Bangalore District Court
) Showoff vs M/S. Island Star Mall Developers Pvt on 20 June, 2020
IN THE COURT OF XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CCH-22)
Present: Smt. Suvarna K. Mirji, B.Com., LL.B.(Spl).,
XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU.
O.S.No. 25782/2016
Dated this the 20th day of June 2020
Plaintiffs:- 1) Showoff, a sole proprietary concern,
having its office at 429, 430/10, 19B
Main Road, 3rd Block, Opp: Nanda
Theatre, Jayanaggar, Bangalore.
2) Mrs. Priya Shah, sole proprietress of
show Off, No.424, 22nd cross, 3rd block,
Jaynagar, Bangalore 560 007.
(Rep by Advocates for Plaintiffs Sri. Muniyappa and others)
V/S
Defendant:- M/s. Island Star Mall Developers Pvt., Ltd.,
site office: C/o. Phoenix Market City Mall,
40 & 41, Lower Ground floor,
Whitefield Road, Mahadevapura Post,
Bangalore 560 048 by its
authorised signatory - Legal Department.
Also at:
M/s. Island Star Mall Developers Pvt., Ltd.,
having its registered office at
C/o. Market City Resources Pvt., Ltd.,
Shree Laxmi Woolen Mills Estate,
2
Judgment O.S.No.25782 / 2016
R.R. Hosiery Building, Ground floor,
Opp: Shakti Mills, Off: Dr. E. Moses Road,
Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400 011
and its Administrative office at
Phoenix Market City,
Lower Ground floor, No.40 & 41,
Whitefield Main Road,
Bangalore 560 048, represented by
its Manager - Legal Mr. Anantha Krishna. K.
(Rep by Advocate Sri ....... )
Date of Institution of the suit 10/08/2016
Nature of the (Suit or pro-note, suit for declaration and
possession, suit for injunction, etc.)
Permanent injunction
Date of the commencement of recording of the Evidence. 22/07/2017
Date on which the Judgment was pronounced. 20/06/2020
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration 3 10 10
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
Mayohall Unit: Bengaluru
.
3
Judgment O.S.No.25782 / 2016
:J U D G M E N T:
The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant for permanent injunction.
2. The Brief facts of plaint averments is as under:
The plaintiff submits that plaintiff is tenant under defendant in respect of suit schedule property mentioned below on monthly rent of Rs.4,76,963/- and CAM of Rs.2,39,365/- under unregistered Lease deed dated 20/07 2011.
SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the immovable property unit / store bearing No. G-36, situated at Phoenix Market city, Bangalore, situated on plot Nos.9, 10, 11A and 12 in Sub No.1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 11 of Sy.No.40 and sub Nos.15, 16, 17 and 18 of Sy.No.41 of Dyavasandra Phase- II Industrial Area, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore District, having a total built up area of 5440 Sq. Ft.4
Judgment O.S.No.25782 / 2016 The plaintiff further submits that she has been paying monthly rents regularly to the lessors, the defendants without any default. The defendant caused notice dated 30/04/2016 stating that the lease will be expiring on 20/07/2016 and asked her to vacate the schedule property and remove all the belongings of the plaintiff and hand over possession on or before 20/07/2016. Thereafter legal notice issued on behalf of defendant to the plaintiff dated 20/07/2016 terminating the tenancy in respect of the schedule property demanding the plaintiff to quit and hand over possession of the schedule property within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The plaintiff replied the notice under his reply dated 25/07/2016. The plaintiff submits that though the lease deed was dated 20th July 2011 actual possession of the property handed over later as there was water seepage in the premises and also leakage from the roof and dampness was there in the walls of the schedule property and since the rectification and repair work have 5 Judgment O.S.No.25782 / 2016 taken long time the plaintiff could not start her business in the premises immediately after entering into the lease deed and she could only be able to occupy the premises after the repairs and renovation on the 01/02/2012, which fact was intimated to the defendant under emails and personally. The management of the defendant company also the defendant assured for extension of lease period. The plaintiff has spent huge amount to the tune of more than one crore for the repair, interior work and the partition, decoration, renovation, etc., and has been paying huge amounts as monthly rents from the date of the lease deed till date without fail. The plaintiff submits that due to water leakage from the ceiling and water seepage in the ground floor the same has resulted in wetness and dampness in the schedule property and inspite of the plaintiff brought to the notice of the defendants the same were not rectified by the defendant due to which the business of the plaintiff was substantially hampered and goods of the plaintiff were also damaged 6 Judgment O.S.No.25782 / 2016 substantially. The defendant assured the plaintiff for extension of time of lease due to delay in occupation and also terms of the lease deed is not binding on the parties as the said lease deed is not registered one. The plaintiff submits that the quit notice issued by the defendant is unsustainable in law. The defendants are trying to obstruct the business being carried on by the plaintiff and are making hectic efforts to obstruct the vehicles which are supplying goods and defendants are trying to dispossess the plaintiff without due process of law and trying to evict her illegally from the schedule property. The defendants are trying to cut off essential supplies of water and power without any sufficient cause and trying to withhold the services enjoyed by the lessee. The plaintiff is entitle to carry out the business until she is evicted by due process of law. The cause of action for the suit arose on 21/07/2011 the date of lease deed and on subsequent dates i.e., on 20/04/2016 the date of legal notice issued by the defendant to the plaintiff and further 7 Judgment O.S.No.25782 / 2016 notice dated 20/07/2016 issued by the defendant. The plaintiff prays to decree the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, her agents, attorneys and assignee or any person claiming through them or under them from dispossessing the plaintiff from the occupation as lessee in the suit schedule property in any manner unless by due process of law and also to restrain defendants not to cut off the essential services of water, electricity and other amenities enjoyed by the lessee.
3. The defendant filed written statement submitting that the suit is whole bereft of merits and is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff has misled the court and has suppressed vital facts. The defendant submits that it is company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 engaged in the business of Mall development and absolute owner of the Mall operating under the name and style of Phoenix Market City at Bangalore. The plaintiff approached 8 Judgment O.S.No.25782 / 2016 the defendants in the year 2011 with a proposal to establish retail out let for clothes and other fashion merchandise at the above mentioned mall owned by the defendant and the defendant agreed to lease the schedule property to the plaintiff on month to month tenancy basis. It was agreed between the parties that plaintiff would pay the defendant a sum of Rs.3,92,472/- on or before 7th calendar day of every month. In the year 2014 the defendant increased the rent to Rs.4,54,250/- per month and the plaintiff agreed to the said increase. As the defendant was not desirous of continuing the said arrangement issued letter dated 20/07/2016 calling upon the plaintiff to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter. But the plaintiffs issued untenable reply dated 25/07/2016. The period for delivering vacant possession of the schedule property expired on 04/08/2016. Thus the plaintiffs are in illegal and unlawful occupation of the schedule property. The defendant being sole and 9 Judgment O.S.No.25782 / 2016 absolute owner of the Mall has every right to either continue the lease arrangement with the plaintiffs or terminate the same. The defendant followed due procedure under law to terminate the tenancy of the plaintiffs and issued notice calling upon plaintiffs to quit and deliver vacant possession of the schedule property within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Plaintiffs were given ample time to vacate the schedule property. Despite termination of the tenancy, the plaintiffs have continued to occupy the schedule property. Injunction cannot be granted against the true owner of the property. The plaintiffs are in illegal and unlawful possession of the suit schedule property. If the court grant injunction in favour of plaintiffs the defendant will suffer hardship and injury. Hence he prays to dismiss the suit. Further the defendant in his para wise reply to plaint averments denied the averments of the plaintiff that he is a tenant under the defendant in respect of schedule property. The tenancy of the plaintiff was terminated by the 10 Judgment O.S.No.25782 / 2016 defendant on 04/08/2016, 15 days after issuance of notice calling upon the plaintiff to quit and deliver vacant possession of the schedule property to the defendant. The plaintiff as on date of filing of suit were in illegal and unlawful occupants of schedule property. The defendant promised to execute registered deed. The defendant denied the averments made by the plaintiff that though the lease deed was dated 20/07/2011 the schedule property was handed over later and there was seepage and leakage from the roof and dampness in the walls and since rectification and repair works have taken long at the schedule property and the plaintiff could not start her business at the schedule property immediately after entering the lease deed and she could only be able to occupy the premises after the repairs and renovation on 01/02/2012. The defendant further deny that the management of the defendant company assured extension of the lease. The defendant denied that the plaintiff has spent one crore on repair and interior work and 11 Judgment O.S.No.25782 / 2016 the partition, renovation, decoration etc., and the same is not within the knowledge of the defendant. Defendant denied that there is water leakage and seepage, and some wetness and dampness in the schedule property which was brought to the notice of the defendant but defendant failed to rectify the same and due to which plaintiff's business was substantially hampered. The defendant denied that it assured the plaintiff of an extension of lease due to delay in occupation. The defendant submits that the tenancy of the plaintiff always remained a month to month tenancy. The defendant denied that he is trying to obstruct the business carried on by the plaintiff and are making hectic efforts to obstruct the vehicles which are supplying goods and further defendant is trying to dispossess the plaintiff without due process of law and evict her illegally. The defendant also denied that it is trying to cut off essential supplies water and power without any sufficient cause and are trying to withhold the services which are enjoyed by the plaintiff. The 12 Judgment O.S.No.25782 / 2016 tenancy of the plaintiff was duly terminated on 04/08/2016 and the plaintiff ought to have handed over physical vacant possession of the schedule property on or before the sad date. The plaintiff is in illegal and unlawful occupation of the suit property. The defendant prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
4. On the basis of above pleadings following Issues are framed:-
:ISSUES:
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that they were in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property? (2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the alleged interference of defendant and alleged threat of defendant to cut off electricity, water connection and other amenities to the suit schedule property? (3) Whether the plaintiff proves that they are entitled to the reliefs as sought for in the plaint?
(4) What order or decree?13
Judgment O.S.No.25782 / 2016
5. The plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and marked documents at ExP1 to ExP10 and closed the plaintiff side evidence. The Assistant General Manager of defendant's company examined as DW.1 and marked ExD1 to ExD7 and closed evidence.
6. The plaintiff counsel filed written arguments. The defendant counsel argued. Perused the records.
7. My finding on the above Issues are:-
Issue No.1) In Negative Issue No.2) In Negative Issue No.3) In Negative Issue No.4) See final order for following:
:REASONS:
8. Issues No.1 to 3:
The proprietor of plaintiff firm Priya Shah filed her affidavit in lieu of examination in chief as PW.1 and 14 Judgment O.S.No.25782 / 2016 deposed evidence that she is swearing to the affidavit both on her behalf and also on behalf of the plaintiff No.1 being the sole proprietress of the plaintiff No.1. The PW.1 deposed that she was a tenant under the defendants in respect of non residential premises bearing No.G-36, situated at Phonenix Market city, Devasandra Phase-II, Industrial Area, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru which is the plaint Schedule property on monthly rental of Rs.4,76,963/- and CAM of Rs.2,39,365/-. She and the defendants have entered into an unregistered Lease Deed on 20/07/2011. The defendants have promised her that they will execute registered lease deed in few months time, but they have not come forward to execute the registered lease deed in respect of the schedule property in her favour. She further deposed that she has been paying the rents regularly to the lessors [defendants] without any default. She deposed that the defendants have caused a notice dated 30/04/2016 stating that the lease will be expiring on 20/072016 and 15 Judgment O.S.No.25782 / 2016 intimated the same and asked her to vacate the schedule premises and to remove all her belongings and to hand over possession on or before 20/07/2016. She further depoed that again legal notice dated 20/07/2016 was issued on behalf of the defendant to her, terminating the tenancy in respect of the schedule premises, demanding her to quit and hand over possession of the schedule premises within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. She further deposed that the said notice was replied on 25/07/2016. PW1 further deposed that even though the Lease Deed was dated 20/07/2011, actual possession of the property was handed over later as there was water seepage in the premises and also leakage from the roof and dampness was there in the walls of the schedule premises and since the rectification and repair work have taken long time, she could not start her business in the premises immediately after entering into the Lease Deed and she could only be able to occupy the premises after repairs and renovation on the 01/02/2012, 16 Judgment O.S.No.25782 / 2016 which fact was intimated to the defendants vide e-mails and personally. The management of the defendant company and also the defendant have assured for extension of lease period. The PW.1 further deposed that she has spent huge amount to the tune of more than Rs.1,00,00,000/- for the repair, interior work and the partition, decoration, renovation etc., and has been paying huge amounts as monthly rents from the date of the Lease Deed till date without fail. The PW.1 further deposed that due to water leakage from the ceiling and water seepage in the ground floor the same has resulted in wetness and dampness in the schedule premises which was brought to the notice of the defendants, however, the same were not notified by the defendant due to which her business was substantially hampered and her goods were also damaged substantially. The PW.1 further deposed that the defendant has assured her for extension of lease due to the delay in occupation and also the terms of the Lease Deed is not binding on the 17 Judgment O.S.No.25782 / 2016 parties as the said Lease Deed is not a registered one and the same is required to be compulsorily registered under the provisions of transfer of property Act. She further deposed that she is entitled to carry on the business as the Lease Deed is not registered one, the terms of the same is not binding on the parties and as such the quit notice issued by the defendant is unsustainable and not in accordance with law. She further deposed that the defendant are trying to obstruct the business being carried on by her and are making hectic efforts to obstruct the vehicles which are supplying goods and further the defendants are trying to dispossess her without due process of law and trying to evict her illegally from the schedule premises. She further deposed that the defendant's further trying to cut off the essential supplies of water and power without any sufficient cause and are unauthorisedly trying to withhold the services which are enjoyed by the Lessee in the schedule premises. She has further deposed that she is entitle to carry out the business 18 Judgment O.S.No.25782 / 2016 until she is evicted by the process of law by this court. The PW.1 prays to decree the suit against the defendants as prayed for restraining the defendants from dispossessing her from the schedule premises in any manner unless by due process of law and further restrain defendants from cutting off the essential services.
8. In support of oral evidence the PW.1 has marked the documents ExP1 to ExP10. The ExP1 is statement of accounts of HDFC Bank. The ExP2 is statement of accounts in Yes Bank to show the payment of rent paid by the plaintiff by the defendant. The ExP3 is Legal Notice issued by the defendant to the plaintiff on 20/07/2016 regarding the termination of tenancy with respect to unit No.G-36 at Phoenix Market City, white field Road, Mahadevapura, Bangalore. The ExP4 is postal acknowledgement for having served notice. The ExP5 is Lease Term Expiry notification issued by defendant to the plaintiff firm. The ExP6 is 19 Judgment O.S.No.25782 / 2016 another one notice issued by defendant to the plaintiff on 30/04/2016 regarding lease term expiry notification. The ExP7 is another one legal notice issued by defendant to the plaintiff on 20/07/2016 regarding the termination of lease of the plaintiff. The ExP8 is reply given by plaintiff to the defendant on 25/07/2016 relating to the notice issued by the defendant. The ExP9 and ExP10 are postal receipts.
9. The AGM of defendant company has filed his affidavit in lieu of examination in chief as DW.1 and deposed that the plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction. The DW.1 further deposed that the suit is bereft of merits and is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff has misled this Court and has suppressed vital facts that are of relevance to the dispute at hand. The defendant is the absolute owner of premium Mall which is operating under the name and style of Phoenix Market City situated at BBMP old Khatha No.17 (new 23) comprising of Plot 20 Judgment O.S.No.25782 / 2016 Nos.9,10,11A and 12 and sub No.1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 11 of Sy. No.40 and sub Nos. 15, 16,17 and 18 of Sy. No.41 of Dyavasandra Phase-II Industrial Area, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore 560048 (hereinafter referred to as "Phoenix Market City"). Phoenix Market City consists of a large number of units/shop-space The plaintiff approached the defendant in the year 2011 with proposal to establish a retail outlet for clothes and other fashion merchandise at Unit/Store No. G-36 on the ground floor of Phoenix Market City (hereinafter referred to as "Schedule property"). The defendant agreed to lease the schedule property to the plaintiff. The DW.1 further deposed that the lease was on month to month basis and it was agreed between the parties that the plaintiff would pay the defendant sum of Rs.3,92,472/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Two Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Two Only) on or before the 7th Calendar day of every month in advance. In the year 2014, the rent was increased to Rs.4,54,250/- 21
Judgment O.S.No.25782 / 2016 (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Two Fifty Only) per month. The defendant has paid security deposit amounting to Rs.19,62,317/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand Three Hundred and Seventeen only) which was agreed to be refunded at the time of handing over the schedule property subject to adjustments. The DW.1 further deposed that the plaintiff was also liable to pay common area maintenance charges, electricity, air conditioning etc., which amounts to approximately Rs.4,16,000/- per month and these charges are not part of the lease rentals and are separate costs and the plaintiff is required to make payment for the same. The DW.1 further deposed that the plaintiff has been making belated payment towards the rent, CAM charges, electricity charges, chilled water supply, property tax and TDS. The DW.1 further deposed that the plaintiff has not made payment of the said sums despite several requests. This sum was due towards payment of rent, CAM charges, Fit Out Electricity charges, Chilled water supply, 22 Judgment O.S.No.25782 / 2016 property tax and TDS. The plaintiff has failed to make payment despite constant reminders. Consequently, and upon termination of the tenancy, the defendant has adjusted the security deposit against the above sum due. The DW.1 further deposed that the defendant was not desirous of continuing the lease, the plaintiff was issued a letter dated 20/07/2016 calling upon him to quit and deliver vacant possession of the schedule property within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said letter and to also make payment of the all the outstanding sums of money and the said letter was delivered to the plaintiff. The DW.1 further deposed that on receipt of the said letter, the plaintiff issued an untenable response dated 25/07/2016. DW1 further deposed that the defendant has followed due procedure under law to terminate the tenancy of the plaintiff and also in compliance with section 106 of Transfer of Property Act 1882 issued notice calling upon the plaintiff to quit and deliver vacant possession of the schedule property within 15 days from 23 Judgment O.S.No.25782 / 2016 date of receipt of the notice. The DW.1 further deposed that the plaintiff was required, under law, to quit and deliver vacant possession of the schedule property on or before 04/08/2016. However the plaintiff has failed to do so. The DW.1 further deposed that despite termination of the tenancy, the plaintiff has continued to occupy the schedule property, which is illegal and unlawful and the plaintiff has no intention of handing over the schedule property to the defendant. The DW.1 further deposed that plaintiffs have not made out a case for permanent injunction and injunction cannot be granted against the absolute owner of a property.
The DW.1 further deposed that if this court grants an injunction in favour of the plaintiffs the defendant will suffer grave hardship and injury. The DW.1 prays to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff.
10. The DW1 in support of oral evidence the defendant has marked ExD1 to ExD7. The ExD1 is the e-mail 24 Judgment O.S.No.25782 / 2016 communication copy in between the plaintiff and defendant. ExD2 to ExD5 are notices given by defendant to the plaintiff. The ExD6 is statements of accounts relating to the plaintiff maintained by the defendant. The ExD7 is authorization letter.
11. It is admitted fact that the defendant is the owner of the suit schedule property and plaintiff was the tenant in the suit schedule property. As per the plaintiff un-registered Lease Deed had been entered into between the plaintiff and defendant on 20/07/2011 and defendant had promised him to execute registered lease deed in few months, but later on they have not executed the same. Whereas the defendant has issued legal notice on 30/04/2016 stating that the lease will be expiring on 20/07/2016 and intimated the same to the plaintiff to vacate the suit schedule property. But the plaintiff has expensed for renovation and repair on the 01/02/2012 and intimated to the defendants vide email and 25 Judgment O.S.No.25782 / 2016 personally. Now the plaintiff prayer is to restrain the defendants her agents attorneys and assignees through them from dispossessing the suit schedule property in any manner whatsoever until and unless by due procedure of law. But the plaintiff has not produced the said un-registered lease deed copy dated 20/07/2016 entered between the plaintiff and defendant. Whereas the PW.1 in the cross-examination he deposed the evidence that "ಪಪತವವದಯಯ ನನಗಗ ಬರಗದಯ ಕಗಕಟಟ ಅನನರಜಸಟರನ ಸಗಸಲನ ಡಸಡನ ನನನ ಹತತರ ಇದಗ. ಅದನಯನ ಹವಜರಯ ಮವಡಲಯ ತಗಕತದರಗ ಇಲಲ" But PW.1 has not produced the said documents. The PW.1 in the cross-examination admits that "ನಪ.7 ನಗಕಸಟಸಸನಯನ ಪಪತವವದ ನನಗಗ 15 ದನಗಳ ಒಳಗಗ ದವವವ ಆಸತಯನಯನ ಖವಲ ಮವಡಬಗಸಕಯ ಅತತ ಕಗಕಟಟದದರಯ ಎತದರಗ ಸರ". Further contention of the plaintiff that as per the oral request the defendant extended the lease period. The plaintiff of PW.1 in cross-examination deposed the evidence that "ಪಪತವವದಯಯ ಲಸಜನ ಅಗಪಮತಟನ ಅವಧಯನಯನ ಮಯತದಯವರಗಸಯವ ಬಗಗಗ ನಮಗಗ ಭರವಸಗ ಕಗಕಟಟ ಬಗಗಗ ಯವವವದಗಸ ದವಖಲವತಯನಯನ ಹವಜರಯಪಡಸಲಲ, ಆದರಗ ಮಮಖಕವವಗ ಮಸತಟತಗನನಲಲ ಮತಯತ ಫಸನನಲಲ ತಳಸದದರಯ. ನವನಯ ಪಪತವವದಯತದಗಗ ಮವಡದ ಕಮಯಮನಕಗಸಶನನಲಲ ಇ- 26
Judgment O.S.No.25782 / 2016 ಮಸಲನ ದವಖಲವತಗಳಯ ಇವಗ". But there are no such E-Mail communication documents produced by the plaintiff regarding the extension of lease period by the defendant to the plaintiff. That initially the plaintiff has not produced un- registered agreements taken place between the plaintiff and defendant as to know the contents of the said document. The ExP8 is reply to the notice given by the plaintiff to the defendant, where in at para 6 it is mentioned that lease entered between the plaintiff and defendant is not expired. But to prove that the lease period between the plaintiff and defendant is extended, the plaintiff has not produced any documents. Therefore the plaintiff failed to prove that she is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and defendant caused interference and also threatened to cut off the essential supplies of water and power and other amenities to the suit schedule property. Therefore the plaintiff is not entitle for any relief has sought 27 Judgment O.S.No.25782 / 2016 in the plaint. The plaintiff failed to prove Issues No.1 to 3. Hence I answer Issues No. 1 to 3 in Negative.
13. Issue No. 4:-
In view of above discussion I proceed to pass following:
:ORDER:
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer system, computerized by him and after on line correction by me print out thereof corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of June 2020).
(Smt.Suvarna K. Mirji) XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE :ANNEXURE:
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
PW1 Mrs. Priya Shah
28
Judgment O.S.No.25782 / 2016
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
ExP1 The statement of accounts of HDFC Bank.
ExP2 The statement of accounts in Yes Bank to
show the payment of rent paid by the plaintiff by the defendant.
ExP3 Legal Notice issued by the defendant to the plaintiff on 20/07/2016 regarding the termination of tenancy with respect to unito No.G-36 at Phoenix marketcity, whitefield Road, Mahadevapura, Bangalore. ExP4 postal acknowledgement regarding to the services of the plaintiff.
ExP5 Lease Term Expiry notification issued by defendant to the plaintiff firm. ExP6 Another one notice issued by defendant to the plaintiff on 30/04/2016 regarding lease term notification.
ExP7 Another one legal notice issued by defendant to the plaintiff on 20/07/2016 regarding the termination of lease of the plaintiff. ExP8 Reply given by plaintiff to the defendant on 25/07/2016 relating to the notice issued by the defendant.
ExP9 & ExP10 postal receipt.29
Judgment O.S.No.25782 / 2016 WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT/S: DW.1: Shaktivelu DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANT/S: ExD1 The E-mail communication copy in between the plaintiff and defendant.
ExD2 to ExD5 are notices given by defendant to the plaintiff.
ExD6 Statements of accounts relating to the plaintiff maintain by the defendant XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE.30
Judgment O.S.No.25782 / 2016
20/06/2020
Plaintiff by Sri SKB
Defendant by Sri AK
Judgment pronounced in the open court
(Vide separate detailed Judgment)
The suit of the plaintiff is
hereby dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE