Bangalore District Court
T C Mahesh vs M/S Sangeetha Mobiles Private Limited on 18 March, 2024
IN THE COURT OF LXXXIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU. (CCH-90)
Present : Sri.S.J.Krishna, B.Sc., LL.B.,
LXXXIX Addl.City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Dated: 18th MARCH 2024
Com.O.S.No.831/2021
PLAINTIFF: Sri.T.C.Mahesh,
S/o Late T.N.Channappa,
Aged 66 years,
R/at No.21, 1st Main Road,
Opp.To Indian Overseas Bank,
Gandhinagar,
Bengaluru-560 009.
(By Sri.B.Ramesh, Advocate)
Vs.
DEFENDANT; M/s.Sangeetha Mobiles
Private Limited,
A Registered Private Limited
Company,
Having its Registered Office at
No.1183, 2nd A Cross,
Banashankari, 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru-560 070,
Rep.by its Managing Director,
Sri.L.Subhash Chandra,
Shop at:
Sangeetha Mobiles Pvt., Ltd.,
R/at No.21/2, 1st Main Road,
Opp.To Indian Overseas Bank,
/2/
Com.O.S.No.831/2021
Gandhinagar,
Bengaluru-560 009.
(By Sri.M.S.Ashwin Kumar, Advocate)
Date of Institution of : 07.12.2021
suit
Nature of suit : Money Suit
(suit on pronote, suit for
declaration and
possession suit for
injunction, etc.,)
Date of commencement : 18.02.2022
of recording of evidence
Date of judgment : 18.03.2024
Total duration : Year/s Month/s Day/s
02 03 11
(S.J.KRISHNA)
LXXXIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
(CCH-90)
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant praying the Court to pass a judgment and decree a. directing the defendant to pay the arrears of rent of ₹.24,39,189/- with interest at that rate of 18% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of realization to the plaintiff as per the terms of the lease/rental agreement dated 20.01.2011 in respect of 'A' Schedule Property failing which the plaintiff may /3/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021 be reserved liberty to recovery of arrears of rents with interest from the sale articles stored in 'B' Schedule properties;
b. To award costs, c. To pass such other suitable order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
The summary of the case of the plaintiff is as follows:
02. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the commercial premises situated at No.21/2, 1st Main Road, Gandhinagar, Opposite Indian Overseas Bank, Bengaluru-560 009. The plaintiff has let out the said commercial premises to various persons who are in occupation of the same. One such commercial premises situated on the front portion of the building on the ground measuring 24.3 feet X 27.6 feet consisting of ground floor measuring 600 square feet and mezzanine floor measuring 300 square feet including toilet.
During the year 2011 the defendant having registered office Private Limited Company having office situated at No.1183, 22nd A Cross, Banashankari 2nd Stage, Bengaluru-560 070 which was represented by Managing Director by name Sri. L.Subhash Chandra came to know that the plaintiff owned a commercial building in Gandinagar i.e., suit schedule property which was vacant and approached the plaintiff for running his /4/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021 mobile showroom in the name and style as "Sangeetha Mobile Pvt. Ltd.".
03. The defendant at that point of time came to know that the plaintiff had earlier let out the said premises for running a mobile showroom in the name and style "Spice Hot Spot Mobile" and the said showroom had interiors i.e., false ceiling, light fittings, three sides mobile display show cases nearly 12 numbers and for the entrance of the showroom full size glass fitting with 3 feet X 6 feet glass door and in mezzanine floor fully furnished consisting of12 seated meeting table and chairs with toilet. The said tenant after few years had vacated the said premises and the above stated additional fittings remained as it is and the same was not removed. The plaintiff at the time of "Spice Hot Spot Mobile"
vacating the schedule premises had paid the expenses for interiors fitted in the said premises and hence the said tenant left the interior fittings as it is and did not remove the same.
04. As the facts stood that stage the defendant after the coming to know that the suit schedule premises was vacant and same was fully furnished and the same was suitable for the use and occupation to carry on their business had approached the plaintiff to let out the suit schedule premises to their firm in order to open a branch in Gandhinagar in the /5/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021 name and style as "Sangeetha Mobile Pvt. Ltd." which was dealing in sale of mobile phones and its allied accessories. In view of the same both plaintiff and defendant held negotiations. After the negotiations the plaintiff had agreed to let out the suit schedule premises on monthly rent of ₹.70,000/- and ₹.600/- towards maintenance charges i.e., towards water charges for common areas on a pro-rata basis. As per the negotiations the plaintiff had requested the defendant to pay the refundable security deposit of ₹.4,00,000/-. The plaintiff and defendant had entered into rental agreement on 20.01.2019. In terms of the rental agreement the defendant had agreed to occupy suit schedule premises for a period of nine (09) years from the date agreement of lease/rental. As per the said agreement the period of lease commenced from 20.01.2011. Pursuant to agreement the defendant had paid refundable security of ₹.4,00,000/- by way of cheque bearing No.561657, dated:
18.01.2011 drawn on Standard Chartered Bank, Bengaluru.
The defendant had agreed to pay monthly rents of ₹.70,000/- and monthly maintenance charges of ₹.600/- to the plaintiff. The defendant had agreed to enhance the monthly rentals at the rate of 15% after expiry every three years on the then existing rent of ₹.70,000/- The plaintiff also provided separate electricity connections by providing 11KVA power to the suit schedule premises.
/6/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021
05. The plaintiff and defendant had agreed to terminate the lease by giving three months prior written notice. Further defendant had agreed to utilize the said schedule premises exclusively for its business and the mobile showroom for the purpose of selling mobile phones and its accessories. The defendant was permitted to deduct TDS on rent as per the Income Tax Act and deposit the same before the competent authority and pay the balance monthly rentals to the plaintiff. The defendant had agreed to issue TDS certificate at the end of every English Calendar of that year.
06. In terms of the agreement of rent the defendant had occupied the schedule premises on 20.01.2011. In terms of the lease the defendant was initially paying monthly rentals regularly as per the agreed terms. As the facts stood at that stage, even though the defendant's business was running well, by suppressing said fact issued letter on 22.07.2012 to plaintiff by stating that since the defendant was facing financial difficulties and hence was unable to pay the rental as per agreement and hence sought for reduction of rent by 30% for a period of one year. In terms of the letter dated:
22.07.2012 issued by the defendant, the plaintiff replied the said letter on 17.08.2012 after consultation with the officials of the defendant Company reduced the monthly rent of ₹.10,000/- i.e.from ₹.70,000/- ₹.60,000/-.Under the said letter /7/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021 the plaintiff had specifically stated that said modified rent of ₹.60,000/- would be only for a period of one year which was commencing from August 2012. The defendant had agreed for the same and was initially paying the said rents of ₹.60,000/- for few months.
07. After the expiry of three years, the plaintiff had requested the defendant to enhance the monthly rent at the rate of 15% on ₹. 70,000/- and requested the defendant to pay the monthly rental of ₹.80,500/- and ₹.600/- towards maintenance which was commencing from 20.01.2014 to 2017. The plaintiff had sent several mails through his E-Mail ID to the defendant company on various occasions and also sent several letters though RPAD which was dully served on the defendant. The defendant neither replied to the said mails nor replied to the letters sent by the plaintiff. Without any other option the plaintiff once again on 03.08.2016 issued a letter to the defendant requesting to pay the monthly rent at the rate of ₹.80,500/- from 20.01.2014 and also requested to clear arrears of rent. The said letter dated 03.08.2016 was duly served on the defendant. The defendant even after receipt of the said letter, has not paid the monthly rentals at the rate of ₹.80,500/- but paid the monthly rentals at the rate of ₹.70,000/- and did not pay the arrears of rents. The defendant did not enhance monthly rentals ever since 2014 /8/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021 till 2017 as per the rental agreement. The plaintiff without any other option sent mails through his E-mail ID on 22.05.2017 to the defendant company requesting the said company to enhance the rent from ₹.80,500/- to ₹.92,575/- from 20.01.2017 as per the rental agreement. The plaintiff had also personally served the notice to the the defendant by hand and same was duly received by the officials of the defendant company.
08. The defendant without enhancing the rent and also without replying to the letter and e-mail sent by the plaintiff on 20.01.2019, has sent a letter on 06.02.2019 to the plaintiff requesting to reduce the rents and also requested not to enhance the rents for the period from January 2019 to December 2020. Further the defendant under the said letter dated 06.02.2019 had requested the plaintiff to waive off the arrears of rent and requested to continue to accept the rent of ₹.70,000/- per month as fixed on the date of rental agreement. The said letter dated 06.02.2019 was received by the plaintiff on 13.02.2019. The plaintiff after receipt of the said letter dated 06.02.2019, submitted his detailed explanation vide letter dated:20.02.2019 by stating all the facts and negotiations held between the plaintiff and defendant and stated that it was not possible to walve off arrears of rent which was calculated at the rate of /9/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021 ₹.9,42,375/- upto 19.02.2019 and requested to pay/clear the arrears of rent as soon as possible. The plaintiff under his letter dated 20.02.2019 furnished the details of calculation regarding the arrears of rent.
09. The said letter dated 20.02.2019 issued by the plaintiff was duly received/served on the defendant. Even after receipt the letter dated: 20.02.2019, the defendant company did not clear the arrears and also did not pay the rents as per the rental agreement. The plaintiff without any other option on 14.11.2019 sent a letter to the defendant stating that even after the issuance of several letters defendant had not cleared/paid the arrears the plaintiff and accordingly the plaintiff directed the defendant to pay the arrears of rents of ₹. 11,45.550/- and also directed the defendant to quit and vacate the suit schedule premises. The notice/letter dated 14.11.2019 was duly served on the defendant. In terms of the letter dated 14.11.2019 the defendant under his letter dated 14.01.2020 requested time till 20.02.2020 and requested the plaintiff not to take coercive steps to vacate the said premises upon expiry of lease agreement. The defendant further under his letter dated 14.01.2020 had specifically stated that the defendant would settle the dispute on mutual consent between the parties.
/10/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021
10. The defendant issued a letter to the plaintiff on 20.07.2020 wherein the defendant requested the plaintiff to reduce the monthly rentals from ₹. 70,000/- to ₹.50,000/- for a period of 12 months from 01.06.2020. The plaintiff after receipt of the said letter dated 20.07.2020 under his letter dated 03.08.2020 had specifically stated that as per the letter dated 14.01.2020 the defendant had failed to re-negotiate and hence plaintiff refused to accept the proposal for reduction of rent as requested by the defendant under his letter dated 20.07.2020.
11. The defendant without adhering to their commitment and also adhering to their letters and without clearing the arrears of rents issued a letter on 30.06.2021 stating that since the lease agreement dated 20.01.2011 got expired and the defendant was not intended to renew the lease agreement and hence they are ready to handover vacant possession of the suit schedule premises and accordingly directed the plaintiff to arrange to refund security deposit amount of ₹.4,00,000/-.
12. The plaintiff after the receipt of the said letter dated 30.06.2021, issued a notice/letter on 23.07.2021 demanding the defendant to pay the arrears of rent. In the said letter dated 23.07.2021 the plaintiff had calculated the details of /11/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021 arrears of rent which the defendant was legally liable to pay in terms of the lease/rental agreement dated 20.01.2011. As per the detail calculation the defendant is liable to pay arrears of monthly rental at ₹. 24,39,189/- The plaintiff has specifically stated that the defendant was liable to pay arrears of monthly rents of ₹.13,76,948/- after deducting advance security amount of ₹.4,00,000/-. Under the sald letter dated 23.07.2021 the plaintiff had furnished a detailed calculation to the defendant. As on this date the defendant is liable to pay a sum of ₹.15,62,098/-including the rent and maintenance charges for the months of August 2021 to October 2021 excluding refundable security deposit of ₹. 4,00,000/-.
13. The Notice/letter sent by the plaintiff on 23.07.2021 was duly served on the defendant on 24.07.2021. The defendant even after receipt of the letter/notice even after a lapse of three months neither cleared the arrears of rent nor replied the notice. The defendant had also violated the terms and conditions stipulated under the rental/lease agreement dated: 20.01.2011. Due to the action of the defendant, the plaintiff has incurred huge financial loss, as the plaintiff was liable to pay the taxes to the jurisdictional corporation and also incidental taxes.
/12/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021
14. As per the provisions of the Act the plaintiff had filed petition before the DLSA wherein the notice was issued to the defendant and matter was set down for mediation. The defendant appeared before the DLSA wherein the said matter was not settled. The defendant without intimating the plaintiff vacated the schedule premises and handed over the keys without clearing the arrears of rents.
15. The entire transaction is commercial in nature. Hence, the plaintiff without any other alternative and efficacious remedy has filed this present suit seeking for recovery of arrears of monthly rentals.
16. The cause of action accrued to the plaintiff to file the suit within the jurisdiction of this Court.
17. After the service of summons the defendant appeared through their advocate. The defendant has filed the written statement, additional written statement in response to amended plaint and also amended written statement.
The case of the defendant is as under:
18. At the outset, the plaintiff's suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed in limine, as the plaintiff has not paid the proper stamp duty on the agreement of lease, dated /13/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021 20.01.2011, which is executed for a period of 9 years, as could be seen from Clause 11 of the agreement, copy of which is produced by the plaintiff. Since the instrument, namely the Agreement of Lease dated 20.01.2011 is an unregistered document and further since no proper stamp duty is paid, the same cannot be accepted in evidence and the same is liable to be impounded.
19. Even otherwise, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as the plaintiff has not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands. The above suit of the plaintiff is barred by the Law of Limitation and as such the relief sought for by the plaintiff cannot be granted.
20. It is true that this defendant occupied the suit schedule A property on 20.01.2011, on a monthly rent of ₹.70,000/ payable on or before the 7 th day of every calendar month. The other allegations at the subsequent paragraphs that this defendant has been a defaulter with regard to payment of rents are far from truth.
21. At the time of taking possession of the suit schedule A premises, the plaintiff handed over the possession to the defendant with interiors fitted. However, this defendant while vacating the schedule A premises has handed over the /14/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021 possession with more decorated interior and fittings and in neat and tidy manner to the Plaintiff.
22. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage that the defendant did not have good business from the date of commencement of the tenancy, extending to the year 2012 as the business had not yet established. Therefore, the defendant approached the plaintiff and requested the plaintiff to reduce the rent by 30%, as per the defendant's letter dated 22.7.2011. The said letter is produced as Document No.2, by the plaintiff himself. As could be seen from the said letter, the defendant requested for the reduction of rent by 30%. In response to the said letter of the defendant, the plaintiff replied vide his letter dated 17.08.2012, agreeing to reduce the rate of ₹.70,000/- to ₹.60,000/- as against reduction of 30%, sought for by the defendant.
23. Accordingly, based on the understanding of the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant continued to pay rent at the rate of ₹.60,000/- without any demur, right through the year 2012 and 2013 onwards. The plaintiff accepted the same without raising any objection, as the plaintiff was well aware that the business of the defendant was not good enough to seek enhancement of rent That apart, on account of recession, since all the business /15/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021 enterprise were not doing well, including the defendant, the defendant was constrained to approach the plaintiff and requested to continue to receive the rent at the rate of ₹.60,000/- per month till the year 2017, which request came to be rejected by the plaintiff. Therefore the defendant has been paying the rent at ₹.70,000/- per month from July 2013 onwards, till the date of vacating the premises.
24. The defendant though was not doing very well and had to make great efforts to break even, continued to run the business by paying the agreed rent of ₹.70,000/- without any default. The defendant furnishes a copy of the statement of accounts maintained by the defendant in the regular course of business, which indicates rents, that were being paid by the defendant to plaintiff for the use and occupation the schedule A premises, without any default at the rate of ₹.70,000/-per month.
25. During the year 2019, when the whole world was engulfed in crisis due to the advent of the Pandemic-COVID 19, the defendant's business also suffered very badly. It is needless to state that on account of the lock down, the business of the defendant came to a standstill and it became a challenge for the defendant to maintain the business by making both ends meet. That apart on account of the /16/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021 competitive mobile phone industry and due to the advent of the online market, the business of the defendant deteriorated further and with great difficulty, the defendant managed to keep itself afloat. Even during the crisis, on account of COVID 19, the defendant has managed to pay the rents as and when the defendant opened its showroom and commenced its business, which is well within the knowledge of the plaintiff.
26. Though the defendant was anticipating that the government would announce certain relief measures to support the mobile phone industry and other retail industry, which operates with a net profit of mere 1%, no such measures were announced by the government, driving the defendant to greater hardship and despair.
27. Being under such helpless situation, the defendant who hardly made any profit out of the business right through, especially during the COVID 19 period, approached the plaintiff on the hope and belief and requested for a further reduction of rent. But, unfortunately the plaintiff flatly refused to accede to the request of the defendant. The defendant had clearly explained about the unprecedented times during Covid-19 in their letter dated 20.08.2020 (produced by the plaintiff as Document No:11). But the plaintiff instead of considering the situation that the defendant was in, got /17/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021 issued a notice of termination on 23.07.2021, calling upon the defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the schedule A premises, besides calling upon the defendant to pay a sum of ₹.13,76,948/-, being the outstanding rent, after adjusting the advance of ₹.4,00,000/- paid by the defendant. In the meantime, the defendant unable to bear the trauma on account of the harassment meted out by the plaintiff, voluntarily vacated and handed over possession to the plaintiff on 30.06.2021, even before the plaintiff could issue a legal notice on 23.07.2021.
28. Under the above circumstances, it can be clearly averred that the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking arrears of rent, amounting to almost ₹.20,00,000/- is not only false but also frivolous and made with a view to cause hardship and loss to the defendant. The plaintiff has filed a false suit, with a view to harass and humiliate the defendant. The defendant has all along the tenancy, paid rents up to date at the agreed rate of ₹.70,000 per month and the same has been accepted by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's case is not maintainable in view of the fact that agreement dated 20.01.2011 is an unregistered instrument, which is executed for a period of 9 years and no proper stamp duty is paid on the said instrument. On this ground alone, the of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
/18/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021
29. All other allegations that are not specifically traversed herein are hereby denied as false.
30. There is no cause of action for the suit and the one mentioned are incorrect. The suit is not properly valued and the court fee paid is highly insufficient. On this score also the above suit is liable to be dismissed. The Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs, in the interest of justice and equity.
31. Based on the rival pleadings the following ISSUES and ADDITIONAL ISSUE are framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is liable to pay ₹.24,39,189/- towards arrears of rent?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is liable to pay interest at 18% p.a. on ₹.24,39,189/- from the datge of suit till the date of realisation?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for suit reliefs?
4. What Order/decree?
/19/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021 ADDITIONAL ISSUE
1. Whether the defendant proves that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation?
32. In view of statement of admission and denial of documents filed by the plaintiff and defendant, the plaintiff got exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 and the defendant got exhibited Ex.D1. The Plaintiff has adduced his evidence as PW1. The plaintiff exhibited Ex.P9 to Ex.P18. The Defendant ahs examined it Admin Manager Sri.Rajesh K.B. as DW1. The defendant got exhibited Tax Invoices as Ex.D2 to Ex.D11 in the cross examination of PW1. The DW1 has exhibited Ex.D12.
33. After the conclusion of the trial I have heard the arguments addressed by the learned Advocates for the Plaintiff and defendant.
34. The Learned Counsel for the plaintiff' has relied on the following decisions in support of his case:
Sl.No. Name of the Parties Citation 01. Paul Rubber Industries Private 2023 SCC ONLINE
Limited Vs. Amit Chand Mitra and SC 1216 Another
02. Park Street Properties Private (2016) 9 SCC 268 Limited Vs. Dipak Kumar Singh and Another
03. Anthony Vs. K.C.Ittoop & Sons & (2000) 6 SCC 394 Others /20/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021
04. State of Gujarat Vs. Kothari and (2016) 14 SCC 761 Associates
35. The Learned Counsel for the Defendant has relied on the following decisions in support of his case:
Sl.No. Name of the Parties Citation
01 Shakeel Ahmed Vs. Syed Akhlaq 2023 (4) CCC 368
Hussain
02 Gopal Vs. Renuka Chandrakanth RSA 10002/2014
Dhamanekar & Ors., Decided on
6.11.2023
03. Sovoke Properteis Ltd., Vs. West AIR 2019 SC 2664
Bengal Electricity Distribution
Co., Ltd.,
04. Naganath Vs. Boodamma & RSA 200420/2023
Others Decided on
7.8.2023
05. Gangamma Rangappa Vs. AIR 2021 KAR 51
Rangaiah & Ors.,
06. Kamala Bakshi Vs. Kharathi Lal AIR 2000 SC - 1808
07. Pavani Advertising vs. Bengaluru RFA 939/2013 (SJ)
Metropolitan Transport Decided on
Corporation (BMTC) & Another 21.09.2023
08. Punjab National Bank Vs. RFA 1307/2019 (DB)
Ms.Srinivasa Enterprises Decided on
31.3.2023
/21/
Com.O.S.No.831/2021
36. I have gone through the materials available on record.
37. My findings on the above ISSUES is as under:
ISSUE No.1 & 2 : IN THE NEGATIVE
Additional ISSUE : IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
ISSUE No.3 : IN THE NEGATIVE
ISSUE No.4 : As per final Order
for the following
REASONS
38. ISSUE No. 1, 2 and Additional Issue: These issues are interconnected to each other as such they are taken together to avoid repetition of facts.
39. The Plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant praying the Court to pass a judgment and decree a. directing the defendant to pay the arrears of rent of ₹.24,39,189/- with interest at that rate of 18% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of realization to the plaintiff as per the terms of the lease/rental agreement dated 20.01.2011 in respect of 'A' Schedule Property failing which the plaintiff may be reserved liberty to recovery of arrears of rents with interest from the sale articles stored in 'B' Schedule properties;
b. To award costs, c. To pass such other suitable order or orders as this /22/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021 Hon'ble Court deems fit to be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
40. From the materials available on record it is clear that there is no dispute between the plaintiff and defendant that they had entered into a lease agreement dated:20.01.2011 as per Ex.P1 on a monthly rent of ₹. 70,000/- with maintenance charges of ₹.600/-PM in respect of Suit A Schedule property as per Clause 2 and 33 of Lease Agreement. It was agreed between the parties that the lease period shall commence from 20.01.2011 for a period of 9 years as per Clause 4 and 11 of the Lease Agreement. It was also agreed between the parties that there shall be an increase in rent by 15% on the expiry of every three years on the then prevailing rent as per Clause 5 of the Lease Agreement.
41. The defendant is contending that it has delivered the vacant possession of Suit A Schedule property to the plaintiff on 30.06.2021. The Plaintiff is contending that the defendant has handed over the keys of suit A schedule property only on 02.12.2021.
42. The Plaintiff has filed the suit to recover ₹.24,38,189/- along with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization of entire dues on the count that the /23/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021 defendant has failed to pay the rents at enhanced rates. The defendant has paid rents at ₹.70,000/- PM 2014 onwards. The Plaintiff had informed the defendant vide letter dated:23.07.2021 issued as per Ex.P16 that in view of length of the lease period since 2011, he waiving of the accrued interest on the arrears of rent which is payable by the defendant. Further as a matter of good gesture he is giving concession of 30% of rent for the months of April, May and June 2021. The Plaintiff is claiming arrears of rent from 20.01.2014 to 02.12.2021 amounting to ₹.24,38,189/-.
43. The defendant is contending that it is not liable to pay the arrears of rent or arrears of rents at the enhanced rates and the interest claimed by the plaintiff. The defendant is contending that Ex.P1 Lease Agreement dated:20.01.2011 is an unregistered document as such the plaintiff is not entitled to enforce the covenants of Ex.P1. The suit is barred by limitation. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
44. The PW.1 in his cross examination deposed that there are about 9 shop premises in schedule Commercial Complex Bg. No.21/2. Out of 9 shops, one shop was let out to defendant. The lease agreement was entered into by him with the defendant on 20.01.2011. Initially the rent was fixed at ₹.70,000/- p.m and ₹.600/- pm. towards /24/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021 maintenance charges. The defendant had paid ₹.4,00,000/- towards security deposit. He has not refunded the security deposit amount of ₹.4,00,000/- to the defendant. The defendant had paid rents at ₹.70,000/- pm for initial 1 year. As per the request made by the defendant to reduce the rents by 30% he has reduced the rent to ₹.60,000/- p.m from ₹.70,000/- pm. The defendant has paid monthly rents of ₹.60,000/- for a period of 1 year i.e. in 2012. The defendant continued to pay monthly rents at 60,000/- for a further period of 6 months thereafter he requested them to pay ₹.70,000/-. The defendant paid monthly rents of ₹.70,000/- up to 2014. There are no arrears of rent or deference in rents payable by defendant till January 2014.
45. In spite of his request to enhance the rent the defendant had been paying rent at ₹.70,000/- per month till 2017 along with maintenance charges. He denied that he made no request with the defendant for enhancement of rent between the period 17.08.2012 and 03.08.2016. He made several requests for enhancement of rent with the defendant. He has admitted that he has written a letter as per Ex.P.10 seeking enhancement of rent to ₹.80,500/- pm. He had sent an e-mail dated 22.05.2017 /25/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021 requesting defendant to pay rents @ ₹.92,575/- from 20.01.2017. The defendant wrote a letter dated 06.02.2019 stating that they are facing difficulty as such the rate of rent may be reduced. He has admitted that as per Ex.P.14 there was an arrears of rent from 20.01.2014 to 19.01.2017 i.e. ₹.3,78,000/-. He has admitted that as per Ex.P.14 there was arrears of rent from 11.01.2017 to 31.10.2019 i.e. ₹.7,67,550/- in all the arrears of rent was at ₹. ₹.11,45,550/- as on 14.11.2019. He denied that initially he has claimed ₹.11,45,550/- towards principal arrears of rent. He has admitted that after giving set off to security deposit of ₹.4,00,000/- the arrears of rent payable by defendant as on 14.11.2019 was ₹.7,45,550/-.
46. As on the date of filing of suit the suit claim was shown as ₹.19,62,098/-. Subsequently he has amended the suit claim and is now seeking ₹.24,39,189/-. It is not true to suggest that he has no basis to claim the arrears of rent at the enhanced rate. He has admitted that the defendant is liable to pay the difference in rent. He has voluntarily deposed that he is also claiming arrears of rent at the enhanced rate. He denied that the defendant has never defaulted in payment of rents since 2017 till the date of vacating the schedule premises. He denied that he /26/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021 has not furnished the details regarding the months to which the defendant has not paid the rents. He has deposed that he has not furnished the details regarding the months to which the defendant has not paid the rents. He has claimed arrears regarding difference in rate of rents since 2014 till the date of vacating the schedule premises by the defendant. He has not renewed the lease entered into with the defendant in respect of schedule premises.
47. The DW1 in his cross examination deposed that he knows the facts of the case. He has been working with the defendant since 2009 as Administration Manager. The Managing Director of the defendant along with him has inspected the suit schedule premises before entering into lease agreement. He was present during the course of negotiation and the lease agreement was entered into as per the terms agreed to in the negotiation. He knows the contents of lease agreement/Ex.P.1. The terms and conditions incorporated in the lease agreement/Ex.P.1 remain unaltered even to this date. In the written statement and additional written statement the defendant has not disputed the terms and conditions incorporated in the lease agreement/Ex.P.1. As per the terms of lease /27/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021 agreement/Ex.P.1 the defendant was obliged to pay the monthly rents at ₹.70,000/- and also monthly maintenance charges of ₹.600/- from 20.01.2011. As per the terms of lease agreement the defendant was obliged to enhance the rate of rent at 15% every 3 years. The conditions incorporated in the lease agreement regarding payment of monthly rents and the enhanced rents remained unaltered. The defendant had requested the plaintiff to alter the rate of rent from ₹.70,000/- to ₹.60,000/- during August 2011. He has admitted that the defendant had requested the plaintiff to reduce the rate of rent by 30% for a period of 1 year as per Ex.P.2. He has admitted that the plaintiff has agreed to the request of the defendant to reduce the rent to ₹.60,000/- p.m. Accordingly, the defendant had paid monthly rents at ₹.60,000/- for a period of 1 year. He denied that the plaintiff had made clear though he has agreed for reduction of rent by 30% the terms and conditions of the lease agreement shall remain as it is and there shall be no modification in the lease agreement. The plaintiff has written a letter dated 17.08.2012 as per Ex.P.3 to the defendant agreeing to reduce the rents to ₹.60,000/- p.m for a period of 1 year. He has admitted that the defendant /28/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021 has fixed the rent at ₹.70,000/- p.m from August 2013, as per the terms of lease agreement. He has admitted that the defendant had been paying rents at ₹.70,000/- p.m from August 2013 onwards.
48. The DW1 deposed that he knows the correspondences exchanged between the plaintiff and the defendant. He has admitted that the plaintiff had requested to revise the rent by 15% as per Ex.P.10 dated 03.08.2016. As per Ex.P.10 the defendant was obliged to pay rent at ₹.80,500/- pm. He has admitted that even after receipt of letter as per Ex.P.10, the defendant continued to pay monthly rents at ₹.70,000/- to the plaintiff.
49. The defendant is not disputing Ex.D.11. In the Ex.D.11 there is a note made by the plaintiff 'pending rise Rent and Rents are not paid, kindly pay as early as possible'. The defendant has received the voucher as per Ex.D.11. The defendant has not paid rents at ₹.80,500/- p.m from August 2014 onwards. The defendant had been paying rents at ₹.70,000/- p.m. He has admitted that in spite of issuance of letter by the plaintiff to enhance the rate of rent, the defendant has not revised the rents. The /29/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021 defendant used to furnish the Rent/ Tax invoice format to the plaintiff and the plaintiff used to prepare the Rent/ Tax invoice and handed over to the defendant. The defendant is not in possession of all the Rent/Tax invoices from January 2011 to December 2021. He has admitted that the defendant was filing Income Tax Returns based on Rent/Tax invoice vouchers. The defendant used to furnish the Rent/ Tax invoice vouchers to their Chartered Accountant to prepare Income Tax Returns. The Chartered Accountant used to prepare the Income Tax Returns based on the Books of Accounts and information furnished by the defendant. The defendant used to maintain the Rent/ Tax Invoice Vouchers issued by the plaintiff in their Store office. He has inspected the stores regarding the maintenance of documents. He has seen some of the invoices wherein the plaintiff has made a note to enhance/ revise the Rate of Rents and also to pay the arrears of Rent at the enhanced rate. The defendant has not paid the revised Rents and also the arrears of revised Rents. He has admitted that the plaintiff has issued a letter as per Ex.P.11 requesting the defendant to pay the revised Rent at ₹.92,575/- and also to pay the arrears of rent at the revised rate from 20.01.2017 as per Ex.P.11. He has /30/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021 admitted that the plaintiff has filed the present suit claiming the recovery of arrears of Rent at the revised rate. He has filed memo of calculation before the Court on 03.01.2023. At column ii, he has shown the rate of rent at ₹.93,175/- p.m. He is not disputing the rate of Rent shown as ₹.93,175/- p.m. He has admitted that ₹.93,175/- p.m. was calculated as per the terms of lease agreement regarding periodic revision of Rents. The plaintiff has been demanding for payment of Rents at the revised rate and also to pay the arrears of Rent as per the revised rate of Rent till the filing of the present suit. In the written statement that the defendant has not stated that 'the defendant had approached the plaintiff several times with a request to reduce the rate of Rents and arrears of Rents'. In the written statement the defendant has not stated that the defendant had been paying Rents at ₹.70,000/- p.m.
50. The DW1 deposed that he knows the contents of documents produced by the plaintiff before the Court in this case. The defendant has not replied to the letters issued by the plaintiff. He has admitted that since 2019, the plaintiff had been requesting the defendant to enhance the rate of rent and to pay the arrears of rent. He /31/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021 has admitted that the defendant has not paid the arrears of rent and has also not paid the rents at the enhanced rate. The plaintiff might have issued letters requesting for payment of arrears of rent and payment of rents at the enhanced rate in tune with the terms of lease deed/Ex.P.1.
51. The defendant has issued a letter to the plaintiff as per Ex.P.4. In Ex.P.4 the defendant had requested the plaintiff to negotiate the terms of lease agreement. The lease agreement has not been renewed as the plaintiff did not agree for renewal of lease.
52. The officials of the defendant had requested the plaintiff orally to renew the lease. This fact is not stated in the written statement by the defendant. The defendant has not requested the plaintiff to renew the lease through written document.
53. The defendant has not received the letter dated 23.07.2021/ Ex.P.16 issued by the plaintiff. The defendant has not stated in the written statement that the defendant has not received the letter issued by the plaintiff as per Ex.P.16. In Ex.P.17 the seal of defendant is affixed. The witness volunteers to depose that the security officer has /32/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021 affixed the seal of defendant on Ex.P.17 and the defendant has not received the letter issued by the plaintiff as per Ex.P.16. He denied that in spite of receipt of letter issued by the plaintiff as per Ex.P.16 he is deposing falsely. He has admitted that the plaintiff has filed the suit claiming arrears of rent based on the documents and letters referred to in the plaint.
54. The dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant might have started since 2019. The statement of payment of rents/ Ex.D.12 is prepared by our Accounts team. The defendant has furnished a copy of Ex.D.12 to the plaintiff. He has not furnished any documents to show that a copy of Ex.D.12 was furnished to the plaintiff. In the written statement and in his affidavit evidence the statement exhibited as Ex.D.12 is not referred to by him. He denied that in order to escape the liability of paying the arrears of rent as claimed by the plaintiff he is deposing falsely.
55. On going through the materials available on record it is evident that the Lease Agreement dated:20.01.2011 is engrossed on stamp paper ₹.100/-. The stamp duty paid on the document at the time of execution was insufficient. On /33/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021 28.03.2022, the plaintiff filed a Memo seeking the leave of the Court to pay deficit stamp duty and the penalty. Accordingly, the Memo was accepted. The Plaintiff paid ₹.1,35,300/- towards deficit stamp duty and penalty on Lease Agreement dated:20.01.2011. Thus the plaintiff has cured the defect in payment of stamp duty on the instrument.
56. The Plaintiff got exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 and the defendant got exhibited Ex.D1 in view of statement of admission and denial of documents filed by the plaintiff and defendant. In view of Section 17(1) of the Registration Act, 1908 and Section 107 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a lease for a period more than 11 months has to be made only through registered instrument. In this case the lease period was for 9 years. Hence, Ex.P1 required compulsory registration. The plaintiff has cured the defect in payment of stamp duty by paying duty and penalty. The defect of Non- registration continues. In view of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 Ex.P1 could be considered for collateral purpose. In this case the nature and possession of Suit A Schedule property by the defendant as a Lessee is not in dispute. The lease created under Ex.P1 was expired by efflux of time. The defendant is contending that he has delivered the possession of schedule property to the plaintiff on 30.06.2021. The plaintiff is contending that the defendant has delivered the /34/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021 possession of suit A schedule property on 02.12.2021 to him, Though the plaintiff disputes the date of delivery of possession by the defendant nevertheless admitted and accepted the delivery of possession of Suit A Schedule property by the defendant. As there is no dispute regarding creation of tenancy and expiry of tenancy by efflux of time Ex.P1 need not be looked into to know the nature of possession of the defendant over Suit A Schedule property.
57. The plaintiff has filed this suit to recover arrears of enhanced rents. There is no dispute that the defendant has paid rents at the rate of ₹.70,000/-PM till 30.06.2021. The suit is filed by the plaintiff to recover arrears of rent at the enhanced rate based on Clause 5 of Ex.P1, which is the suit document. When the core issue involved in the suit is enforcement of Clause 5 of Ex.P1, the plaintiff is required to establish the admissibility of Ex.P1.
58. The Plaintiff is contending that the defendant has admitted Ex.P1 and DW1 has admitted Clause 5 of Ex.P1. The plaintiff has repeatedly demanded the defendant to pay the arrears of rent and arrears of rents at the enhanced rate. The Defendant has not denied their liability to pay the arrears of rent and has requested the plaintiff to waive off the arrears rent as per Ex.P12 dated:06.02.2019. Hence, notwithstanding /35/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021 the fact that Ex.P1 is an unregistered document, the defendant is liable to pay arrears of rent at the enhanced rate.
59. The defendant is contending that the defendant never made an unequivocal admission regarding the alleged liability. The defendant had been paying the rents at ₹.70,000/- PM. The defendant has never offered to pay the rents at the alleged revised rates at any point of time. As Ex.P1 is not a registered document the plaintiff is not entitled to enforce the alleged Clause 5 of the Agreement.
60. The DW1 in his cross examination has deposed that in Ex.P.8 the defendant has not stated anything about the payment of arrears of rent or the payment of rent at the enhanced rate. He has voluntarily deposed that the defendant has stated that it would vacate the premises and requested the plaintiff to refund security deposit of ₹.4,00,000/-. The defendant has denied its liability.
61. The facts of the present case are considered in the back drop of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in the following decision.
/36/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021 RFA No:1307 of 2019(Mon) Punjab Nationa Bank & Another Vs. M/S.Srinivasa Enterprises
16. Notwithstanding the fact that the duty and penalty under the said Lease Agreement was paid, the period of tenancy under the said Agreement being more than eleven months, the same ought to have been registered as contemplated under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act. In the absece of the said Lease Agreement dated:23.09.being registered, having regard to Section 49 of the Registration Act, the same can be looked into only for collateral purposes and not for considering the terms of the said document. Hence, the said agreement cannot be looked into for the purpose of considering the claim made by the Plaintiff for enhanced rent.
19. The defendant has disputed the said last inserted page of the said agreement. The Trial Court noticing that the said lease agreement dated:23.09.2002 was not a egistered one and that only the defict stamp duty and penalty has been paid by the Plaintiff, relying upon the judgment reported in the case of Chandrakala Vs.Soman held that it cannot be permitted to claim an enhanced rate of rent in terms of the unregistered Lease Deed. Having regard to Section 17(1) of the Registration Act and having regard to the settled proposition of the law regarding effect of non registration of a compulsorily registerable document as contemplated under Section 49 of the Registration Act (See:Anthony V. K.C.Ittoop & Sons, Smt.G.Kusuma Devi Vs. Smt.Gowramma and others) the finding of the Trial Court is just and proper.
/37/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021
26. In view of the aforementioned, the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that it is entitled to enhanced rent as claimed for in the plaint. The finding of the Trial Court that the Defendant is liable to pay the enhanced rent from 01.09.1998 is erroneous and liable to be set aside. The questions framed for consideration are answered in the negative against the plaintiff.
62. The ratio of the above decision squarely applies to the facts of the case on hand. Thus, it is clear that Ex.P1 being an unregistered document is inadmissible in evidence and the plaintiff is not entitled to make suit claim on the basis of Ex.P1 and is not entitled to enforce Clause 5 of Ex.P1.
63. The defendant is contending that the plaintiff is seeking recovery of alleged arrears of rent at the enhanced rate from 20.01.2014 till 02.12.2021. The suit was filed on 07.12.2021, as such the suit is barred by limitation. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
64. The PW1 in his cross examination has admitted that he is claiming arrears of rent at the enhanced rate from 2014 to 2017 as shown in Ex.P.11. He has claimed the arrears regarding maintenance charges from the defendant. In Ex.P.16 at Para 6 he has stated that 'In view of length of the lease period since 2011, I am waiving of /38/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021 the accrued interest on the arrears of rent which is payable by you. Further as a matter of good gesture I am giving concession of 30% of rent for the months of April, May and June 2021'. He has voluntarily extended the concession to the defendant. In Ex.P.16 he has not shown the period for which the accrued interest on arrears of rent was waived by him. In Ex.P.16 He has demanded the defendant to pay ₹.13,76,948/-. Ex.P.16 was issued by him on 23.07.2021. The suit was filed on 07.12.2021. In the original plaint he has claimed ₹.19,62,098/- towards arrears of rent against the defendant.
65. In Ex.P.13 dated 20.02.2019 he has claimed arrears of rent at ₹.9,42,375/- as on 19.02.2019. In Ex.P.14 dated 14.11.2019 he has claimed arrears of rent at ₹.7,45,550/-. He denied that h e is not certain about the arrears of rent payable by the defendant and he has been quoting different sums in different letters. The defendant has paid rents till 20.01.2014 as per the terms of conditions of lease agreement dated 20.01.2011. After the expiry of first 3 years from the date of commencement of tenancy he has claimed enhanced rent at the rate of 15% on the prevailing rate of rent.
/39/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021
66. From the above materials available on record the plaintiff was required to file the suit for recovery of arrears of rents at the enhanced rate within a period of 3 years from the date of respective due dates. The plaintiff could have restricted his claim for arrears of rents at the enhanced rates for a period of 3 years next before filing of the suit. The plaintiff has not furnished any materials to show that the defendant has acknowledged its liability to pay the arrears of rents at the enhanced rate. In the absence of an unequivocal admission of liability by the defendant, the suit claim needs to be rejected as barred by limitation.
67. Article 52 of Limitation Act provides that a suit for recovery of arrears of rent has to be filed within three years when the arrears became due.
68. The defendant is contending that it has delivered the vacant possession of suit A schedule property on 30.06.2021 as such the claim of plaintiff for the alleged arrears of rent from 01.07.2021 till 02.12.2021 is not maintainable.
69. The DW1 deposed that The defendant has issued a letter as per Ex.P.8 on 30.06.2021. In Ex.P.8 the /40/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021 defendant has not stated that it has vacated the schedule property as on 30.06.2021. in Ex.P.8 the defendant has not stated anything about the payment of arrears of rent or the payment of rent at the enhanced rate. He has voluntarily deposed that the defendant has stated that it would vacate the premises and requested the plaintiff to refund security deposit of ₹.4,00,000/-.
70. The PW1 denied that the defendant had vacated the schedule premises and handed over the possession of the schedule premises to him on 30.06.2021. He has voluntarily deposed that the defendant had handed over the keys of schedule premises on 2 nd December 2021. He does not remember the date of filing of the present suit.
71. DW1 denied that the defendant has vacated the schedule premises in December 2021. The defendant has vacated the schedule premises in June 2021. Ex.D.11 depicts the payment of arrears of rent for the month of July 2021. The letter as per Ex.P.8 was sent by defendant through registered post on 10.07.2021.
72. On a close scrutiny of the materials available on record it is evident that the defendant had offered to /41/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021 vacate the schedule premises with immediate effect as per Ex.P8 dated:30.06.2021. Whereas, the entries made in Ex.D11 shows that it has paid rents for the month of July 2021. The PW1 in his cross examination categorically denied that the defendant had vacated the schedule premises on 30.06.2021 and asserted the keys of schedule premises was handed over to him on 2 nd December 2021. The defendant has not denied the assertion made by the plaintiff. The defendant has not placed any materials to show the date on which it has delivered the possession of suit A schedule property. In such circumstances, the inevitable conclusion would be that the defendant has vacated the suit A schedule property only on 02.12.2021.
73. After the expiry of lease period by efflux of time the defendant has to be treated as a tenant at sufferance. The defendant was required to deliver the vacant possession of schedule premises after the expiry of 9 years from 20.01.2011 i.e. on or before 20.01.2020. The Defendant has vacated the schedule premises on 02.12.2021. The Plaintiff is claiming recovery of rents at ₹.93,175/-PM from February 2017 till 02.12.2021. The plaintiff could have sought for recovery of damages from February 2021 till December 2021. The /42/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021 defendant has paid rents at the rate of ₹.70,000/- from 2014 onwards. The plaintiff has not restricted his claim for recovery of damages/rents from August 2021 to December 2021. The suit claim is barred by limitation. As observed above the plaintiff is not entitled to claim arrears of rent at the enhanced rates.
74. The plaintiff has not placed any materials to show that the defendant has agreed to pay interest at 18% p.a. on the outstanding dues. The plaintiff has notified the defendant that he has waived off interest on arrears of rent as a goodwill gesture as per Ex.P16. When the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the arrears of rent at the enhanced rate the question of awarding interest does not arise at all. The Plaintiff has retained security deposit of ₹.4,00,000/- The defendant has not made any counterclaim to recover the security deposit. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to retain the security deposit amount of ₹.4,00,000/- Accordingly, ISSUE No.1 & 2 are answered in the NEGATIVE; Additional ISSUE in the AFFIRMATIVE.
75. ISSUE No.3: In view of findings on ISSUE No.1, 2 and additional Issue, the plaintiff is not entitled for the suit reliefs. Accordingly, Issue No.3 is answered in the NEGATIVE.
/43/ Com.O.S.No.831/2021
76. Issue No.4: In view of my findings on Issue No:1 to 3 and Additional Issue, I pass the following:
ORDER The suit filed by plaintiff is hereby dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
The office is hereby directed to send a copy of the judgment to the plaintiff and the defendant through e-mail as per Order XX Rule 1 CPC as amended by Section 16 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on 18th day of MARCH 2024) (S.J.KRISHNA) LXXXIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
(CCH-90) ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
P.W.1 Sri.T.C.Mahesh
/44/
Com.O.S.No.831/2021
List of documents exhibited on behalf of the plaintiff:
Sl. Particulars of documents Ex.P.
No.
1. Lease agreement dated 20.01.2011 Ex.P.1
2. Letter dated 22.07.2012 issued by Ex.P.2
the defendant
3. Letter dated 17.08.2012 issued by Ex.P.3
the plaintiff
4. Letter dated 14.01.2020 issued by Ex.P.4
the defendant
5. Letter dated 20.07.2020 issued by Ex.P.5
the defendant
6. Postal Receipt Ex.P.6
7. Postal acknowledgment Ex.P.7
8. Letter dated 30.06.2020 issued by Ex.P.8
the defendant
9. Letter dated 23.08.2013 written by Ex.P.9
the plaintiff to the defendant
10. Letter dated 03.08.2016 written by Ex.P.10
the plaintiff to the defendant
11. Letter dated 10.06.2017 written by Ex.P.11
the plaintiff to the defendant
12. Letter dated 06.02.2019 written by Ex.P.12
the defendant to the plaintiff
13. Letter dated 20.02.2019 written by Ex.P.13
the plaintiff to the defendant
14. Letter dated 14.11.2019 written by Ex.P14
the plaintiff to the defendant
/45/
Com.O.S.No.831/2021
15. Letter dated 03.08.2020 written by Ex.P.15
the plaintiff to the defendant
16. Letter dated 23.07.2021 written by Ex.P.16
the plaintiff to the defendant
17. Postal acknowledgment Ex.P.17
18. 65B Certificate Ex.P.18
List of witnesses examined for the defendant/s:
DW.1: Sri.Rajesh.K.B. List of documents marked for the defendant/s:
Sl. Particulars Ex.D.
No.
1. Form No.16A for having deducted Tax Ex.D.1
at Source as per Income Tax Act
2. Tax Invoice dated 04.03.2018 Ex.D.2
3. Tax Invoice dated 03.06.2018 Ex.D.3
4. Tax Invoice dated 03.09.2019 Ex.D.4
5. Tax Invoice dated 01.10.2019 Ex.D.5
6. Tax Invoice dated 01.11.2019 Ex.D.6
7. Tax Invoice dated 02.02.2020 Ex.D.7
8. Tax Invoice dated 02.09.2020 Ex.D.8
9. Tax Invoice dated 02.02.2021 Ex.D.9
10. Tax Invoice dated 01.04.2021 Ex.D.10
11. Tax Invoice dated 03.08.2021 Ex.D.11
/46/
Com.O.S.No.831/2021
12. Statement of accounts maintained by Ex.D.12
the defendant pertaining to the rents
paid to the plaintiff (page no.1 to 12)
(S.J.KRISHNA)
LXXXIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
(CCH-90)
****
Digitally
signed by S J
KRISHNA
SJ Date:
KRISHNA 2024.04.04
02:45:23 -
0400