Karnataka High Court
U Lawrance Rajan vs Krishna Prakash on 13 September, 2012
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N. Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANANDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.335/2012
BETWEEN:
U.Lawrance Rajan
S/o Ugonse
Aged about 64 Years,
R/at No.128, 5th Cross
Shastrinagar
Nagasandra Main Road
Bangalore - 560 028. ... Petitioner
(By Sriyuths P.H.Virupakshaiah & D.C.Keerthi Prasad,
Advocates)
AND:
Krishna Prakash
S/o late A.M.Boraiah
Aged about 50 Years
R/at No.36, Kasturinagar
Aswathakatte Road
Bangalore - 560 026. ... Respondent
(By Sri B.Papegowda, Advocate for C/R)
This revision petition is filed under section 115 CPC, to
set aside the judgment and decree dated 26.06.2012, passed
in S.C.No.65/2012, on the file of II Additional Judge, Court
of Small Cause, Bangalore, decreeing the suit for ejectment.
This revision petition having been heard and reserved
for orders on 03.09.2012, coming on for pronouncement this
day, the court made the following: -
2
ORDER
The defendant has filed this revision petition against the decree of ejectment and payment of arrears of rent of Rs.350/- per month from 01.03.1999 till the date of suit with interest at 6% per annum thereon.
2. I have heard learned counsel for parties.
3. The learned counsel for petitioner-defendant would submit that respondent-plaintiff had prevented petitioner from using schedule premises from 07.01.2001 and respondent had closed main entrance of larger part of premises and prevented petitioner from using schedule premises. The respondent also committed burglary of machineries and equipments worth Rs.79,080/-.
4. The learned trial Judge framed following points for determination:-
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant is in possession of suit schedule premises as on the date of the suit in the capacity of tenant and if so whether termination of tenancy is in accordance with law?3
2) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant is in arrears of rent of Rs.34,500/-?
3) Whether defendant proves that he has suffered loss of Rs.79,080/- due to illegal acts of the plaintiff and that he is entitled for damages of Rs.3,29,400/-?
4) Whether defendant is entitled for realisation of earnest money of Rs.20,000/-?
5) What order or decree?"
5. The learned trial Judge has held that petitioner is in arrears of rent from March 1999 at the rate of Rs.350/- per month.
6. The learned trial Judge has held that petitioner has failed to prove that respondent had prevented him from enjoying suit schedule premises. The learned trial Judge has held that petitioner has failed to prove that respondent had committed burglary of machineries and equipments worth Rs.79,080/-.
4
7. It is not in dispute that petitioner was the tenant of schedule premises. From the evidence on record, it is established that petitioner had filed a complaint with Chamarajpet Police Station, alleging that respondent and his brother have stolen machineries and equipments worth Rs.79,080/-. The Investigating Officer had filed final 'B' report and the matter was not further pursued by petitioner.
8. The learned trial Judge has held that petitioner has failed to prove that he had kept articles and machineries in schedule premises. The petitioner has not produced copy of complaint or copy of 'B' report to verify truth or otherwise of these allegations.
9. The law is fairly well settled that tenancy created in respect of property be it governed by the provisions of Transfer of Property Act or rent Control Act, the tenancy would come to an end by voluntary surrender of premises by tenant to landlord or decree made by the court of competent jurisdiction.
5
10. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that respondent has admitted these facts in his deposition in HRC No.646/2003 (Ex.D.1).
11. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that in view of admission made by respondent in HRC No.646/2003, the learned trial Judge should have dismissed the suit holding that petitioner is not liable to pay arrears of rents and he is not in possession of schedule premises.
12. The learned trial Judge on consideration of Ex.D.1 has held that respondent has deposed that petitioner continues to be in possession of schedule premises and has not handed over key to respondent-plaintiff.
13. The contention of petitioner that tenancy had come to an end has not been substantiated as the petitioner has failed to prove that there is voluntary surrender of schedule premises to respondent or tenancy has come to an end by execution of decree made by court of competent jurisdiction. If petitioner had kept schedule premises under lock and kept 6 key with him, it cannot be said that there has been surrender of tenancy.
14. The learned trial Judge taking all these aspects into consideration has rightly granted decree of ejectment. The learned trial Judge has rejected the counter claim filed by petitioner as damages estimated by petitioner at Rs.3,29,400/-, was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court below and petitioner-defendant is at liberty to avail set off of earnest money of Rs.20,000/- while paying arrears of rent.
15. On reconsideration of the matter, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SNN