Bangalore District Court
N.Rukmaya Devadiga vs Smt.V.Revathy on 9 March, 2015
C.R.P. 67] Government of Karnataka
Form No. 9
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGEMENTS IN SUITS
(Civil)
Title Sheet
for IN THE COURT OF THE SMALL CAUSES AT BANGALORE
Judgment in
Suits PRESENT: Basavaraj Chengti., B.Com.,LL.B.,(spl)
(R.P.91) XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BANGALORE.
Dated this the 9th day of March 2015.
S.C.No.972/2014
Plaintiff: N.Rukmaya Devadiga
S/o Dasappa Devadiga
Aged about 70 years
No.330, 2nd stage,
BEML Layout,
Rajarajeshwari Nagar,
Bangalore-560098
(By pleader Sri HSH)
Vs.
Defendants : 1. Smt.V.Revathy
W/o M Purushothaman,
Aged about 40 years,
No.343, James Road,
Near Kullappa Circle,
St.Thomas Town,
Bangalore - 560084.
And also at; No.17,
1st cross, Mangala layout,
St.Thomas Town Post,
KK.Halli,
Kammanahalli,
Bangalore - 560084.
SCCH-14 2
SC.No.972/2014
( By pleader Sri BMK)
Date of Institution of the suit : 26.08.2014
Nature of the suit(Suit on
Pronote, suit for declaration and
Possession, suit for injunction, etc.,) : ejectment
Date of the commencement of recording
of the evidence : 05.02.2015
Date on which the judgment was : 09.03.2015
Pronounced
Total duration Year/s Month/s Days
00 06 14
Additional Judge.
Note: The names and descriptions of all the plaintiff's and
defendants as stated in the plants should be mentioned.
SCCH-14 3
SC.No.972/2014
JUDGEMENT
This is a suit for ejectment and for mesne profits.
2. Brief averments of the plaint are as under:
The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property bearing No.17, 1st cross, Mangala layout, St.Thomas Town post, K.K Halli, Kammanahalli, Bangalore-560 084 and same is hereinafter referred to as the schedule property. The defendant has approached and requested the plaintiff to let out the schedule property for her residential purpose in the month of July 2013 and accordingly the parties came to mutual understanding and entered into agreement on 11.07.2013 in respect of schedule property. The defendant has become the tenant under the plaintiff for a period of 11 months commencing from 14.07.2013 on monthly rent of Rs.3,150/- with a security deposit of Rs.30,000/-. The tenancy was commencing from that of English calendar month that is from 14th day of every month and to the 13 th day of the succeeding month. The defendant has paid only 5 or 6 months rents to the plaintiff and thereafter failed to pay the same and became irregular in payment of monthly rents as and when fell due to the plaintiff. As on the date of issuance of the notice, the defendant was due at 3 months rent amounting to Rs.9,450/-. The building is very old one and it is at the stage of dilapidated condition. It is not fit for human habitation and accordingly, the plaintiff has requested the defendant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the schedule property. The plaintiff is intending to put up new construction in the schedule SCCH-14 4 SC.No.972/2014 property. At the first instance, the defendant agreed for the same and later, failed to do so. Hence, the plaintiff has issued a legal notice on 25.06.2014 to the defendant calling upon her to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the schedule property. The tenancy of 11 months of the defendant was expired on 13.06.2014. Inspite of service of notice, the defendant has failed to comply with the demands made in the said notice, but has issued and an untenable reply on 30.06.2014 seeking another 3 years time to vacate the schedule property. The plaintiff is not interested to continue the defendant as his tenant as the schedule property is required for his own use and occupation for reconstruction.
The defendant is continuing in the schedule property as trespasser after termination of tenancy and hence, she is liable to pay damages @ Rs.5,000/-per month from 13.06.2014 till delivery of vacant possession of the property. Hence, he has filed this suit for ejectment of the defendant directing her to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the schedule property in his favour and to pay mesne profits @ Rs.5,000/- pm, from the date of notice till the date of delivery of vacant possession of the schedule property.
3. In pursuance of the summons, the defendant has appeared before the court through her counsel, but she did not file written statement. During the evidence, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to P3. The evidence of defendant is taken as nil.
4. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
SCCH-14 5SC.No.972/2014
5. Now, the points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the plaintiff has proved that the tenancy of the defendant is duly terminated?
2. Whether the suit is maintainable before this court?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for?
3. What order or decree?
6. My answer to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1: In Negative.
Point No.2: In Negative.
Point No.3: In Negative.
Point No.4 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
7. POINT NO.1 to 3: These points are interlinked and hence, I have taken them together for common discussion. The plaintiff has relied upon his own oral evidence and contents of Ex.P1 to 3 to prove his case. The defendant has not filed written statement and not adduced any evidence on her behalf.
8. PW-1: N.Rukmaya Devadiga is the plaintiff and he has reiterated entire averments of the plaint. His evidence remained unchallenged. There is nothing on record to disbelieve his evidence. The defendant has no defence and he has not cross examined PW-1. The plaintiff has produced copy SCCH-14 6 SC.No.972/2014 of quit notice, reply notice, postal cover and rent agreement which are marked as Ex.P-1 to 3. The contents of Ex.P-1 to 3 support the version of PW-1 and reveal that the plaintiff is the owner of the schedule property and the defendant is tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the said property on a monthly rent of Rs.3,150/- for 11 months commencing from 14-7-2013, that the defendant has deposited Rs.30,000/- with the plaintiff as security deposit, that the plaintiff issued legal notice on 25- 6-2014, that the defendant has replied the notice through her counsel on 30-6-2014. The defendant has admitted, in her reply, the jural relationship between her and the plaintiff as tenant and landlord, but she has contended that her security deposit amount is lying with the plaintiff and she requires 3 years to find out new accommodation.
9. The counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the plaintiff has proved his case by oral evidence of PW-1 and contents of Ex.P-1 to 3, that the defendant has not filed W.S. and not cross examined PW-1, that there is no rebuttal evidence and hence, he has sought for passing Judgment and decree against the defendant as prayed in the suit.
10. I have carefully gone through the pleading and evidence adduced by the plaintiff. The Court can not decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff only on the ground that the defendant has not filed W.S., not cross examined PW-1 and not produced evidence to rebut the case of the plaintiff. The plaintiff can not establish his case on the basis of weakness of the defence.
SCCH-14 7SC.No.972/2014
11. Evidence of PW-1 and contents of Ex.P-1 to 3 make it clear that the schedule property is a house property. The plaintiff is the landlord and the defendant is the tenant. The defendant is inducted in the schedule property on 14-7-2013 on a monthly rent of Rs.3,150/- for a period of 11 months with security deposit of Rs.30,000/-. Lease period of 11 months expired on 13-6-2014. The plaintiff issued quit notice to the defendant on 25-6-2014 which was duly served on the defendant. The defendant did not vacate and schedule property as demanded in the notice.
Section 27 of Karnataka Rent Act reads as under;
Protection of tenants against eviction;
(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by the Court, District Judge or High Court in favour of the landlord against a tenant, save as provide in sub-section(2).
(2) The Court may, on an application made to it in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, The above provision makes it clear that no order of eviction can be passed against the tenant except on the grounds provided under Sec.27(2) of Karnataka Rent Act. If the provisions of Karnataka Rent Act are not applicable, then the provisions of Section 106 of TP Act are applicable. The SCCH-14 8 SC.No.972/2014 properties which are not covered under Karnataka Rent Act fall under the provisions of TP Act and the landlord acquires a right to terminate the tenancy of his tenants by a quit notice as required U/s 106 TP Act. If the property falls within the purview of Karnataka Rent Act, issuance of notice U/s 106 of TP Act does not terminate the tenancy of protected tenant.
12. Section 2 of Karnataka Rent Act defines the properties which are excluded from the purview of the said Act. Sub section 2(3) prescribes that residential property in Bangalore whose rent is more than Rs.3,500/- per month is excluded from the purview of Karnataka Rent Act which means the residential property in Bangalore whose rent is less than Rs.3,500/- per month falls within the purview of Karnataka Rent Act and the tenant under such property is protected tenant. His tenancy can not be terminated by issuing a quit notice U/s 106 of TP Act. Such tenant can only be evicted from the property on the grounds provided U/s 27(2) of Karnataka Rent Act. In this case, the schedule property is a residential property. Agreed rent is Rs.3,150/- per month. Hence, the defendant is a protected tenant and he can only be evicted from the schedule property on the grounds provided U/s 27(2) Karnataka Rent Act. The notice at Ex.P1 does not terminate the tenancy of the defendant. The rent agreement at Ex.P3 does not bring the dispute under the provisions of TP Act. The said agreement is an agreement as required U/s 4 of Karnataka Rent Act. The said agreement does not authorise the plaintiff to terminate the tenancy of the defendant. The SCCH-14 9 SC.No.972/2014 said notice at Ex.P1 is hit by the provisions of Karnataka Rent Act. The plaintiff can evict the defendant from the schedule property only on the basis of grounds provided U/s 27 (2) Karnataka Rent Act and not otherwise. The suit of the plaintiff is hit by the provisions of Karnataka Rent Act. The tenancy of the defendant in respect of schedule property is intact. The suit is not maintainable as the eviction of the defendant on the basis of quit notice is barred under the provision of Karnataka Rent Act. The plaintiff is not entitled for the relief sought for and I answer the points in negative.
13. Point No.4: In view of above discussion and findings, I proceed to pass following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own cost.
(Typed directly on the laptop, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this 9th day of March, 2015) (Basavaraj Chengti) XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes, BANGALORE.SCCH-14 10
SC.No.972/2014 SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of property bearing No.17, 1st cross, Mangala Layout, St.Thomas Town post, K.K.Halli, Kammanahalli, Bangalore-560 084, consisting of ground floor sheet house consisting of one house, hall, kitchen, bath room and toile, together with electrical fittings and bounded on the:
East by: Lemao's land West by: 20 feet road, North by: H.Nagesh pai's land, South by: Prankvas' land.
(Basavaraj Chengti) XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes, BANGALORE.SCCH-14 11
SC.No.972/2014 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS:
PW.1 N.Rukmaya Devadiga
Defendants NIL
Ex.P1 - Copy of Notice
Ex.P2 - Copy of Reply Notice
Ex.P2(a) - Postal Cover
Ex.P3 - Rental Agreement
XVI Addl.Judge,
Court of Small Causes,
Bangalore.
SCCH-14 12
SC.No.972/2014
DECREE
S.C.C.H.NO.14
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES COURT, AT BANGALORE.
S.C.No.972/2014
Plaintiff: N.Rukmaya Devadiga
S/o Dasappa Devadiga
Aged about 70 years
No.330, 2nd stage,
BEML Layout,
Rajarajeshwari Nagar,
Bangalore-560098
(By pleader Sri HSH)
Vs.
Defendants : 1. Smt.V.Revathy
W/o M Purushothaman,
Aged about 40 years,
No.343, James Road,
Near Kullappa Circle,
St.Thomas Town,
Bangalore - 560084.
And also at; No.17,
1st cross, Mangala layout,
St.Thomas Town Post,
KK.Halli,
Kammanahalli,
Bangalore - 560084.
( By pleader Sri BMK)
CLAIM: Suit filed on prays for directing
defendant to quit and vacate the vacant possession of the schedule premises.SCCH-14 13
SC.No.972/2014 This suit coming on` for final disposal before Sri.Basavaraj Chengti ., XVI Addl. Judge, CSC, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt Advocate, for the plaintiff and Sri/Smt Advocate, for the defendant.
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own cost.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this Day of 2015.
DY. REGISTRAR, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE.
MEMORANDUM OF COST INCURRED IN THIS SUIT By the Plaintiff Defendant Court fee on plaint Court fee on power Court fee on exhibits Service of process + Postal charges Commissioner's fees Pleaders fee _________________________ Total of Rs. _________________ Amount payable by the defendant to the plaintiff is Rs.SCCH-14 14
SC.No.972/2014 SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of property bearing No.17, 1 st cross, Mangala Layout, St.Thomas Town post, K.K.Halli, Kammanahalli, Bangalore-560 084, consisting of ground floor sheet house consisting of one house, hall, kitchen, bath room and toile, together with electrical fittings and bounded on the:
East by: Lemao's land West by: 20 feet road, North by: H.Nagesh pai's land, South by: Prankvas' land.
Decree Drafted Scrutinised by DY. REGISTRAR,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BANGALORE
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR
SCCH-14 15
SC.No.972/2014
Dt.09.03.2015.
P-HSH
D-BMK
For judgment
Order pronounced in open court vide separate judgment.
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own cost.
XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes, BANGALORE.SCCH-14 16
SC.No.972/2014