Bangalore District Court
The vs During The Cross-Examination on 3 April, 2019
13 OS No. 1615/2014
12 OS No. 1615/2014
Judgment pronounced in the
open court vide separate
orders.
Suit of the plaintiff is
dismissed.
No order as to cost.
(K.S.Jyothishree),
I Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
11 OS No. 1615/2014
" P-9 Endorsement
" P-10 Legal notice
" P-11 reply
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANT:
DW.1 Suresh S.Patel
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT:
Exs.D-1 to 3 Electricity bills
Ex.D.4 certified copy of sale deed dated 29.1.2019
(K.S.Jyothishree),
I Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
10 OS No. 1615/2014
answer these issues as does not survive for
consideration.
15. Issue No.5 : With this discussion, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
Suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
No order as to cost.
(Dictated to the JW, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 18th day of March 2019.) (K.S.Jyothishree) I Addl.City Civil Judge, Bangalore. ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFFs PW.1 N.P.Narasanna LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF Exs.P-1 Certified copy of compromise petition " P-2 Certified copy of judgment in RFA.1675/2005 " P-3 Property tax receipt "P.4 Certified copy of sale deed dated 22.3.2012 " P-4(a) Certified copy of sketch " P-5 to 7 Water supply bills & receipts " P-8 cheque 9 OS No. 1615/2014 relationship. Ex.D.1 to 3 are the electricity bills. Ex.D.4 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 29.1.2019. As per this document, wife of the deceased plaintiff and one Rangaprasad are jointly sold the entire suit property in favour of the defendants. It means, during the pendency of the suit itself, the legal heirs of the plaintiff have sold out the entire suit property in favour of the defendants. It appears that the defendants were never inducted as tenants under the plaintiff in respect of the suit property and initially, the defendants are the owners of the property covered under Ex.P.4 and later, they also purchased the entire suit property. Hence, nothing is left for determination. There is no need to discuss the alleged jural relationship, the alleged termination of tenancy and also the question of arrears of rent and damages. In view of the subsequently changed circumstances, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief as claimed. The suit itself become infructuous. As such, I 8 OS No. 1615/2014 further stated that, the defendants were purchased the said portion and till purchase, they were tenants. It appears that the defendants were tenants in respect of the property sold by the plaintiff as per Ex.P.4.
13. During the cross-examination, PW.1 has stated that, in respect of the vacant space leased to the defendants, there is no written agreement and he has not issued rent receipts to the defendants. He has categorically admitted that land sold under Ex.P.4 is in the possession and enjoyment of the defendants. According to the plaintiff, he did not execute sale deed in respect of the suit property.
14. DW.1 has deposed that, the defendants are not the tenants under the plaintiff in respect of the suit property and hence, the question of termination of tenancy does not arise. During the cross-examination, DW.1 has stated that the defendants are in the possession of the suit property from 15years. The defendant No.2 has categorically denied the jural 7 OS No. 1615/2014 were failed to pay the advance amount of Rs.5Lakhs and later issued cheque dated 20.10.2013 for Rs.5Lakhs towards the payment of advance amount. He has further deposed that the said cheque was dishonoured. Ex.P.8 is cheque drawn on Allahabad Bank. Ex.P.9 is the bank endorsement. It is worth to note that according to the plaintiff, the defendants are the tenants from June 2013. Ex.P.8 was issued in the month of October 2013. So, it appears that Ex.P.8 was not issued in respect of the payment of alleged advance amount.
11. PW.1 has stated that, the defendants were paid rent only for June 2013 and later, they are defaulters. Ex.P.10 is the Office copy of the legal notice.
12. Ex.P.5 to P.7 are the electricity bills and according to the plaintiff, these bills are pertaining to the use and occupation of the suit property by the defendants. During the cross-examination, PW.1 has stated that the defendants are tenants since 15 years and they were paying rent of Rs.12,000/- p.m. He has 6 OS No. 1615/2014 REASONS
8. Issue Nos.1 to 4 : All these issues involve common discussion. PW.1 has deposed that he has acquired the suit property by virtue of compromise in RFA No.1671/2005. Ex.P.1 is the certified copy of compromise petition. Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karntaka in RFA 1671/2005. Ex.P.3 is the tax paid receipt.
9. PW.1 has deposed that he has sold rare portion of the suit property in favour of the defendants. Ex.P.4 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 22.3.2012. Ex.P.4(a) is the sketch. As per this document, the plaintiff has sold the property measuring 35.6ft. x 26.4ft./80ft., totally measuring 2473sq.ft., in favour of the defendants.
10. PW.1 has deposed that, on the strength of oral agreement, the defendants are inducted as tenants in the suit property on a monthly rent of Rs.20,000/- from June 2013. He has further deposed that, the defendants 5 OS No. 1615/2014 name and style of M/s Shankar Timber and Plywood ?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of ejectment and damages as prayed ?
5. What decree or order ?
5. The plaintiff has been examined as PW.1 and the documents are marked as Exs.P.1 to P.11. The 2nd defendant has deposed as DW.1. and the documents are marked as Exs.D.1 to D.4. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff reported as dead and his legal representatives are come on record as plaintiff No.1(a) to 1(d).
6. Both submitted the written arguments.
7. My answer to the above issues are:
Issue Nos. 1 to 4 : In view of the execution Of sale deed in favour of the defendants in respect of the suit property, these issues does not survive for consideration.
Issue No.5 : As per final order
For the following:
4 OS No. 1615/2014
3. The gist of the written statement is as under :
Land land lord and tenant relationship is disputed. The defendants are in the occupation of shop premises, where they are running timber business by name M/s Shankar Timbers. The defendants and the plaintiff have various transactions between them and in that connections, the defendants were handed over several signed blank cheques to the plaintiff as a security. There is no cause of action. The plaintiff has got issued frivolous legal notice. With these contentions, they requested to dismiss the suit with costs.
4. On the above pleadings, the following issues are framed:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves the jural relationship of land lord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendants ?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that he has terminated the tenancy by issuing a legal notice dated 20.1.2014 to the defendants ?
3. Whether the defendants prove that they are the absolute owners of shop premises where they are running the timber business under the 3 OS No. 1615/2014 the defendants by executing registered sale deed dated 22.3.2012. later, the defendants sought to take the schedule property on rent at the rate of Rs.20,000/-
p.m. The plaintiff has accepted the request and let out the suit property to the defendants on oral agreement from June 2013. The Defendants were failed to pay the advance amount of Rs.5 Lakhs. On repeated request and demand, the first defendant had issued a cheque for Rs.5 Lakhs and the same was dishonoured. Later also, the defendants have failed to pay the advance amount. The defendants have paid rent only for one month and later they became defaulters. Hence, the plaintiff has issued legal notice dated 20.1.2014 and terminated the tenancy. The defendants are due to pay Rs.1,40,000/- towards rent from July 2013 and onwards. The defendants are in the unauthorized occupation of the suit property. So, they are also liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.30,000/- p.m. Hence, this suit.
2 OS No. 1615/2014
about 32 years, Shankar Timbers, No.5/1, Magadi Road, Kamakshipalya, Bangalore.
2. Suresh S.Patel, S/o S.M.Patel, aged about 34 years, Shankar Timbers, 5/1, Magadi Road, Kamakshipalya, Bangalore.
(by Sri. K.Krishna Murthy - Advocate) Date of institution of the suit : 25.2.2014 Nature of the suit (suit on pronote, suit for declaration and Suit for Ejectment possession suit for injunction,etc) :
Date of the commencement of 25.3.2015 recording of the evidence :
Date on which the Judgment was 18.3.2019 pronounced :
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s 05 00 21 ( K.S.Jyothishree ), I Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
JUDGMENT This suit is for eviction and recovery of damages.
2. The facts are as under :
The Plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. He sold rare portion to an extent of 2,473sq.ft., in favour of IN THE COURT OF I ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,BANGALORE CITY.(CCH.NO.2) Dated, this the 18th day of March 2019.
PRESENT Smt. K.S.Jyothishree,B.Com,LLB., I Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
O.S.NO.1615/2014
PLAINTIFFs Sri. N.P.Narasanna
Since died by his LRs:
1(a). Smt. Mala Narasanna, w/o late N.P.Narasanna, aged about 66 years, 1(b). Chetan Narasanna S/o late N.P.Narasanna, aged about 46 years, 1(c). Smt.Archana Narasanna D/o late N.P.Narasanna, aged about 45 years, 1(d). Smt.Suman Mandyam D/o late N.P.Narasanna, aged about 43 years, All are permanent residents of No.1155, 11th main, R.P.C.Layout, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru - 560 040.
(By Sri.T.A.Chandra Sekhar - Advocate) V E R S U S -
DEFENDANTs Ashwin S.Patel S/o S.M.Patel, aged