Karnataka High Court
Indus Tower Ltd vs Smt Premakshi @ Premakshi Sanjeeva ... on 27 November, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:50036
CRP No. 263 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 263 OF 2022 (SC)
BETWEEN:
INDUS TOWER LTD.,
NO.12, TOWER-D, 7TH FLOOR,
SUBRAMANYA ARCADE,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 029
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORY, MR. AZEEZ A K
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BHARATH K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT PREMAKSHI @ PREMAKSHI SANJEEVA AMEEN
W/O SANJEEVA AMEEN U,
Digitally signed
by AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
SHARADAVANI REPRESENTED BY HER SPA HOLDER,
B
SRI SANJEEVA AMEEN U,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF S/O LATE MANJAPPA POOJARI,
KARNATAKA BOTH ARE R/AT SIRAVASE VILLAGE AND POST,
JAGARA HOBLI,
CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT,
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 130
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SHESHADRI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. HARISH KUMAR M.R, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE
KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURTS ACT, 1964. JUDGEMENT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:50036
CRP No. 263 of 2022
HC-KAR
AND DECREE DATED 07.08.2021 PASSED IN SC NO.288/2018
ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, BENGALURU. PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
RECOVERY OF MONEY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSIONS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri.Bharath K., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Sheshadri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Harish Kumar M. R., learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Tenant is the revision petitioner who has suffered the decree of arrears of rent in a sum of Rs.1,15,186/- towards arrears of rent with cost of the suit.
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for the disposal of the present revision petition are as under:
3.1. Revision petitioner being the tenant of the premises, belonging to the respondent/landlord, suffered an order of ejectment.-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:50036 CRP No. 263 of 2022 HC-KAR 3.2. However, there was no decree with regard to the ejectment because he voluntarily vacated the premises and suit continued for the purpose of recovery of arrears of rent.
3.3. Rate of rent is not in dispute and as per the legal notice, the last rent that was paid is taken note of by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment and applying the Article 52 of the Limitation Act, decreed the suit in part insofar as arrears of rent is concerned to the tune of Rs.1,15,186/-.
4. Landlord is satisfied with the decree and therefore, he did not challenge the same. Whereas the tenant is now challenging the decree on the following grounds:
The judgment and decree of the learned Court below is erroneous both in law and on facts and is liable to be set aside.
The impugned judgment passed by the Court below is contrary to oral and documentary evidence on record.
The Trial Court totally misled itself in coming to conclusion that the burden of proving the non issuance of termination notice was not proved by the Plaintiff. It is important to mention here that they have also admitted that you have evasively answered for the representation made by the plaintiff in their document (Ex. P-
4) in para 6 of the legal notice dated 13/3/2014 by stating that "our client in this -4- NC: 2025:KHC:50036 CRP No. 263 of 2022 HC-KAR regard requested you several times as well as representation through letters and notices through advocate but you have evasively answered for the representation made by our client". By this statement, it is very clear that the Plaintiff has admitted the Petitioner/Defendant has issued Termination letter (Ex. D-3) and specifically contended that in the said Termination letter is that with reference is the subject matter we are in respect of your letter dated 01/01/2012 in connection with the Agreement for Lease executed between us on 29th August, 2007 has already been terminated by vide the letter of termination dated 15/01/2008. The Trial Court totally misled itself in coming to conclusion that, the notice alleged to be issued by the defendant on 31 January 2012, cannot be taken as a surrender of possession and also the termination of tenancy. The trial court erred in finding that the Petitioner/Defendant was ready and willing to perform his part of liability under the alleged contract.
The Trial Court failed to notice that, the Respondent/plaintiff in his legal notice (Ex.P4) at para 5 has admitted that, the Petitioner/defendant have shifted the position and erected the mobile tower adjacent other's land which is hardly 50 meters away from Respondent/plaintiff's land. From the above admission of Respondent/plaintiff, it is clear that the termination of the tower was taken place is come to the knowledge of the Respondent/plaintiff. This aspect of the admission has not been considered in a judicious manner by the Learned Judge. The finding of the Learned Trial Judge is that, there is no clear, cogent and corroborative evidence on Defendant's side, which goes to -5- NC: 2025:KHC:50036 CRP No. 263 of 2022 HC-KAR prove that, the defendant has not produced any evidence to prove the fact that the termination of tenancy was within the knowledge of the plaintiff. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the Defendant's evidence in his Reply notice (Ex. D7) dated 27/03/2014 to the legal notice (Ex.P4) of plaintiff at para 2 has stating that, as per the Clause 7 of the Lease Agreement dated 29.08.2007 the defendant had issued a termination letter dated 15.01.2008. When such being the finding, the Leaned Judge ought to have decreed the suit, holding that, the defendant has not produced any evidence to prove the fact that the termination of notice was issued. The court has failed to appreciate the fact that the question of specific performance cannot be adjudicated without addressing the contentions raised by the Petitioner/Defendant and hence the impugned judgment passed by the trial court calls for interference by this court.
5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, contented that learned Trial Judge has not taken note of the fact that there was no arrears of rent and all the rents were paid.
6. He would further contend that revision petitioner having voluntarily vacated the premises, is not liable to pay the rent and thus, sought for admitting the revision petition for further consideration.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:50036 CRP No. 263 of 2022 HC-KAR
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order.
8. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
9. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that there is no dispute as to the relationship of landlord and tenant and rate of rent in view of Ex.P.1 which is a lease agreement dated 29.08.2007.
10. Legal notice placed on record by the defendant is marked at Ex.D.2 issued by the tenant to the landlord. Admittedly, tenant has vacated the premises during the pendency of the suit and present suit continued for recovery of arrears of rent.
11. Learned Trial Judge after recording the evidence of the parties, taking note that under Section 108(q) of the Transfer of Property Act, actual possession taken over by the landlord is the date till which the tenant is required to pay the rent.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:50036 CRP No. 263 of 2022 HC-KAR
12. However, Article 52 of the Limitation Act was taken note of by the learned Trial Judge and stated that plaintiff is entitled to recover the rent for a period of three years prior to filing of the suit.
13. Monthly rent being Rs.2,000/-, as against the claim of the plaintiff of Rs.1,15,186/-, plaintiff would be entitled to Rs.72,000/- with costs.
14. Since the plaintiff is satisfied with the decreeing of the suit in part, the contentions urged on behalf of the defendant that decreeing of the suit is bad in law cannot be countenanced in law.
15. Hence, following:
ORDER Revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33