. The plaintiffs have relied upon oral evidence of PW-1 and produced Ex.P-1 to 16 to corroborate the oral evidence of PW-1. The defendant has placed reliance on his own oral evidence and got marked Ex.D-1 to 22 in support of his oral testimony.
9. PW-1:Smt.Vidhyavathi has reiterated the averments of the plaint and stated that she and other plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule property, that the defendant is their tenant in respect of said property, that his tenancy is terminated by issuing SCCH-14 11 SC No.480/2014 quit notice, that the defendant has not paid rent and he is in arrears of rent of Rs.11,000/-, that in spite of termination of tenancy, the defendant did not quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property. Hence, she has sought for passing decree for ejectment of the defendant from the suit property with decree for arrears of rent. In cross examination, she has admitted that property bearing old no.110 and new no.113 is not their property, that property bearing no.102 and portion of property no.103 were acquired by BMRCL and compensation was paid in that regard, that Metro has issued notice to the defendant and others for getting the property vacated and all the tenants have challenged the said notice under writ petitions before Hon'ble High Court, that the defendant has replied the notice of the plaintiffs, that the father of the defendant was inducted in the suit schedule property as tenant by Polapalli Naranarayana Trust. She has stated that Naranarayana Trust is their family trust, that tenants under property no.102 were paying rent to said trust, that her father Rajashekar was managing the said trust, that her mother Vijayalakshmi got property measuring 8341 sft in the said building under Will of Sundramma, that the defendant was paying rent to the plaintiffs since 2009 through money order, that Metro has demolished building in property no.102, that Rajashekar was collecting rent on behalf of trust, that property involved in O.S.No.6072/2010 and in this case are one and the same. She has denied the suggestions that the defendant was the tenant under Polapalli Narayana Trust and was paying rent to said trust, that the suit schedule property is of the ownership of Devarajamma, Polapalli Narayana Trust and Vijayalakshmi, that the defendant was having another shop in the building and it was demolished during SCCH-14 12 SC No.480/2014 the time of writ, that the defendant is not a tenant under the plaintiffs and he never paid rent to them, that in order to knock off the trust property, the plaintiffs have filed a false case against the defendant by creating documents.
10. DW-1:Mohammed Afsar is the defendant and he has deposed as per his defence taken up in his written statement. He has stated that claim of the plaintiffs is not true, that N.Devarajamma is the owner of property bearing new no.110 and old no.113, that suit schedule property is bearing new no.102( old no.120) and new no.110 (old no.113), that this Court has no jurisdiction to try the matter, that the alleged Will executed by Sundramma does not relate to the suit schedule property, that the property of the plaintiffs has been acquired by Metro Rail Corporation and the plaintiff no.2 has already received compensation in crores, that suit schedule property does not belong to Smt. M.R.Vijayalakshmi. He has stated about filing of original suit and writ petitions and about orders passed therein. He has denied the service of legal notice dt.6.2.2014 from the plaintiffs and contended that this Court has no jurisdiction to try the matter, that the plaintiffs are not sure about his status as they used the word licensee at one breath and tenant in other breath, that he is monthly tenant in respect of different property, that he is not in arrears of any rent, but he paid rent regularly, that he was paying rent to Rajashekar who was not in habit of issuing receipts and later, he used to remit rent through money order and same has been duly acknowledged by the plaintiffs, that M.R.Vijayalakshmi has received rent during her life time by way of money order, that suit in the present nature is not maintainable before this Court, that the SCCH-14 13 SC No.480/2014 property in his possession does not belong to the plaintiffs, but it belongs to Smt.Devarajamma. In cross examination, he has stated as under:
"I am in possession of the suit property as owner. I have not obtained sale deed from the owner of the property. I have not produced any title documents".
"I am tenant under said trust. I have not produced any rent agreement or rent receipts in that regard".
."It is true to suggest that property bearing no.110 is renumbered as 103".
"It is true to suggest that suit property is situated in property bearing no.110. I am not paying rent of the suit property since 3-4 years because nobody is coming to collect the rent".
On perusal of cross-examination of DW-1, it reveals that the defendant has given evidence contrary to his own pleading. He has denied signature on vakalathnama at Ex.P16. He has denied the filing of writ petition and OS No.6072/2010 and issuing reply to plaintiffs as per Ex.P7. Thus, pleading and proof of the defendant are at variance and same is fatal to his defence.
11. The plaintiffs have got marked copy of GPA executed by the plaintiff no.3 and 4 in favour of the plaintiff no.1 and copy of genealogy as Ex.P-1 and 2 which reveal that the plaintiff no.3 and 4 have authorized the plaintiff no.1 to prosecute the matter on their behalf. The plaintiff no.2 is dead. Genealogy discloses that the plaintiff no.1, 3 and 4 are the children of the plaintiff no.2 and Smt. M.R.Vijayalakshmi and have succeeded to their estate. PW-1:
Vidyavathi has deposed about relationship between her and the other plaintiffs, between the plaintiffs and Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi, about SCCH-14 14 SC No.480/2014 authorization given to her by the plaintiff no.3 and 4. Ex.P-1 and 2 corroborate her evidence. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the same.
12. Copy of Will dt.13.8.1992 is at Ex.P-10. The plaintiffs have produced it to corroborate the evidence of PW-1 regarding their title to the suit schedule property, but the plaintiffs have not examined any attesting witness to prove the Will. Moreover, this Court can not decide the title of the plaintiffs to the suit schedule property. The rulings relied upon by the defendant make it clear that this Court has got limited power and jurisdiction. The Court has to see that whether there exists any jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and whether such relationship stood terminated or not.
13. Ex.P-11 and 14 are death certificates which reveal that Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi died on 14.1.2013 and her husband Rajashekar died on 20.7.2014. The defendant has not disputed their death. He has expressly and impliedly admitted his acquaintance with Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi and Rajashekar and his dealings with them. It is an admitted fact that the defendant and other tenants filed W.P.No. 51540 to 51549/2013 against BMRCL, the plaintiff no.2 and others challenging the notice issued by BMRCL, that the defendant filed O.S.No.6072/2010 against Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi and BMRCL for the relief of permanent injunction. Copy of plaint and of Judgment in O.S.No.6072/2010 are at Ex.P-8 and 9, whereas copy of order in W.P.No.51540 to 51549/2013 is at Ex.P-15.
SCCH-14 15 SC No.480/201414. Ex.P-12 and 13 are Khata certificate and Khata extract which reveal that the plaintiff no.1, 3 and 4 are the khata holders of property bearing new no.103 (old no.117). They are named as owners of the said property in municipal records. BBMP has issued notice to them on 28.3.2014 as per Ex.P-3 directing them to demolish the building in property bearing new no.103. These documents corroborate the evidence of PW-1 that the plaintiffs are the landlords of the suit schedule property which is situated in property bearing new no.103, Police road, Bangalore. Except bare denials, nothing is elicited from PW-1 to disbelieve her evidence. Such denials are not sufficient to hold that the suit schedule property is situated in property bearing new no.102 (old no.120) and new no.110 (old no.113).
15. Copy of quit notice, postal receipt, acknowledgement and reply notice are at Ex.P-4 to 7 and they disclose that the plaintiffs have got issued legal notice to the defendant on 3.2.2014, terminated his tenancy in respect of the suit schedule property, asked him to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the same and demanded him to pay arrears of rent of Rs.11,000/-, that the notice was sent to the defendant by RPAD and it was duly served upon the defendant on 6.2.2014, that the defendant has issued reply on 18.2.2014 denying his liability to pay the arrears of rent and to deliver the vacant possession of the property. The defendant has denied the service of notice in his written statement, but he has admitted as to receipt of legal notice and issuance of reply to it while under examination. Hence, I hold that the notice at Ex.P-4 was duly SCCH-14 16 SC No.480/2014 served on the defendant on 6.2.2014 who got issued reply as per Ex.P-7.
16. The defendant has obtained information from BBMP under RTI Act in respect of property bearing no.110 by making application. Copy of application and information furnished by BBMP are at Ex.D-1 to 21. The said information discloses that property bearing new no.110 (old no.113) was of the ownership of Smt.Devarajamma who bequeathed the said property in favour of G.Krishnamurthy and Smt.Seethalakshmamma vide Will dt.21.6.1973, that the property came to be mutated in the name of Narasimhamurthy S/o Krishnamurthy on the basis of gift deed executed by Smt.Seethalakshmamma and it was protested by the other children of Krishnamurthy. DW-1 has stated that the suit schedule property belongs to Smt.Devarajamma and the plaintiffs have nothing to do with it. But, it is to be noted that admittedly the said Smt.Devarajamma was the owner of property bearing new no.110 and old no.113. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit schedule property is situated in property bearing new no.103 and old no.110. The defendant has not produced any document to show that he has occupied the suit schedule property from Smt.Devarajamma and he was paying her rent. The documents at Ex.D-1 to 21 are insufficient to hold that the suit schedule property is in property bearing new no.110 and old no.113 and it belongs to Smt.Devarajamma. Hence, I disbelieve the pleading and evidence of the defendant that the suit schedule property is of the ownership of Smt.Devarajamma.
SCCH-14 17 SC No.480/201417. The defendant has categorically admitted regarding payment of rent to the plaintiffs in his written statement, in reply notice and in his chief affidavit. Portions of the same are as under:
Written statement:
"The defendant is not due on is not in any arrears of rents as alleged in the plaint under reply and on the other hand regularly hehas paid rents earlier in cash to Sri.M.Rajashekar who was not in the habit of issuing rent receipts and later under money order and the same has been duly acknowledged by the plaintiffs. During the lifetime of Smt.M.R.Jayalakshmi she has received rents by way of money order and some of the receipts have been made available to the Hon'ble Civil court and the High court in the said proceedings referred to in the plaint but the same has been totally lost sight of by the plaintiffs obviously only to make unrighteous claim in this behalf".
Reply notice:
However, even during the lifetime of late M.R.Vijayalakshmi, the fourth of your clients Sri.M.Rajashekar used to collect the rents from all the tenants in person including my client but was never in the habit of issuing rent receipts. My client having occupied the premises for sufficient number of years and in view of the good and cordial relationship my client had with the said M.Rajashekar my client used to pay rents regularly without fail. However, since lately the said M.Rajashekar due to illness is not able to come near the tenanted premises to collect the rents and in view of the same the rents were sent by my client by way of money order and the same has been received by Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi during her lifetime and thereafter the fourth of your clients under acknowledgment".SCCH-14 18 SC No.480/2014
Chief affidavit:
DW-1 I am Not due or is not in any arrears of rents as alleged in the plaint under reply and on the other hand regularly I have paid rents earlier in cash to Sri.M.Rajashekar who was not in the habit of issuing rent receipts and later under money order and the same has been duly acknowledged by the plaintiffs. During the life time of Smt.M.R.Vijayalakshmi she has received rents by way of money order and some of the receipts have been made available to the Hon'ble Civil court and the High court in the said proceedings referred to in the plaint but the same has been totally lost sight of by the plaintiffs obviously only to make unrighteous claims in this behalf.
Sec.58 of the Evidence Act reads as under:
"Facts admitted need not be proved. -- No fact need to be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings: Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions".
The above provision makes it clear that admitted facts need no further proof. In this case, the defendant has denied the title of the plaintiffs to the suit schedule property, existence of jural relationship of tenant and landlord between him and the plaintiffs, termination of his tenancy. He has disputed the identity and location of suit schedule property and contended that the suit schedule property is SCCH-14 19 SC No.480/2014 not situated in property bearing new no.103, but it is situated in property bearing no.102 and 110 and is of ownership of Smt.Devarajamma. But, his above admissions clearly reveal that the suit schedule property is in property bearing new no.103 and the defendant has paid its rent to Rajashekar, to Smt.Vijayalakshmi and to the plaintiffs. The said admissions of the defendant support the oral evidence of PW-1. On the contrary, there is no corroboration to the evidence of DW-1 that the suit schedule property is different from the property claimed by the plaintiffs and Smt.Devarajamma is the owner of the same. If the defendant is not the tenant under Smt.Vijayalakshmi and Rajashekar, then question of making them as parties in O.S.No.6072/2010 and in W.P.No.51540 to 51549/2013 does not arise. Though, the property involved in O.S.No.6072/2010 is of different measurement and boundaries, but there is nothing on record to believe that the said property was acquired by Metro and it was different and distinct from suit schedule property. There is no corroboration to the evidence of DW-1 as to boundaries and measurement of property shown in plaint in O.S.No.6072/2010. Admission as to payment of rent by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs and their parents is sufficient to hold that the defendant is tenant under Smt.Vijayalakshmi in respect of suit schedule property. He continued in the suit schedule property as tenant under the plaintiffs after death of Smt.Vijayalakshmi. Since, the defendant is tenant under the plaintiffs, he is debarred from denying their title as per Sec.116 of Evidence Act. Hence, I hold that the plaintiffs are the landlords and the defendant is tenant under them in respect of suit schedule property. The plaintiffs have used words 'licence' and 'licensee' in legal notice at Ex.P-4, but that itself is not sufficient to SCCH-14 20 SC No.480/2014 disbelieve the case of the plaintiffs. Mere denial of title and jural relationship of landlord and tenant do not oust the jurisdiction of this Court as held in ruling reported in ILR 2011 KAR 229 (Abdul Wajid vs A.S.Onkarappa). In this case, the defendant has denied the title of the plaintiffs to the suit schedule property and existence of jural relationship of tenant and landlord between him and the plaintiffs, but he has failed to produce any evidence to support his contention. On the contrary, he has admitted the payment of rent to the plaintiffs in respect of suit schedule property and such admission goes in favour of the plaintiffs. Hence, I hold that the plaintiffs have succeeded to prove that they are the landlords and the defendant is their tenant in respect of suit schedule property.
18. The defendant has admitted that he was regular in paying rent. PW-1 has stated that rate of rent was Rs.1,000/- p.m., and the defendant was in due of Rs.11,000/- towards rent till February 2014. Since, rent is payable every month, the tenancy of the defendant is monthly tenancy which is terminable by 15 days prior notice. Ex.P-4 to 7 disclose that the plaintiffs have issued termination notice to the defendant on 3.2.2014 and it was duly served on him on 6.2.2014. 15 days period expired on 21.2.2014. The tenancy of the defendant stood terminated on 21.2.2014. Moreover, the defendant has issued reply as per Ex.P-7 denying the title of the plaintiffs which also terminates his tenancy as per Sec.111(g) of T.P.Act. There is no evidence regarding payment of rent by the defendant to the plaintiffs after filing of this suit. The defendant has not vacated and delivered the vacant possession of the suit schedule property even after termination of his tenancy. Hence, he is liable to SCCH-14 21 SC No.480/2014 be ejected from the suit schedule property. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence of PW-1 as to arrears of rent. The defendant is liable to pay Rs.11,000/- to the plaintiffs towards arrears of rent. The plaintiffs have not sought for damages. Hence, I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as prayed and I answer the points as above.
19. POINT NO.3: In view of discussion and findings, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed with cost.
The defendant is directed to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the schedule premises in favour of the plaintiff within 2 months from the date of this order.
The defendant is directed to pay arrears of rent of Rs.11,000/- to the plaintiffs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer and then corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 7th day of October 2016.) (Basavaraj Chengti) XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes, BANGALORE.SCCH-14 22 SC No.480/2014
SCHEDULE 'A' PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the immovable property bearing No.110 (New No.103) situated at police road, Bangalore-53, measuring 8341,50 Sq.ft bounded on:
East by ; Sethurao Street West by : Property belongs to Naranarayana Trust North by : Timber Abdul Lathif and Waqf Possessed property: and South by: Police road.
SCHEDULE 'B' PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the immovable property in schedule A property i.e., Shop No.17 (for the purpose of identification self number is given), RCC roofed first floor building measuring 67+70/2 x 14.9+17/2= 68.5 x 15.95 Ft totally measuring 1092.57 Sq.Ft out of total measurement 8341.50 Sq.Ft bounded on:
East by ; Remaining portion of schedule 'A' Property West by: Remaining portion of schedule 'A' Property, North by : Remaining portion of schedule 'A' Property South by: Remaining portion of schedule 'A' Property & state case.
XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes, BANGALORE.SCCH-14 23 SC No.480/2014
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff :
PW-1 Smt.Vidhavathi Witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants: NIL.
Ex.P1 - Certified copy of power of attorney Ex.P2 - Certified copy of affidavit of M. Rajashekhar Ex.P3 - Certified copy of Notice dated 28.03.2014 issued by BBMP.
Ex.P4 - Copy of Notice issued to the defendant.
Ex.P5 - Postal Receipt
Ex.P6 - Acknowledgment
Ex.P7 - Reply given by defendant.
Ex.P8 - Certified copy of plaint in OS No.6072/10
Ex.P9 - Certified copy pf Judgment and decree in OS
No.6072/10
Ex.P10 - Certified copy of Will dated: 13.08.1992
Ex.P11 - Death Certificate of Vijayalakshmi
Ex.P12 - Khatha Certificate
Ex.P13 - Khatha Extract
Ex.P14 - Death Certificate of Rajashekhar
Ex.P15 - Certified copy of order in WP No.51540 to
51549/13
Ex.P16 -Vakalathnama of defendant
Ex.P16a - Signature
Documents exhibited on behalf of the plaintiffs:
Defendant's Mohammed Afsar
Ex.D1 - Information given by RI of BBMP under RTI
Ex.D2 - Copy of application dated: 05.09.2012
(2 in nos.)
SCCH-14 24 SC No.480/2014
Ex.D3 - Copy of application dated: 27.08.2012
(3 in nos.)
Ex.D4 - Copy of application dated: 15.02.2012
(2 in nos.)
Ex.D5 - Copy of Khatha Extract
Ex.D6 - Copy of Demand Register extract
Ex.D7 - Copy of application dated: 09.10.2012
(3 in nos.)
Ex.D8 - Copy of List dated: 21.06.1973 (3 in nos.)
Ex.D9 - Copy of application dated: 25.09.2012
Ex.D10 - Copy of Reply Letter
Ex.D11 - Copy of Application for Khatha registration /
Transfer
Ex.D12 - Copy of Gift deed (2 in nos.)
Ex.D13 - Copy of Plan (2 in nos.)
Ex.D14 - Copy of Encumbrance certificate (2 in nos.)
Ex.D15 - Copy of tax paid receipt
Ex.D16 - Copy of Khatha Certificate
Ex.D17 - Copy of Will
Ex.D18 - Copy of application dated: 02.03.2012
Ex.D19 - Copy of Affidavit (2 in nos.)
Ex.D20 - Copy of Marriage Invitation
Ex.D21 - Copy of Death Certificate
Ex.D22 - Copy of deposition in HRC No.55/2014.
XVI ADDL.JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BANGALORE.
SCCH-14 25 SC No.480/2014
Dt.07.10.2016
P-MVB
D-CSR
For Judgment
It is noticed that two documents
are marked as Ex.D1. Hence,
marking of one document is
required to be changed. Hence,
marking of deposition in HRC
No.55/2014 is changed and it is
renumbered as Ex.PD22.
Judgment by 07.10.2016
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
Dt.07.10.2016
P-MVB
D-CSR
For Judgment
Judgment pronounced in open court vide
separate judgment.
ORDER
The suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed with cost.
The defendant is directed to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the schedule premises in favour of the plaintiff within 2 months from the date of this order.
The defendant is directed to pay arrears of rent of Rs.11,000/- to the plaintiffs.
Draw decree accordingly.
XVI ADDL.JUDGE, SCCH-14 26 SC No.480/2014 DECREE S.C.C.H.NO.14 IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES COURT, AT BANGALORE.
S.C.No.480/2014 PLAINTIFF: 1. SMT. VIDYAVATHI W/o M.Omprakahsh Aged about 60 years
2. SRI.M.RAJASHEKAR S/o late Sanjeevaiah Shetty Aged about 87 years (plaintiff no.2 died Represented as legal heirs as Plaintiff no.1, 3, 4)
3. SMT.SUVRATHA W/o C.S.Gopalakrishna Aged about 54 years,
4. SMT. BHANUMATHI W/o D.P Sathyam Aged about 50 years, 2nd, 3rd and 4th plaintiffs are Represented by their Power of Attorney Holder, Smt.Vidhyavathi W/o M.Omprakasha All are presently R/at No.14, Pampa Mahakavi road, Shankarpuram, Basavanagudi, Bangalore-04.
(By pleader Sri MVB) SCCH-14 27 SC No.480/2014 Vs. DEFENDANT : SRI MOHAMMED AFSAR S/o late Mohammed Haneef Aged about 54 years, M/s M.A.B Fruits, Shop No.17, At No.110, Police road, Bangalore-560 053.
(By pleader Sri CSR) CLAIM: Suit filed on prays for directing defendant to quit and vacate the vacant possession of the schedule premises.
This suit coming on` for final disposal before Sri.Basavaraj Chengti ., XVI Addl. Judge, CSC, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt Advocate, for the plaintiff and Sri/Smt Advocate, for the defendant.
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed with cost.
The defendant is directed to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the schedule premises in favour of the plaintiff within 2 months from the date of this order.
The defendant is directed to pay arrears of rent of Rs.11,000/- to the plaintiffs.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this Day of 2016.
REGISTRAR, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE.
SCCH-14 28 SC No.480/2014MEMORANDUM OF COST INCURRED IN THIS SUIT By the Plaintiff Defendant Court fee on plaint Court fee on power Court fee on exhibits Service of process + Postal charges Commissioner's fees Pleaders fee _________________________ Total of Rs. __________________________ Amount payable by the defendant to the plaintiff is Rs.
SCHEDULE 'A' PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the immovable property bearing No.110 (New No.103) situated at police road, Bangalore-53, measuring 8341,50 Sq.ft bounded on:
East by ; Sethurao Street West by : Property belongs to Naranarayana Trust North by : Timber Abdul Lathif and Waqf Possessed property: and South by: Police road.SCCH-14 29 SC No.480/2014
SCHEDULE 'B' PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the immovable property in schedule A property i.e., Shop No.17 (for the purpose of identification self number is given), RCC roofed first floor building measuring 67+70/2 x 14.9+17/2= 68.5 x 15.95 Ft totally measuring 1092.57 Sq.Ft out of total measurement 8341.50 Sq.Ft bounded on:
East by ; Remaining portion of schedule 'A' Property West by: Remaining portion of schedule 'A' Property, North by : Remaining portion of schedule 'A' Property South by: Remaining portion of schedule 'A' Property & state case.
Decree Drafted Scrutinised by REGISTRAR,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BANGALORE
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR