Bangalore District Court
M Prasad Reddy vs M Vinod on 6 February, 2024
KABC0A0000232019
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgments in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-29) MAYOHALL, BENGALURU
Dated this the 6th day of February, 2024.
PRESENT:
Sri K.M. RAJASHEKAR, B.Sc., LL.M.,
XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.25008/2019
PLAINTIFFS : 1. Dr. M. Prasad Reddy,
S/o. M. Muni Reddy,
Aged about 71 years.
Since dead left behind him his
LR's the plaintiffs No.2 to 4 herein.
2. Dr. Hemalatha,
W/o. Dr. M. Prasad Reddy,
Aged about 65 years.
3. Dr. M. Neetha Prasad,
D/o. Dr. M. Prasad Reddy,
W/o. Dr. Viswaswara Reddy,
Aged about 39 years.
Cont'd..
2 O.S.No.25008/2019
4. Dr. Nithya Prasad,
D/o. Dr. M. Prasad Reddy,
W/o. A. Srikantha Reddy,
Aged about 32 years.
Plaintiffs No.3 and 4 are
represented by their mother
and General Power of Attorney
Holder Smt. Hemalatha.
All are residing at No.3-1158,
Y.M.R. Colony, Proddatur,
Y.S.R. Kadapa District,
Andhra Pradesh - 516 360.
(By Sri M. Erappa Reddy, Advocate)
-VERSUS-
DEFENDANTS : 1. M. Vinod,
S/o. Mukunda Rao,
Aged about 34 years,
Residing at No.337, 38th Cross,
9th Block, Jayanagara,
Bengaluru - 560 092.
2. D. Ambrose,
S/o. David,
Aged about 37 years,
Residing at No.1372/c, 32nd "E"
Cross, 4th Block, Jayanagara,
Bengaluru - 560 041.
(By Sri Faiz Pasha, Advocate)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Institution of the Suit : 01-01-2019
Nature of the Suit (Suit on : Ejectment Suit
pronote, Suit for declaration
and possession, Suit for
injunction etc,)
Date of the commencement : 13-01-2023
of recording of the evidence
3 O.S.No.25008/2019
Date on which the Judgment : 06-02-2024
was pronounced
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/s Month/s Day/s
----------------------------------
Total duration : 05 years, 01months, 05days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Digitally signed by K M
KM RAJASHEKAR
RAJASHEKAR Date: 2024.02.13 16:38:36
+0530
(K.M. RAJASHEKAR)
XXVIII Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by Plaintiff against the defendants for eviction to direct the defendants to quit and deliver vacant possession of the schedule property and to pay Rs.4,50,000/- being the arrears of rent and to conduct an enquiry regarding damages and for cost and such other reliefs.
2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are as follows:-
The plaintiff No.1 to 4 are the members of the same family. They purchased the suit schedule properties by registered sale deed dated 09.12.1994 and they constituted a registered firm called as M/s Prasad Enterprises and thereafter they moved the then Bengaluru city corporation for amalgamation of the said 4 O.S.No.25008/2019 sites and to register a khata in their names. They paid upto date taxes to the BBMP. The plaintiff No.3 and 4 by executing Special Power of Attorney have authorized their mother ie., 2nd plaintiff. The defendants are the tenants in respect of the schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs.1,50,000/-. The defendants have not paid any amount as security deposit. The defendants executed lease agreement in favour of plaintiffs. The defendants were paying rents by way of Bank transfer to all the plaintiffs. They were not regular in payment of rents every month. The defendants are chronic defaulters in payment of rents. The defendants failed to pay rent from the month of September 2018. The plaintiffs have got issued a legal notice dated 15.11.2018 to defendants. But defendants have not reply to the said notice. As per the said legal notice, the tenancy of the defendants was terminated with effect from 30.11.2018. In spite of termination of the tenancy, the defendants failed to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the schedule property and also failed to pay the rents. As on the date of suit Rs.4,50,000/- is the arrears of rent. Hence sought for the relief.5 O.S.No.25008/2019
3. In pursuance of the suit summons, the Defendants have appeared through their Counsel and filed their written statement. The defendants written statement denying plaint averments in general and para-wise. the defendants contended that, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The defendants contended that, the termination notice have not been served on these defendants hence the termination of tenancy of these defendants is not a valid termination. The lease agreement dated 14.06.2010 between the plaintiff No.1 and defendants the defendants have taken the suit schedule premises on a monthly rent of Rs.60,000/- for initial period of 11 months and the same may be extended from time to time on mutual consent. The suit schedule premises was vacant site at the time of lease period the plaintiff No.1 and defendants have mutually agreed that the defendants shall put up construction over the suit schedule property at their own cost, further the plaintiff No.1 has agreed refund the construction amount at the time of vacating the suit schedule property to the defendant and the same shall be treated as security 6 O.S.No.25008/2019 deposit, the defendants have invested a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- till towards construction over the suit schedule property. These defendants have paid upto date rents to the plaintiffs. They are using the suit schedule property for running business of Used Car Showroom in the name and style of Forum Auto World and there are around 15 to 20 employees are working in the said business and the defendants and their employees are totally dependent on the business and income which is run in the suit schedule property. On the other hand, they are in dire need of the suit schedule property to run their business and day to day living, if an order of eviction is passed against them around 15 to 20 families will be on road along with these defendants. They are established their business in the locality and the plaintiffs to trouble these defendants and their settled business have filed this suit. The plaintiffs are permanent residents of Andhra Pradesh and they do not required the suit schedule property for their use and occupation as alleged in the plaint. Hence sought for dismissal of the suit. 7 O.S.No.25008/2019
4. Based on the aforesaid pleadings this Court has framed the following issues:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that they are the land lords and defendants is the tenant under them in respect of the suit premises?
2. Whether plaintiff proves that defendant is entered into lease agreement agreeing to pay Rs.1,50,000/- per month without any security deposit?
3. Whether plaintiff proves that they have terminated the tenancy in accordance with law?
4. Whether plaintiff proves that defendant is due Rs.4,50,000/- towards arrears of rent?
5. Whether plaintiff is entitled for damages for illegal occupation if so at what rate?
6. Whether defendant proves that suit premises was vacant site and defendant as put up construction by investing Rs.75,00,000/- with the mutual consent of plaintiff?8 O.S.No.25008/2019
7. Whether defendant proves that plaintiff has agreed to refund the construction amount at the time of vacating the suit premises?
8. Whether plaintiff is entitled for reliefs as prayed for?
9. What order or decree?
5. To prove the case of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.2 got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to P.14. The defendant No.1 got examined himself as D.W.1 and one attesting witness as D.W.2 and got marked the documents at Ex.D.1 to D.14 and closed their side evidence.
6. Heard both side.
7. My answers to the above issues are as under-
ISSUE No.1 - In the affirmative;
ISSUE No.2 - In the affirmative;
ISSUE No.3 - In the affirmative;
ISSUE No.4 - In the affirmative;
ISSUE No.5 - In the affirmative;
ISSUE No.6 - In the negative;
ISSUE No.7 - In the negative;
9 O.S.No.25008/2019ISSUE No.8 - In the affirmative;
ISSUE No.9 - As per final order, for the following -
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.1 :- The nutshell of plaintiffs case is that, the plaintiff No.1 to 4 are the landlords having purchased the suit schedule properties under registered sale deed dated 09.12.1994 in the name M/s Prasad Enterprises, got register the khata in their names, paid up-to date taxes to the BBMP. The defendants are the tenants in respect of the schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs.1,50,000/- without security deposit and executed lease agreement in favour of plaintiffs. The defendants were paying rents by way of Bank transfer, but not regular in payment of rents. They are chronic defaulters in payment of rents since September 2018. The plaintiffs have got issued quit notice dated 15.11.2018 to defendants demanding arrears and terminated the tenancy with effect from 30.11.2018. But defendants have not reply to the said notice. The defendants failed to vacate and deliver vacant 10 O.S.No.25008/2019 possession of the schedule property and also failed to pay the rents etc. In support of plaintiffs' case, the 2 nd plaintiff got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked at Exs.P.1 to P.14 documents i.e., Exs.P.1 to 4 are the sale deeds dated 09.12.1994, Ex.P.5 is the Deed of Reconstitution dated 08.06.2006, Ex.P.6 is the khata certificate, Ex.P.7 is the khata extract, Ex.P.8 is the legal notice, Ex.P.9 is the postal receipt, Ex.P.10 is the postal acknowledgment, Ex.P.11 is the returned postal cover, Ex.P.12 is the statement of account, Ex.P.13 is the lease agreement dated 20.05.2017 between plaintiffs and defendants and Ex.P.14 is the NEFT transaction details.
9. The defendants contended that, the termination notice have not been served on them it is not a valid termination. Under the lease agreement dated 14.06.2010 between the plaintiff No.1 and defendants the defendants have taken the suit schedule vacant site premises on a monthly rent of Rs.60,000/- for initial period of 11 months and extended from on mutual consent. It was mutually agreed that the defendants 11 O.S.No.25008/2019 shall put up construction over the suit schedule property at their own cost, further the plaintiff No.1 has agreed refund the construction amount at the time of vacating the suit schedule property as it was treated as security deposit, the defendants have invested a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- towards construction over the suit schedule property. They are running Forum Auto World as Used Car Showroom, and paid up to date rents. There are around 15 to 20 employees are working with them who are dependent on the said business and income for their day to day living, if an order of eviction is passed against them they will be on road. The plaintiffs to trouble them and their settled business have filed this suit etc. In support of their claim, the defendant No.1 got place at Exs.D.1 to D.14. Exs.D.1 to D.11 are the photographs and C.D. of the showroom in the suit schedule property, Ex.D.12 is the estimate letter dated 02.07.2017 from Akruthi Architecture and Interior Design, Ex.D.13 is the original letter from Akruthi dated 10.01.2018 and Ex.D.14 is the tax invoice.
12 O.S.No.25008/2019
10. Before taking the case on merits it is useful to note that, this matter was delt by Hon'ble High Court in several occasion in W.P.16614/2022, 5716/2023, 10595/2023 before the Hon'ble High court both parties contested the case to the tooth and nail. However, all those writ petitions are pertaining to non payment of huge rent. On several occasion based on the direction of Hon'ble High Court the defendant herein has paid rents before this court. Even though quantum of rent is disputed, absolutely the relationship of landlord and tenant is not at all in dispute. In addition to that during the course of cross-examination of P.W.1 it is suggested by defendant counsel as under:
"I am MBBS graduate. It is true that suit property belongs to partnership firm. It is true that Ex.P 5 is deed of reconstitution. It is true that from the year 2010 defendants are my tenants at the rate of 60,000/- rent per month. It is true that suit property is a vacant site. It is true that defendants have put up construction of car showroom at their cost. It is true that I have not mentioned it in plaint. It is true that I have not mentioned the percentage of increase of rent in my plaint. Witness volunteers that since it was looked after by her husband. She was not aware of it. It is true that in the year 2010 my husband had done all the transactions. It is false to suggest that I am not aware of the conditions entered into between my husband and defendant. Witness volunteers that all the time my husband negotiated with the defendants, I was very much present. I can produce lease agreement of 2010. According to me we have entered into 4 lease agreements with defendant...........Since rents were paid through bank. We have not issues separate receipt. It is not correct to suggest that defendants also paid rents by way of cash also. .............I am residing in Andhara paradesh. I was present at the time of lease agreement. Suit property is a vacant land of 9,000 sq.feet. It is not correct to suggest that defendant intends to 13 O.S.No.25008/2019 put up structure and we agreed to refund the said expenses. It is not correct to suggest that defendant put up construction investing 35,00,000/- ........... It is true that defendant is dealing with used car sales. Suit property was compounded vacant land. ..... It is true that I have received rents as per direction of Hon'ble High court. It is true that up to April I received rents before this court................. It is not correct to suggest that on understanding the investment towards construction could be treated as security deposit. It is not correct to suggest that total 75 laks is invested by defendants.
11. It is to be noted that D.W.1 who is defendant himself during his cross-examination categorically admitted as under:
"we have named the shop as form auto world. It is a partnership from myself and defendant No 2 are partners............. We operate transaction in personnel accounts. Earlier we had an account, but not now. It was a cooperative Bank................ we occupied suit property for Rs.60,000/- per month. Plaintiff No 1 executed rent agreement. It is true that based on the said agreement we got GST Number. I had said agreement. I can produce it. There is another agreement but it was not signed. I don't remember the date. We used to pay rent through account. Witness volunteers we used to pay it for 4 person, through bank transfer. We used to disburse equal amount to all the 4 persons............. I have documents to prove payment of 60,000/- rent. I can produce it. Myself educated the advocate who appeared High Court also in WP 16614/22. There I told the rent as 72,000/-. Witness volunteers that we have added annual increase amount also. I don't remember when exactly rents hiked. We have deposited rents in court. .............It is true that Ex.P8 is issued by plaintiffs to me. I don't know whether is is served on me. Witness volunteers that I have not seen it. ............
ನಾನು 4 ವಾದಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಬಾಡಿಗೆ ಪಾವತಿಸಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ನಾನು ಹಾಗೂ 2 ನೇ ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿ ದಾವಾ ಆಸ್ತಿ ಬಾಡಿಗಗೆ ಪಡೆದ ನಂತರ ಫೋರಂ ಆಟೋ ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಪಾಲುದಾರಿಕೆ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದೇವೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. .......... ಪ್ರಸಾದ್ ರೆಡ್ಡಿ ಹಾಗೂ ಆತನ ಹೆಂಡತಿ ಮಕ್ಕಳೊಂದಿಗೆ ನನಗೆ ಕರರಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಪ್ರಸಾದ್ ರೆಡ್ಡಿ ಹೇಳಿಕೆ ವೇುೕರೆಗೆ ಅವರ ಹೆಂಡತಿ ಮಕ್ಕಳಿಗೆ ಬಾಡಿಗೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ನಾನು ಪ್ರಸಾದ್ ರೆಡ್ಡಿ ಎಂಟರ್ ಪ್ರೆೃಸಸ್ ಗೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಬಾಡಿಗೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿಲ್ಲ. ನನಗೆ ಆಕ್ಸಿಸ್ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ಮತ್ತು ಕೋ- ಆಪರೇಟೀವ್ ಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಖಾತೆ ಇದೆ. ಭಾರತ್ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ನನಗೆ ಖಾತೆ ಇದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಾನು ಭಾರತ್ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ಮತ್ತು ಆಕ್ಸಿಸ್ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ನಿಂದ ಪ್ರಸಾದ್ ರೆಡ್ಡಿಗೆ ನೆಫ್ಟ್ ಮೂಲಕ ಬಾಡಿಗೆ ಪಾವತಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಕೋರಮಂಗಲದಲ್ಲಿ ಫೋರಂ ಆಟೋ ಎಂಬ ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ನಮ್ಮ ಅಂಗಡಿ ಮಾತ್ರ ಇದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಪ್ರಸಾದ್ ರೆಡ್ಡಿರವರ ಕರೂರ್ ವೈಸ್ಯ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿಗೆ ಬಾಡಿಗೆ ನೀಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದೆವು ಎಂದರೆ ಇರಬಹುದು. ಈಗ ನಾನು ನೋಡುತ್ತಿರುವ ದಾಖಲೆ ನನ್ನ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ಖಾತೆಗೆ ಸೇರಿದ್ದು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ, ಅದನ್ನು ನಿಪಿ.14 ಎಂದು ಗುರುತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು. ನಾನು ಬಾಡಿಗೆಯನ್ನು ಯಾವತ್ತು ನಗದಾಗಿ 14 O.S.No.25008/2019 ಪಾವತಿಸಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. 60-70 ಸಾವಿರ ಬಾಡಿಗೆ ಇದೆ ಎಂದು ತೋರಿಸಲು ದಾಖಲೆ ಇದೆ, ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಬಲ್ಲೆ. ನಾನು ನಿಪಿ.12 ರಲ್ಲಿ ದಿಃ24.08.2018 ರಂದು 1,50,000/- ಪ್ರಸಾದ್ ರೆಡ್ಡಿ ಖಾತೆಗೆ ನೆಫ್ಟ್ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ, ಅದನ್ನು ನಿಪಿ.12 ಬಿ ಎಂದು ಗುರುತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು. ನನ್ನ ಹಾಗೂ ಪ್ರಸಾದ್ ರೆಡ್ಡಿ ನಡುವೆ ಮಾಲೀಕ ಬಾಡಿಗೆದಾರ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಹೊರತುಪಡಿಸಿ ಬೇರೆ ವ್ಯವಹಾರ ಇಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. .......... ಪ್ರಸಾದ್ ರೆಡ್ಡಿ ಯಾವುದೇ ಅನುಮತಿ ನೀಡಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ, ನನ್ನ ವ್ಯವಹಾರಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ನಾನು ಬದಲಾವಣೆಗಳನ್ನು ದಾವಾ ಆಸ್ತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ನನಗೆ ಪ್ರಸಾದ್ ರೆಡ್ಡಿ ಒಂದೇ ಕರಾರು ಮಾಡಿಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದಾರೆ. 60 ರಿಂದ 70 ಸಾವಿರ ಬಾಡಿಗೆ ಬದಲಾದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ದಾಖಲೆ ಇಲ್ಲ. ನಾನು ಆಧಾಯ ತೆರಿಗೆ ಪಾವತಿಸುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ಬಾಡಿಗೆ ವಿವರ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
In view of above said admission it could be safely concluded that absolutely there are no dispute between the parties regarding landlord and tenant relationship. Hence, the issue No.1 safely could be answered in the affirmative.
12. ISSUE No.2 :- Plaintiffs claim that the rent is at the rate of 1,50,000/- per month. On the other hand, defendant claimed that it is only 60,000/-. However, before Hon'ble High Court the defendant herein categorically admitted that the rent is enhanced to Rs.72,000/-. Ex.P.13 is the rent agreement got placed by the plaintiff which indicates that the lease agreement was for 8 months from 1st April 2017 to 31 st December 2017. The covenants indicates that the agreed rent is Rs.1,25,000/- per month which is to be paid to the plaintiffs herein. Except this documents absolutely no other documents produced by the plaintiff, so also defendants not made any attempt to 15 O.S.No.25008/2019 prove that rent is Rs.60,000/- only. Defendants not even placed the rent agreement or any proof pertaining to rent. However, Ex.P.14 is the NEFT details which indicates that Rs.1,50,000/- is transferred to plaintiff No.1's account on 09.03.2018. As referred above admittedly, except the landlord and tenant relationship between plaintiff and defendant, they have no other transaction at all. This fact is admitted by the defendant also. Apart from that defendants do admits payment of Rs.1,50,000/- towards rent. All these facts, probablised the case of the plaintiff that rent is Rs.1,50,000/- per month. Hence, issue No.2 answered in the affirmative.
13. ISSUE No.3 :- Plaintiffs claim that they have terminated the tenancy in accordance with law. Plaintiff got placed the termination notice at Ex.P.8 along with postal receipts and signed acknowledgment. Even though, defendant disputes service of termination notice. But it categorically admitted that he resides in the same address given in the cause title. Apart from that the postal receipts and acknowledgment strengthen the case of plaintiff. Hence, the termination of tenancy 16 O.S.No.25008/2019 is in accordance with law. Hence, Issue No.3 answered in the affirmative.
14. ISSUES Nos.6 AND 7 :- The defendant made hue and cry that The suit schedule premises was vacant site at the time of lease period the plaintiff No.1 and defendants have mutually agreed that the defendants shall put up construction over the suit schedule property at their own cost, further the plaintiff No.1 has agreed refund the construction amount at the time of vacating the suit schedule property to the defendant and the same shall be treated as security deposit, the defendants have invested a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- till towards construction over the suit schedule property. These defendants have paid upto date rents to the plaintiffs. They are using the suit schedule property for running business of Used Car Showroom in the name and style of Forum Auto World and there are around 15 to 20 employees are working in the said business and the defendants and their employees are totally dependent on the business and income which is run in the suit schedule property. On 17 O.S.No.25008/2019 the other hand, they are in dire need of the suit schedule property to run their business and day to day living, if an order of eviction is passed against them around 15 to 20 families will be on road along with these defendants. They are established their business in the locality and the plaintiffs to trouble these defendants and their settled business have filed this suit. The plaintiffs are permanent residents of Andhra Pradesh and they do not required the suit schedule property for their use and occupation as alleged in the plaint. in support of these facts even though defendant got placed many documents, except the photographs and some documents named as estimate. No documents are produced by the defendant to prove that there was an agreement between plaintiff and defendant regarding entering into an understanding to put up construction at the cost of defendant which shall be treated as caution deposit. Apart from that admittedly Ex.P.13/rent agreement does not discloses any such covenants. Absolutely, not even a single scrap of paper is produced by the defendant In support of his stand. It is significant to note here that, plaintiffs' counsel goes 18 O.S.No.25008/2019 on changing the volume of investment wherever he cross-examined P.W.1. The defendants' counsel had cross-examined P.W.1 on 4 occasions and manage to pull on the proceedings. According to the counsel for the defendant the cost of construction was shoot up from 30,000,00 at the time of first cross examination of PW1 to 70 lakhs at the time of last cross examination. But as rightly argued by learned counsel for the plaintiff whether it is 30 lakh or 75 lakh, unless and until the defendant establish that there was an express agreement permitted by the landlord to invest and treat it as security deposit, the samer cannot be considered. The defendant did not took strain to prove such agreement, but his focus is just on prolonging the case without payment of rent. since Hon'ble High court had issued direction for time frame disposal, this court manage to bring this suit to stage of pronouncing judgment. In spite of given sufficient opportunity to the defendant made use of all those opportunity for dodging the case and he not even addressed any oral arguments. However, when the case is posted for judgment on 31st January 2024 he filed his written 19 O.S.No.25008/2019 arguments which is nothing but reiteration of written statement in the argument format. Absolutely, nothing materials available on record regarding an understanding between plaintiff and defendant for investment in the suit property as claimed by the defendant. Hence, issues No.6 and 7 are answered in the negative.
15. ISSUES No.4 AND 5 :- Even though plaintiff claimed that defendant is due a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- towards arrears of rent. But after filing of this suit much water flown under the bridge. Matter reached Hon'ble High Court and the defendant made some payments towards rents. However, admittedly even now plaintiff is in occupation of suit property. Plaintiff demanded damages for illegal occupation. Since, the plaintiff has not attempted to prove what will be the actual rent she get from the suit property if she rents it out as on the date of quit notice. Hence, I hold that in the absence of any materials to prove the actual rent the suit property would have fetch from the date of suit it would appropriate award damages at the agreed 20 O.S.No.25008/2019 rate of rent. Hence, Issue No.4 and 5 answered accordingly.
16. ISSUES No. 8 and 9 :- In view of the discussion made above as there are no dispute regarding the landlord and tenant relationship is concerned, and as it is proved that the tenancy is terminated in accordance with law, and as the plaintiff proved that there are arrears of rent, I hold that the suit needs to be decreed as prayed. In this result, this Court proceed to pass the following -
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with cost.
The defendant is directed to delivery vacant possession of the suit property forth with, in default - plaintiff is at liberty to proceed to recover possession through due process of law.
The defendants are directed to pay Rs.4,50,000/- together with interest at the 21 O.S.No.25008/2019 rate of 18% per annum from the date of suit till realization. The amount already paid before the court shall be given in set off.
The defendant is directed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- per month towards damages for illegal occupation of the suit property from the date of suit till vacating it.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer on computer, transcript thereof, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 6th day of February, 2024.) Digitally signed by K M KM RAJASHEKAR RAJASHEKAR Date:
+0530 2024.02.13 16:38:55 (K.M. RAJASHEKAR) XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru.
SCHEDULE All the piece and parcel of property bearing site Nos.1, 2 and 3, New municipal No.1, PID No.66-134-1, Ward No.66, Madiwala, Bhuwanappa Layout, Bengaluru, totally measuring 9000 square feet and bounded on;
East by : Site No.4.
West by : Thavarekere Road.
22 O.S.No.25008/2019
North by : Hosur Road.
South by : Site No.18 and 17.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Examined on:
P.W.1 : Dr. Hemalatha 29.07.2021.
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 : Sale Deeds dated 09.12.1994. to P.4 Ex.P.5 : Deed of Reconstitution dated 08.06.2006. Ex.P.6 : Khata certificate. Ex.P.7 : Khata Extract. Ex.P.8 : Legal notice. Ex.P.9 : Postal receipts. Ex.P.10 : Postal Acknowledgment. Ex.P.11 : Returned postal cover. Ex.P.12 : Bank statement of plaintiff No.1. Ex.P.12(a) : Last payment of rent. Ex.P.13 : Lease agreement. Ex.P.14 : NEFT transaction details.
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
Examined on:
D.W.1 : M. Vinod 20-09-2023
D.W.2 : Yogesh B.N. 16-12-2023
23 O.S.No.25008/2019
4.DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT:
Ex.D.1 : Photographs along with CD.
to D.11
Ex.D.12 : Estimate from architect.
Ex.D.13 : Letter dated 10.01.2018.
Ex.D.14 : Tax invoice.
KM Digitally signed by K M
RAJASHEKAR
RAJASHEKAR Date: 2024.02.13 16:39:05 +0530 (K.M. RAJASHEKAR) XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru.24 O.S.No.25008/2019