Bangalore District Court
Usha Prabhakar vs Vikram Chugh on 19 February, 2024
1 O.S.3162/2015
KABC010080362015
IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH.No.2)
Present: - SRI.SREENIVASA, B.A., LL.B.
I Addl. City Civil & Session Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 19th day of February 2024.
O.S.No.3162 / 2015
Plaintiff: Smt.Usha Prabhakar,
W/o. Sri.M.Prabhakar,
Aged about 58 years,
No.196, 7th Main, 4th Block,
Jayanagar, Bengaluru-560 011.
(By Sri.S.Gangadhara Aithal, Adv.)
- VS -
Defendant: Sri.Vikram Chugh,
Father's name not known,
Aged about 50 years,
Chamundeshwari Enterprises,
No.16, New No.16/2, (1/C),
7th Cross, Kumarapark (West),
Bengaluru-560 020.
(By Sri.S.C.V., Adv.)
***
2 O.S.3162/2015
Date of Institution of the suit 04.04.2015.
Nature of the Suit (suit for pronote, Ejectment suit.
Suit for declaration & possession,
Suit for injunction, etc.):
Date of the commencement of 04.02.2016.
recording of the Evidence:
Date on which the Judgment was 19.02.2024.
pronounced:
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration:
08 10 15
(SREENIVASA)
I Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for a judgment and decree for ejectment directing the defendant to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the plaintiff and to direct for an enquiry into the future mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 of CPC, from the date of suit, till the date of delivery of vacant possession of the suit premises.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are that:
a) That, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule premises. The defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff in 3 O.S.3162/2015 respect of the schedule premises on a monthly rent of Rs.13,500/-
exclusive of water and electricity consumption charges. The tenancy is oral commencing from 1st day of every month and ending with the last day of the same month terminable by 15 days notice and the defendant is paying the monthly rent by way of cheques. Since the plaintiff require the schedule premises for her own use and occupation, she requested the defendant to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit premises, but the defendant went on postponing to vacate the premises on one or the other reason. Inspite of it, the defendant has not vacated the premises, hence, the plaintiff got issued the legal notice dated 09.03.2015 terminating the monthly tenancy of the defendant in respect of the schedule premises. The said notice was duly served on the defendant on 10.03.2015. The defendant has not replied to the said notice and failed to comply with the demands made in the said notice. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file this suit.
3. a) After receipt of suit summons, the defendant has appeared through his counsel and filed written statement under Order 8 Rule 1, 2 and 6(A) of CPC. In his written statement, he has contended that, the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The suit is also not maintainable for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. The suit is also not maintainable as there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the parties in respect of the schedule property. The suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable since the plaintiff has not caused notice as contemplated under Sec.106 of TP Act and that, the same has been aptly replied by the defendant, which has been duly acknowledged and having admitted the claim of the defendant in the said reply and in view of the same, this Court 4 O.S.3162/2015 has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. The alleged notice if any is also bad in law since the same is not caused to the defendant in respect of the office premises, in which the defendant in possession. There has been a waiver of the alleged notice since the plaintiff has continued to receive the monthly rents from the defendant and hence, the suit deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. The defendant has further contended that, there is no relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant since the plaintiff has agreed to convey the premises in the use and occupation of the defendant. The suit of the plaintiff is wholly untenable and illegal for the reason that, there is no statutory notice as required under Sec.106 of TP Act, since in view of the Act, on the part of the plaintiff and the defendant, therefore, the defendant is impliedly an agreement of sale holder in respect of the said premises. The plaintiff has misrepresented to this Court and has not approached this Court with clean hands.
3b) The defendant has further submitted that, he was inducted as a tenant in respect of the premises being all that piece and parcel of residential premises bearing No.16, 7th Cross, Kumarapark (West), Bengaluru-560 020 consisting of two bed rooms, attached toilets with wardrobes, one hall, one kitchen, one general toilet and backside utility area electricity (AEH) and water facility with overhead water tank (Syntex) with modern taps, 3 nos. of new orten fans, 1 no. new exhaust fan and 1 no. new 25 letre geyser along with RCC roofing by a Rental agreement dated 24.09.2004 on the terms and conditions to be observed between the parties. The defendant at the time of tenancy has also paid an interest free refundable deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- in terms of Clause 3 of the said 5 O.S.3162/2015 agreement. In terms of the Clause-1 of the said agreement, it was specifically agreed that, the rent shall be enhanced 10% once in every two years and accordingly, the present rent paid by the defendant to the plaintiff Rs.13,500/-, which the plaintiff has been accepting up to date and that there are no arrears of rent. In view of the fact that, the parties have acted upon the terms and conditions of the rental agreement as aforesaid the said rental agreement has been impliedly renewed from time to time. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot demand the defendant to quit and deliver the premises in his occupation. The defendant has also effected payment of property taxes in respect of the said premises.
3c) The defendant has further submitted that, during the year January 2013, the plaintiff approached the defendant with an offer to sell the premises in his use and occupation for a total sale consideration of Rs.60,00,000/-, to which, both the parties readily accepted and accordingly the plaintiff made over one set of photocopies of the document of title pertaining to the premises. In view of the acceptance of the offer so made by the plaintiff to the defendant and the acceptance on the part of the plaintiff, the defendant proceeded further and obtained a legal opinion. Thereafter, the defendant sought for plaintiff's co-operation in completing the sale transaction by executing the necessary documents, to which the plaintiff agreed, but however did not act upon the promises and assurances so made by the plaintiff to the defendant for the reasons best known to the plaintiff. The defendant with a fond hope of acquiring the premises sought for permission to renovate / remodel the entire premises to the need of the defendant and accordingly, the plaintiff by her letter dated 15.01.2013 permitted 6 O.S.3162/2015 the defendant to carry out repairs and such other related works to the premises and the plaintiff had also agreed to reimburse the cost of renovation to the defendant after 15 years subject to wear and tear in the very same letter dated 15.01.2013. The defendant has in this regard spent a total sum of Rs.22,00,000/-, which was notified to the plaintiff by letters dated 02.07.2014 and 07.07.2014 through RPAD. The said account was accepted by the plaintiff without any dispute. By this acceptance, the plaintiff is estopped from initiating any proceedings for a period of 15 years from the said date i.e., 15.01.2013 ending with 14.01.2028, since the tenancy has been legally and impliedly extended and therefore, it is too far fetched to demand the ejectment of the defendant from the premises. The defendant seeks the interference of this Court to adjudicate upon the money expended by the defendant after obtaining written approval from the plaintiff and accordingly, order for repayment of the same after conducting a due enquiry into the matter in the form of a counter claim.
3d) The defendant has further submitted that, the plaintiff possesses number of immovable property in and around Bengaluru, while the defendant nor his family members possess any suitable alternate accommodation for his business purpose. The plaintiff has in fact secured the vacant possession of several other properties and has let them out for higher rents. The plaintiff is acting in high handedness and only with a malafide intention to secure higher rent and higher deposits has instituted the present suit. On these grounds, the defendant prays to dismiss the suit.
7 O.S.3162/20154. Based on the pleadings, my learned predecessor-in- office framed the following issues are as under :-
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, she has terminated the tenancy of the defendant by issuing a notice on 09.03.2015 as contemplated under Section 106 of T.P.Act ?
2. Whether the defendants prove that suit is bad for non-
joinder and mis-joinder of parties ?
3. Whether the defendant proves that in the month of January 2013 plaintiff offered the suit schedule premises for a sale consideration of Rs.60,00,000/- ?
4. Whether the defendant further proves that, he has invested a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- for renovation of the suit premises ?
5. Whether defendant proves that Court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient ?
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of ejectment, mesne profits as prayed ?
7. What Decree or Order ?
5. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the GPA holder of the plaintiff examined as PW.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. On the other hand, the defendant examined as DW.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.22.
6. Heard the arguments from both the sides. Perused the entire materials on record.
8 O.S.3162/20157. My findings on the above issues are as under :-
Issue Nos.1 and 6 :- In the affirmative,
Issue Nos.2, 3, 4 & 5 :- In the negative,
Issue No.7 :- As per the final order;
for the following :-
REASONS
8. ISSUE Nos.1 to 6: All these issues are interconnected with each other, hence they are taken together for discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts.
9. To prove the facts in issue, the GPA holder of the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 in lieu of his chief-examination and he has reiterated the plaint averments in his examination-in- chief. In his evidence, he has stated that, the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule premises and the defendant is the tenant under the plaintiff by oral on monthly rent of Rs.13,500/- exclusive of water and electricity consumption charges commencing from 1st of every calendar month and ending with last day of the same month terminable by 15 days notice. The plaintiff required the schedule premises for her own use and occupation, hence, the plaintiff orally requested the defendant to vacate and deliver the possession of the suit premises. On one or the other pretext, the defendant was postponing to vacate the suit premises. Inspite of waiting, the defendant has not made up his mind to comply with the request upto this date. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to issue legal notice dated 09.03.2015 terminating the monthly tenancy of the defendant from the suit premises. The said notice 9 O.S.3162/2015 was duly served on the defendant. Thereafter, the defendant has got sent a reply notice dated 30.03.2015 for the legal notice. The defendant has failed to comply with the demands made in the said notice. The plaintiff had got issued a rejoinder dated 15.05.2015, the same was returned with a shara not claimed. In the said notice dated 09.03.2015 itself, it was clearly mentioned that, subsequent to the termination of the tenancy of the defendant, if any amount is paid by him towards rent or as rent, the same would be received by the plaintiff under protest and without prejudice to the quit notice dated 09.03.2015. Accordingly, the subsequent rents if paid will be received by the plaintiff and will be adjusted the same as part of the damages.
10. The defendant in his written statement has admitted that, he is the tenant under the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs.13,500/- commencing from 1st of every calendar month ending with last day of the month and the said rent shall be payable by way of cheque. The defendant has contended that, d uring the year January 2013, the plaintiff approached the defendant with an offer to sell the premises in his use and occupation for a total sale consideration of Rs.60,00,000/-. In view of the acceptance of the offer so made by the plaintiff to the defendant and the acceptance on the part of the plaintiff, the defendant proceeded further and obtained a legal opinion. Thereafter, the defendant sought for plaintiff's co- operation in completing the sale transaction by executing the necessary documents, to which the plaintiff agreed, but however did not act upon the promises and assurances so made by the plaintiff to the defendant and the defendant with a fond hope of acquiring the premises sought for permission to renovate / remodel the entire 10 O.S.3162/2015 premises to the need of the defendant and accordingly, the plaintiff by her letter dated 15.01.2013 permitted the defendant to carry out repairs and such other related works to the premises and the plaintiff had also agreed to reimburse the cost of renovation to the defendant after 15 years subject to wear and tear in the very same letter dated 15.01.2013. The defendant has in this regard spent a total sum of Rs.22,00,000/-, which was notified to the plaintiff by letters dated 02.07.2014 and 07.07.2014 through RPAD.
11. In view of the contentions taken by the parties, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to prove that, she has terminated the tenancy of the defendant by issuing notice on 09.03.2015. Further, the burden is on the defendant to prove that, the suit is bad for non- joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and also burden is on the defendant to prove that, the plaintiff had approached the him with an offer to sell the premises in his use and occupation for a total sale consideration of Rs.60,00,000/- and he invested an amount of Rs.22,00,000/- for renovation of the suit premises.
12. To establish the case of the plaintiff, PW.1 has produced the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. Ex.P.1 is the SPA executed by the plaintiff in favour of her husband Sri.M.Prabhakar to prosecute the case. Ex.P.2 is the Khatha certificate and Ex.P.3 is the Khatha Extract in respect of the suit premises. Ex.P.4 is the endorsement dated 21.01.1980 given by Corporation of the City of Bengaluru transferring the khatha in respect of property No.16/2 1/C in the name of the plaintiff. Ex.P.5 is the tax paid receipt. Ex.P.6 is the transaction inquiry in respect of plaintiffs' account maintained in IDBI Bank Ltd. from April-2014 to March-2015. Further, it discloses that, the defendant has paid the monthly rents to the account of the 11 O.S.3162/2015 plaintiff. Ex.P.7 is the legal notice dated 09.03.2015 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant terminating the tenancy of the defendant and subsequent to the termination, if any amount is paid towards the rents in respect of the use and occupation of the schedule premises, the same would be received by the plaintiff under protest towards damages and not as rent. Ex.P.7(a) and Ex.P.7(b) are the postal receipt and postal acknowledgment for having served the legal notice. Ex.P.8 are the 3 photographs. Ex.P.9 is the CD. Ex.P.10 is the reply dated 30.03.2015 given by the defendant to the plaintiff calling upon the plaintiff to withdraw the notice under reply and not to proceed with the threatened course of action. In the said reply notice, it is stated that, the plaintiff approached the defendant with an offer to sell the suit premises for Rs.60,00,000/- and thereafter, the plaintiff by her letter dated 15.01.2013 permitted the defendant to carry out the repairs and such other related works to the suit premises, as such, he invested Rs.22,00,000/- towards renovation. Ex.P.11 is the rejoinder dated 15.05.2015 sent by plaintiff to the defendant denying the contentions taken by the defendant in his reply notice. Ex.P.12 is the same copy of Ex.P.11, which was in the returned RPAD cover at Ex.P.12(a). Ex.P.12(b) is the postal receipt.
13. From the documents produced by the plaintiff, it disclose that, the plaintiff is the owner and the defendant is the tenant under the plaintiff. This is not disputed by the parties to the suit Further, the plaintiff offered the defendant to sell the suit premises and the plaintiff has not come forward to execute the sale deed. Further, the defendant has taken contention that, he has spent an amount of Rs.22,00,000/- towards renovation of the suit premises with the consent of the plaintiff.
12 O.S.3162/201514. The defendant in support of his case examined himself as DW.1 and he has reiterated the written statement averments in his evidence and got marked the documents at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.22. Ex.D.1 is the letter dated 15.01.2013 given by plaintiff to the defendant. Ex.D.2 to Ex.D.12 are the letters given by plaintiff to the defendant regarding renovation and renewal of rent agreement. Ex.D.13 to Ex.D.15 are the letters by defendant to plaintiff showing the expenditure and requesting for reimbursement. Ex.D.16 is the tax paid receipt. Ex.D.17 is the certificate under Sec.65B and 120 photos. Ex.D.18 are the expenditure receipts. Ex.D.19 and Ex.D.20 are the ECs. Ex.D.21 is the CC of the partition deed. Ex.D.22 is the gift deed.
15. The defendant in his evidence has stated that, during the year January 2013, the plaintiff approached the defendant with an offer to sell the premises in his use and occupation for a total sale consideration of Rs.60,00,000/-, to which, both the parties readily accepted and accordingly the plaintiff made over one set of photocopies of the document of title pertaining to the premises. In view of the acceptance of the offer so made by the plaintiff to the defendant and the acceptance on the part of the plaintiff, the defendant proceeded further and obtained a legal opinion. Thereafter, the defendant sought for plaintiff's co-operation in completing the sale transaction by executing the necessary documents, to which the plaintiff agreed, but however did not act upon the promises and assurances so made by the plaintiff to the defendant for the reasons best known to the plaintiff. To prove this contention, the documents produced are not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that, the plaintiff agreed to sell her property for 13 O.S.3162/2015 Rs.60,00,000/-. If really, the contention of the defendant is true, he could have obtained the sale agreement from the plaintiff to show that, he paid the advance to the plaintiff and the plaintiff agreed to receive the balance consideration amount at the time of registration of the sale deed. In this regard, no documents are produced before this Court.
16. Further, in order to show that, the plaintiff agreed to treat the renovation expenditure as part performance and agreed to execute the sale agreement, nothing is placed before this Court. If really, the contention of the defendant is true, he could have produced the documents to show that, there was negotiation between the plaintiff and the defendant and that the plaintiff offered the defendant to sell her suit premises for Rs.60,00,000/-. Further, the defendant could have examined the persons, who were participated in the negotiation before this Court or panchayathdar or mediate member. In this regard, no oral evidence is placed before this Court except his oral evidence. In the absence of satisfactory documentary evidence from the side of the defendant, it cannot be said that, there was a negotiation between the plaintiff and defendant, the plaintiff offered to sell the schedule premises for Rs.60,00,000/- to the defendant and agreed to execute the sale deed.
17. Further, as per the pleading of the defendant, it shows that, in the year 2013, the plaintiff approached the defendant and offered the defendant to purchase the suit premises for Rs.60,00,000/-. If really, it is true, the defendant could have issued the legal notice on the ground that, there was an oral agreement between himself and the plaintiff and he is ready and willing to 14 O.S.3162/2015 perform his part of contract. From 2013 till today, the defendant has not made any efforts to issue the legal notice to the plaintiff calling upon the plaintiff to execute the sale deed.
18. Ex.P.7 is the legal notice dated 09.03.2015 given by the plaintiff to the defendant terminating the defendant from the tenancy and calling upon the defendant to quit and deliver the possession of the suit premises. Ex.P.10 reply notice dated 30.03.2015 given by the defendant to the plaintiff, wherein, it disclose that, the plaintiff had offered the defendant to sell the suit premises for Rs.60,00,000/- and also he has taken the contentions narrated in his written statement. If really, the offer is true, the defendant could have issued the legal notice to the plaintiff calling upon her to execute the sale deed, failing which, he could have filed the suit for specific performance of contract. But the defendant has not made any efforts to do so.
19. On 24.02.2016, the defendant has filed the counter claim. Even in the counter claim also, the defendant has not sought for the relief of specific performance of contract. According to the defendant, in the year 2013, the plaintiff offered to sell the suit premises to the defendant, if that date is taken into consideration, as on the date of filing of the suit, the relief claimed by the defendant is barred by law of limitation.
20. Further, the defendant has taken contention that, the defendant with a fond hope of acquiring the premises sought for permission to renovate / remodel the entire premises to the need of the defendant and accordingly, the plaintiff by her letter dated 15.01.2013 permitted the defendant to carry out repairs and such other related works to the premises and the plaintiff had also agreed 15 O.S.3162/2015 to reimburse the cost of renovation to the defendant after 15 years subject to wear and tear in the very same letter dated 15.01.2013. The defendant has in this regard spent a total sum of Rs.22,00,000/-, which was notified to the plaintiff by letters dated 02.07.2014 and 07.07.2014 through RPAD. From the documents of the defendant, it shows that, the defendant had spent an amount of Rs.22,00,000/- towards the renovation. Under law, when repairs are needed, the tenants should promptly notify the landlord and provide documentation of the issue. On the other hand, the landlords should take their responsibilities seriously and promptly make necessary repairs to maintain the property and ensure that, their tenants are living in a safe and comfortable environment. The repair responsibilities for tenants and landlords can very depending on state and local laws and the terms of the residential lease agreement. Therefore, it's essential that, both the parties look to the lease and their jurisdiction's laws for guidance.
21. In the instant case, there is an oral agreement and there is no written lease deed. Further, as stated above, it is the duty of the tenant to notify the landlord and provide the documentation of the issues. According to the defendant, he made repairs, but before doing repairs, it is the duty of the tenant / defendant to provide documentation of kinds of repairs. But in order to prove it, the defendant has produced Ex.D.2 to Ex.D.11 letters. But in order to show that, Ex.D.2 to Ex.D.11 have been reached to the owner, no postal receipts are put forth by the defendant. During the course of cross-examination, the defendant has admitted like this "I have sent the Ex.D.2 to 12 through the certificate of posting. I have not produced the UCP to show that, I have sent the Ex.D.2 to 11. Witness further voluntarily stated that, I have to collect the same from the postal 16 O.S.3162/2015 department. I will produce the acknowledgment to show that the letter dated 02.07.2014 has been served on the plaintiff". To show that, the defendant had sent Ex.D.2 to Ex.D.11, he has not produced UCP. When the plaintiff disputed these documents, it is the duty of the defendant to produce the UCP to show that, he had sent Ex.D.2 to Ex.D.12 by post. In order to show that, he sent the said documents to the plaintiff, he has not produced UCP. Under the said circumstances, it cannot be said that, Ex.D.2 to Ex.D.11 have been served on the plaintiff and the tenant has promptly provided the documentation of the issues. Regarding Ex.D.12 is concerned, the defendant has produced the postal receipt, but in order to show that, the same has been received by the plaintiff, no supporting postal acknowledgment is placed before this Court. During the course of cross-examination, DW.1 has stated that, he will produce the acknowledgment card to show that, the letter dated 02.07.2014 has been served on the plaintiff. After the cross-examination, the defendant has not made any efforts to produce the document by way of further chief-examination. Non-production of acknowledgment card is fatal to the case of the defendant to show that, the same has been served on the plaintiff. When the defendant has failed to show that, Ex.D.12 has been served on the plaintiff, the Court can draw an inference that, no notice has been issued to the plaintiff.
22. Further, to show that, the defendant had invested an amount of Rs.22,00,000/- towards the repair works of the suit premises, he has produced the receipts and tax invoices. It is the duty of the defendant to send the related documents along with the receipts for having paid by him towards the expenses of the repair works while he intimating to the plaintiff. Even for the sake of 17 O.S.3162/2015 argument, if the Court feels that, the defendant had intimated to the plaintiff, then also, it is the duty of the defendant to submit the receipts for having paid the amount to the renovation of the building. Without enclosing the same, he has produced the documents of Rs.22,00,000/-. Under the said circumstances, it shows that, for his convenience, he has made expenditure for renovation of the suit premises without the knowledge of the plaintiff.
23. Further, no doubt, it is not the small repair work made by the defendant, he made decorum as per his whims and fancies to the house of a third party. The tenant who got the house on rent, it is his duty to keep the house in a proper manner. The tenant's responsibility is to keep his house in a good condition by getting small repair works, but it does not mean that, the tenant is entitled to decorum the rented building for his whims and fancies without showing cost to the owner. From this, it show that, the defendant has made all these expenditure without the knowledge of the plaintiff, when he has not intimated to the plaintiff / owner, then the defendant / tenant is not entitled for the relief.
24. Further, the defendant has produced Ex.D.1 letter, wherein, it shows that, the plaintiff has given permission to the defendant to do the interiors, flooring and repair work at the suit premises. Nowhere, in the said letter, the plaintiff has not stated that, the defendant is entitled to do repair works at the cost of more than Rs.22,00,000/-. Further, the learned counsel for the defendant has argued that, as per this letter, the plaintiff herself has admitted and agreed that, she will not ask the defendant to vacate the premises for the next 15 years, so the, termination notice is not in accordance with law. If the lease is for a period of 11 months, registration of 18 O.S.3162/2015 document is not required. If lease is more than one year, the lease deed must be required registration. But the defendant has contended that, upto 15 years, the plaintiff has given the suit premises for rent. Under the said circumstances, the registration of lease deed is required. Without registration of the document, the defendant is not entitled to continue in the premises. Even for the sake of argument, Ex.D.1 is true, then also, it requires registration to continue in the premises for a period of 15 years.
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent landmark judgment titled as Siri Chand [deceased] thr. Lrs. vs Surinder Singh has dealt with an important aspect pertaining to the requirement of compulsory registration of a rent/lease deed for immovable property. The moot question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was "Whether the rent/lease deed in the instant case needed to be mandatory registered as under Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act of 1908". Registration Act, 1908 requires mandatory registration of a lease deed pertaining to an immovable property let out (i) from year to year; or (ii) for any term exceeding one year; or (iii) reserving an yearly rent. The Supreme Court, after taking note of the provision has observed that, lease of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving an yearly rent, requires compulsory registration. Civil Appeal no. 2617 of 2020 decided 20.06.2020. From this, it is crystal clear that, the lease of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving an yearly rent, requires compulsory registration. So, Ex.D.1 is not a document and it cannot be looked into. So, I am of the opinion that, the defendant has proved that, he has repaired the building, but he has failed to prove that, with the consent of the plaintiff, he made repairs at the cost of Rs.22,00,000/-.
19 O.S.3162/201526. Further the defendant has contended The suit is also not maintainable for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. The powers granted to a court regarding joining of parties are very wide and extensive under Rule 10(2) of Order 1[4] and the following two considerations must be borne in mind while exercising these powers: (i) The plaintiff is dominus litis i.e. he is the best judge of his own interest. Therefore, it is upon the plaintiff to choose his opponent from whom relief is claimed. Ordinarily, the court should not compel the plaintiff to fight against a person whom he does not desire to fight and from whom he claims no relief; and (ii) If the court is satisfied that presence of a particular person is necessary to effectively and completely adjudicate all the disputes between the parties, irrespective of the wishes of the plaintiff, the court may exercise the power and join a person as a party to the suit. But in the instant case, the defendant has not explained who are the necessary parties, what is their legal right and how he is necessary party, only he has taken vague plea, as such, the suit is not suffering from non-joinder of necessary party. Hence, I am of the opinion that, the defendant has failed to prove that, the suit is suffering from non-joinder of necessary party.
27. Further, the defendant has taken contention that, the Court fee and suit valuation paid by the plaintiff is not proper. To accept the said contention, he has not explained how the Court fee paid is not proper, hence the said contention cannot accepted.
28. Further, in the instant case, the plaintiff has terminated the tenancy of the defendant by issuing a notice on 09.03.2015 as contemplated under Sec.106 of T.P.Act. After the termination of the 20 O.S.3162/2015 tenancy, the defendant is in possession. Hence, his possession is illegal and he is liable to pay mesne profits. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Martin and Harris Private Limited & Anr. v. Rajendra Mehta & Ors. (2022 8 SCC 527), it reiterated that, after the passing of the decree of eviction, the tenancy terminates and from the said date, the landlord is entitled to mesne profits or compensation for his/her deprivation of the use of the tenanted premises. As discussed above, this Court has come to the conclusion that, the landlord is entitled to get the possession after passing of the decree of eviction, from the said date, the landlord is entitled for mesne profits or compensation for his/her deprivation of the use of the tenanted premises.
29. In view of the above discussions, I am of the opinion that, the plaintiff has terminated the tenancy of the defendant by issuing a notice on 09.03.2015 as contemplated under Sec.106 of T.P.Act. On the other hand, the defendant has failed to prove that, in the month of January 2013, the plaintiff offered the suit schedule premises for a sale consideration of Rs.60,00,000/- and he has invested a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- towards expenditure for renovation of the suit premises with the knowledge of the plaintiff and the defendant has also failed to prove that, the suit is suffering from non-joinder of necessary party and the Court fee paid is not proper. Accordingly, I answer issue Nos.1 and 6 are in the affirmative, issue Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 are in the negative.
30. ISSUE NO.7: In view of my aforesaid discussions, I proceed to pass the following: -
21 O.S.3162/2015ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with cost.
The counter claim of the defendant is hereby dismissed.
The defendant is directed to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the plaintiff within 3 months from the date of this order.
The defendant is directed to pay the mesne profit from the date of suit till the date of delivery of vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff is at liberty to adjust the advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- paid by the defendant towards mesne profit.
A separate enquiry shall be conducted with regard to the mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 of CPC.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer-III, transcription computerised by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of February 2024.) (SREENIVASA) I Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.22 O.S.3162/2015
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS:
PW.1 : Sri.M.Prabhakar. DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS: Ex.P.1 : SPA.
Ex.P.2 & 3 : Khatha certificate and Khatha extract.
Ex.P.4 : Endorsement. Ex.P.5 : Property tax paid receipt for 2014-15. Ex.P.6 : Statement of account. Ex.P.7 : Legal notice dated 09.03.2015. Ex.P.7(a) : Postal receipt pertaining to Ex.P.7. Ex.P.7(b) : Postal A.D.Card pertaining to Ex.P.7. Ex.P.8 : 3 colour photographs. Ex.P.9 : CD. Ex.P.10 : Reply to Ex.P.7. Ex.P.11 : Rejoinder dated 15.05.2015. Ex.P.12 : Rejoinder inside the envelop. Ex.P.12(a) : Envelop.
Ex.P.12(b) : Postal receipt pertaining to Ex.P.12.
WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:
DW.1 : Sri.Vikram Chugh. Ex.D.1 : Letter dated 15.01.2013. 23 O.S.3162/2015 Ex.D.1(a) : Portion marked in Ex.D.1. Ex.D.2 to : Letters. Ex.D.12 Ex.D.13 to : Postal receipts. 15 Ex.D.16 : Tax paid receipt. Ex.D.17 : Certificate under Sec.65B and 120 photos. Ex.D.18 : 112 expenditure receipts and tax invoices. Ex.D.19 : ECs. and 20 Ex.D.21 : CC of the partition deed effected between the plaintiff. Ex.D.22 : CC of gift deed. (SREENIVASA) I Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.