Bangalore District Court
Kamala Narayan vs Venkatesh.T on 4 January, 2024
KABC020099552019
IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. SMALL CAUSE JUDGE,
BENGALURU. (SCCH-11)
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY - 2024
PRESENT: SRI.RAGHAVENDRA.D, B.COM, L.L.B.
I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & MACT
SC No.575/2019
PLAINTIFF:
Smt. Kamala Narayan
W/o. Late T C Narayan @ Narayana
Aged about 84 years,
R/at # 1000, 5th Cross,
1st Main Ideal Homes Township,
R.R. Nagar, Bengaluru - 560 098.
(By Sri.S. Hemanth, Adv.)
//Versus//
DEFENDANT:
Sri. Venkatesh T.
Aged about 62 years,
Variety Footwear,
New #45, Old number 1606
MKK Road, Opposite Devaiah Park
SCCH-11 2 SC No.575/2019
Bengaluru - 560 021.
(By Sri.N.Sridhar, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for ejectment and for damages.
2. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that:-
Plaintiff is the absolute owner of suit schedule premises.
She has purchased the suit property along with her husband Sri.T.C. Narayan through sale deed dated 04.12.1980. Her husband Sri. T.C. Narayan died on 10.10.2008 and thereafter the khatha transferred in her name and she become the absolute owner of the suit property. The defendant is tenant in respect of shop premises. The defendant occupied the same in terms of verbal understanding between her and defendant is paying a monthly rent of ₹.2,425/-. The suit schedule premises is required for her and then she issued notice of termination terminating the tenancy of defendant as per Sec. 106 of Transfer of Property Act.
The legal notice served upon the defendant on 02.02.2019. The defendant issued a vague reply to the notice denying her title SCCH-11 3 SC No.575/2019 and refused to delivery vacant possession of the suit schedule property. The cause of action for the suit arose on the issue of legal notice dated 31.01.2019. Hence, plaintiff forced to file the suit against the defendant for eviction.
3. On service of summons, the defendant appeared through his counsel and filed his written statement.
In his written statement, he has contended that the plaintiff cannot invoke the provisions of Sec. 106 of Transfer of Property Act in respect of the relief sought in the memorandum of plaint. The plaintiff has not approached this court with clean hands. She has suppressed the true and material facts. Further, he has contended that the premises in question was leased by Sri. Chandrashekar in favour of Sri. Thimmaiah father of defendant. After death of Sri. Thimmaiah, he is in continuing footwear business in the leased premises. As per instructions of Sri. Chandrashekar, his father Sri. Thimmaiah started paying monthly rent to the plaintiff who was acting as collector on behalf of Sri. Chandrashekar. At no point of time the plaintiff has furnished the copy of the documents standing in her name with SCCH-11 4 SC No.575/2019 regard to her right of ownership in respect of the leased premises shop. He has not admitted the plaintiff is owner or his landlord in respect of the suit schedule premises. He has only recognized she is a rent collector on behalf of Sri.Chandrashekar. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff has no authority to initiate this suit and call the defendant to vacate and hand over the schedule premises to her as there is no agreement to that effect between the parties herein and there is no legal obligation on the part of defendant to comply the demand made by the plaintiff. He is paying monthly rent as and when it falls due and he is not liable to pay any outstanding amount to the plaintiff. He is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule premises. The plaintiff has no right to claim ₹.50,000/- per month as damages from him. The plaintiff is not paying property tax to the Municipal Authorities but the same is filed by him with the assistance of plaintiff. The plaintiff was collecting entire property tax from him and other two tenants. The plaintiff is aged, she is unable to do any avocation in the suit schedule premises, there is no need or necessity for the plaintiff to call SCCH-11 5 SC No.575/2019 upon the defendant to hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule property since the family of defendant is depending on the meager income earned from the schedule premises. He is carrying the business in the schedule premises for more than 40 years, at this stage she asked to vacate and hand over the vacant possession then he will be put to great hardship. Further, it is contended there is no valid termination of tenancy as contemplated under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. The measurement of the leased premises shown in the schedule is not correct. There is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant. The plaintiff is only a rent collector of Sri. Chandrashekar. Further, the defendant also filed additional written statement.
In his additional written statement he has contended that the plaint which deals with regard to cause of action for institution of the suit in respect of the legal notice dated 31.01.2019 terminating the tenancy as at the end of 28.02.2019 and thereafter 14.02.2019. The legal notice in respect of the commercial premises that all that piece and parcel of the premises No.45, Old No.1606,MKK Road, Opposite to Devaiah SCCH-11 6 SC No.575/2019 Park, Bangalore and the same schedule is also in the original plaint. The plaintiff amended the schedule as follows: - "All that piece and parcel of the premises No.45, new Municipal No.17, Old No.1605, MKK Road, Opposite Devaiah Park, Bengaluru-21." The plaintiff has not terminated the defendant's tenancy in respect of the amended schedule. As such the suit is is bad for non issuance of statutory notice under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. Further, in additional written statement he has reiterated the original written statement averments and prays to dismiss the suit.
5. On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, my learned predecessor in office framed the following;
ISSUES
1) Whether plaintiff proves the jural
relationship of landlord and tenant between her and defendant?
2) Whether plaintiff roves that the defendant not quit and vacated the premises?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought in the plaint?
4) What Order or decree?
SCCH-11 7 SC No.575/2019Additional Issue dated: 05.02.2022:
1. Whether plaintiff proves that she has terminated the tenancy of defendant by issuing legal notice dated 31.01.2019?
4. At the beginning, the plaintiff herself stepped into the witness box filed an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief by reiterating the plaint averments and examined as PW.1 and she got produced and marked Ex.P1 to P9 documents. Thereafter, the plaintiff executed GPA in favor of her daughter to represent the case. Accordingly, the GPA holder of plaintiff Smt.Renuka Dilip appeared before court. The learned counsel for plaintiff filed memo praying to discard the evidence of PW.1, in view of memo filed by learned counsel for plaintiff, the evidence of Smt. Kamala Narayan was discarded and the GPA holder is permitted to lead her side of evidence. Accordingly, the GPA holder of plaintiff Mrs. Renuka Dilip stepped into the witness box filed an affidavit in lieu of chief examination by reiterating the plaint averments. She got produced and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P10 documents and closed her side of evidence. When the case was posted for defendant's SCCH-11 8 SC No.575/2019 evidence, the learned counsel for defendant filed an application praying to permit to reserve his right to give rebuttal evidence and same was allowed. The defendant also filed a memo praying to post the matter for arguments by reserving his right to lead rebuttal evidence.
6. I have heard arguments on both sides and perused the material available on record.
7. My findings to the above Issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative Addl. Issue: In the Affirmative Issue No.4 : As per the final order; for the following :
REASONS
8. Issue No.1: - It is the case of plaintiff that the plaintiff and her husband late T.C. Narayan jointly acquired the suit properties and other properties through registered sale deed dated 04.11.1980. Her husband expired on 10.10.2008 and thereafter the revenue documents transferred in her name and then she becomes the absolute owner of the suit property. The defendant is tenant in respect of the suit schedule premises and SCCH-11 9 SC No.575/2019 the suit schedule is required for her own use. She has issued quit notice calling upon defendant to vacate the suit schedule shop and the defendant issued vague reply by denying her title.
9. The defendant has contended that the plaintiff is not his landlady, one Sri.Chandrashekar has given the suit property to Sri. Thimmaiah for lease, who is none other than the father of defendant. After death of Sri. Thimmaiah he is continuing his business in suit premises. On the instructions of Sri. Chandrashekar, his father was paying rent to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is only rent collector on behalf of Sri. Chandrashekar and she is not owner of the suit schedule property and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant. Further, the learned counsel for defendant vehemently argued that the plaintiff filed this suit originally with respect to the property old No.1606 and also legal notice issued with respect to old property No.1606 but the plaint schedule amended as old No.1605. The plaintiff has not issued legal notice with respect of amended schedule property as such the plaintiff has not terminated the tenancy legally. Further, leaned counsel for defendant vehemently argued that the SCCH-11 10 SC No.575/2019 property number mentioned in the plaint and legal notice are not one and the same. Hence, the plaintiff has not terminated the tenancy legally as such she is not entitled for the relief.
10. The learned counsel for defendant relied upon a decision reported in AIR 2014 Supreme Court 937 in between Union of India and others Vs. Vasavi Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., and others, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that "in a suit for declaration of title and possession could succeed only on the strength of its own title and he cannot succeed on the weakness of the defendant." Further, the defendant relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2176/2007 decided on 09.04.2019 in between Jagdish Prasad Patel (Dead) through LRS., and others vs. Shivnath and others wherein also Hon'ble Apex Court held that in a suit for declaration of title and possession, the plaintiff succeed only on the strength of his own title and not on the weakness of the case of defendant. With due respect to the Hon'ble Apex Court, I have carefully perused the above reported judgments. In the background of the ratio laid down by SCCH-11 11 SC No.575/2019 the Hon'ble Apex Court let me discuss evidence on record.
11. The Plaintiff in order to prove that she is the landlady of the suit property produced Ex.P2 certified copy of sale deed. As per Ex.P2 the plaintiff and her husband jointly purchased the suit property from one Sri. B.K. Chandrashekar through registered sale deed dated 04.12.1980. Further, she has produced Ex.P4 Khatha Certificate, Ex.P5 Khatha Extract and Ex.P6 Encumbrance Certificate. On perusal of these revenue documents they are standing in the name of plaintiff. So, as per the documents produced by the plaintiff, the plaintiff acquired the suit property along with her husband through sale deed. The defendant has contended that she is not the landlady, she is only the rent collector on behalf of Sri.Chandrashekar. Further, he has contended that on the instructions of Sri.Chandrashekar, his father and himself paying the rent to the plaintiff. In the written statement the defendant has stated that one Sri.Chandrashekar leased the suit property to his father. The defendant not produced any lease agreement between him and Sri.Chandrashekaraiah. The defendant also not produced any SCCH-11 12 SC No.575/2019 material before the court to show that the plaintiff is only rent collector. Except taking contention in the written statement that Sri. Chandrashekar leased the suit schedule property there is no material before the court. The defendant himself admitted that he is paying rent to the plaintiff. When the defendant failed to prove plaintiff is rent collector on behalf of Sri. Chandrashekar then this court cannot presume on the basis of written statement of defendant the plaintiff is only rent collector. As per the documents produced by the plaintiff she has acquired the property through registered sale deed and as per the pleadings of the defendant, he was paying the rent to the plaintiff. So it is sufficient that he has recognized the plaintiff as his landlady by paying rent. The defendant denied the title of the plaintiff but he has not proved his contention taken by him. By denial of title itself is not sufficient he has to establish that who is his landlord. Only bare denial of title of plaintiff, this court cannot say that there is a dispute regarding the title unless production of cogent evidence before the court.
12. The plaintiff by producing relevant documents proved SCCH-11 13 SC No.575/2019 that she is the landlady of the suit property. Further, on perusal of the entire record, the plaintiff seeking the relief of eviction on her own strength and not depending upon the weakness of defendant case. All the title documents and revenue documents placed by the plaintiff clearly shows that she is the landlady of the suit property.
13. The learned counsel for defendant relied upon a decision reported in SCC Online Kar 204: (2009) 6 Kant LJ 130: between Gowramma and another vs. Jayamma and others wherein Hon'ble High Court of Katakana held that when there is complication in question of title then the Small Causes Court cannot decide the rights of the parties with regard to the ownership of the schedule premises. Such complicated questions of title which requires to be interpretation of documents are to be done by civil courts alone after a full proceeding trial and the same cannot be decided in a summary proceedings adopting summary procedure. In the above reported judgment, the respondents are said to have purchased the properties under two registered sale deed from Boraiah S/o late Bank Boregowda and SCCH-11 14 SC No.575/2019 Lakshmamma. The late Lakshmamma has executed Gift Deed in favour of her son Boraiah cancelling the partition deed and release deed executed by her in favour of plaintiff Ramaswamy.
14. Case on hand, plaintiff and her husband jointly purchased suit property as per Ex.P2 registered sale deed. The defendant only contended that the plaintiff is rent collector on behalf of Sri. Chandrashekara and also admitted that he is a tenant in the suit schedule property. With due respect of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, I am of the opinion that there is no serious dispute regarding title of the plaintiff. Hence the facts and circumstances of the above reported judgment and case on hand are not one and the same. Hence, judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for defendant is not helpful to his case. Further, the defendant relied upon the decision reported in ILR 2006 Katakana 371 in between R. Abbaiah Reddy and others v. Udaya Chandra wherein Hon'ble High Court held as follows: -
"Both the Courts below have specifically recorded a finding that there is a complicated dispute regarding the title of the petitioners. The Courts below have SCCH-11 15 SC No.575/2019 directed the parties of approach the competent Civil Court for declaration of their rights. Hence interference by this court not justifiable."
15. Case on hand, there is no complicated dispute regarding the title of the plaintiff and defendant, the defendant admitted he is tenant under Sri.Chandrashekaraiah. So, the defendant is not claiming title on the suit property. With due respect to Hon'ble High Court of Katakana, the facts and circumstances of above reported judgment and case on hand are not one and the same, hence the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the defendant is not helpful to his case. Further, the learned counsel for plaintiff relied upon a decision reported in LAWS (KAR) 2015 352 in between M. Shanthilal Jain vs. M. Ugamraj Jain wherein Hon'ble High Court of Katakana held that when the very existence of the jural relationship of landlord and defendant seriously dispute when no documents like rent receipt, rent agreements are produced before the trial court, the order in question is not sustainable either in law or on facts. Hence, the trial court and revisional court have committed a serious illegality in coming to the conclusion about the alleged existence SCCH-11 16 SC No.575/2019 of jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
16. Case on hand, the defendant disputed the jural relationship of landlord and tenant but in his written statement he has taken a contention that as per the directions of one Sri.Chandrashekar he is paying rent to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is only rent collector on behalf of Sri.Chandrashekar. So, I am of the opinion that the defendant admitted that he is tenant in the suit schedule property only on denying that the plaintiff is not landlady is not sufficient. On overall considering of the case on record, the plaintiff is landlady and defendant paying rent. Hence, with due respect to the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the facts and circumstances of the above case and case on hand are not one and the same. Hence, judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendant is not helpful to his case.
17. As per Ex.P2 document, the plaintiff acquired the suit property along with her husband from one Sri. Chandrashekar. The defendant in his written statement has taken a contention that as per directions of Sri. Chandrashekar he was paying rent to the plaintiff. Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act reads SCCH-11 17 SC No.575/2019 as follows: -
"109. Rights of lessor's transferee: - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof, or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subject to all the liabilites of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him:
Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.
The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium or rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any Court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."
On meticulous perusal of Sec. 109 of Transfer of Property Act, attornment by the lessee is not necessary for the transfer of property leased out and the purchaser stepped into the shoes of the vendor. So, by operation of law, the defendant become tenant under plaintiff.
SCCH-11 18 SC No.575/2019
Further, Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act reads as follows: -
"116. Estoppel of tenant; and of licensee of person in possession: - No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came upon any immovable property by the licence of the person in possession thereof, shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such licence was given."
As per Sec. 116 of Indian Evidence Act when a tenant of immovable property admits that he is in possession of the property as a tenant and during the continuous of the tenancy he cannot deny the title of the landlord. Case on hand, admittedly defendant is tenant in the suit schedule property. So, under such circumstances as per Sec. 116 of Indian Evidence Act he cannot deny the title of landlord.
On considering all oral and documentary evidence placed by both the parties, this court came to conclusion that the plaintiff independently proved jural relationship of landlady and tenant. Hence, I answered Issue No. 1 in the affirmative. SCCH-11 19 SC No.575/2019
18. ISSUE NO.2 & ADDL. ISSUE: - Both issues are taken up together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts.
The plaintiff in his plaint has pleaded that in terms of verbal understanding between them, the defendant is paying rent to her. PW.1 in her cross-examination deposed that about 55 years back, the defendant came in possession of the suit property as a tenant. After purchasing by her father there was no rental agreement between her father and defendant. Even after death of her father, there was no rental agreement between her mother and defendant. PW.1 in her chief-examination and also in her cross-examination deposed that the defendant is tenant in the suit property under them. So, there is no written rental agreement between the plaintiff and defendant. This court already came to conclusion that there is a jural relationship of landlord and tenant and there is no written rental agreement. Hence, Sec. 106 of Transfer of Property Act is applicable.
Sec.106 of Transfer of Property Act reads as follows:
106. Duration of certain leases in absence of written contract or local usage "(1) In the absence of a contract or local law or SCCH-11 20 SC No.575/2019 usage to the contrary a lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by six months notice and a lease of immovable property for any other purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee by fifteen days notice.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the period mentioned in sub-section (1) shall commence from the date of receipt of notice.
(3) A notice under sub-section(1) shall not be deemed to be invalid merely because the period mentioned therein falls short of the period specified under that sub- section, where a suit or proceeding is filed after the expiry of the period mentioned in that sub-section.
(4) Every notice under sub-section (1) must be in writing, signed by or on behalf of the person giving it, and either be sent by post to the party who is intended to be bound by it or be tendered or delivered personally to such party, or to one of his family or servants at his residence, or (if such tender or delivery is not practicable) affixed to a conspicuous part of the property."
19. Case on hand, the plaintiff issued legal notice as per Ex.P7 on 31.01.2019 calling upon the defendant to quit and vacate the suit schedule property and also terminated the tenancy of defendant. The said notice was duly served upon the defendant as per Ex.P9. The defendant also issued a reply notice as per Ex.P10 by denying the relationship of landlord and tenant. So, the plaintiff issued a quit notice by terminating the tenancy SCCH-11 21 SC No.575/2019 of plaintiff.
The defendant has taken a contention that the notice was issued with respect of the old No. 1606, the plaintiff amended plaint and changed the No.1605. The plaintiff not issued quit notice with respect of the amended plaint schedule. PW.1 also in her cross-examination she has admitted that she has given a notice to the property No.1606. Except Ex.P7 notice she has not given any other notice. On perusal of Ex.P7 quit notice dated 31.01.2019 the notice issued to the following schedule.
"All that piece and parcel of the premises #45, old number 1606, MKK Road, Opposite Devaiah Park, Bengaluru - 560021, measuring approximately 14.5 square meters, and bounded on:
East by - Property # 1605 West by - Queens Studio South by - Owner's remaining portion of the vacant land North by - MKK Main Road"
The amended schedule is as follows: -
"All that piece and parcel of the premises #45, New Municipal No.17, old number 1605, MKK Road, Opposite Devaiah Park, Bengaluru - 560021, measuring East to West 10.2 Sq.Ft. And North to South: 14.9 Sq.Ft., and bounded on:
East by - Property # 1604 West by - Queens Studio South by - Owner's remaining portion of the vacant SCCH-11 22 SC No.575/2019 land North by - MKK Main Road"
No doubt, the old property number changed from 1606 to 1605. The defendant admitted that he is in possession of the property as a tenant and also he has received notice from the plaintiff and also issued a reply to the said notice. So, he has completely aware about issue of quit notice by the plaintiff to him. No doubt, the property number mentioned in the notice and schedule is different after amendment. But the notice was issued only to the defendant and not some other person. So, I am of the opinion that issuing of one more quit notice after amendment of plaint schedule is not required as the defendant already aware about the intention of plaintiff. So, the quit notice issued by the plaintiff as per Ex.P7 is sufficient and it is in accordance with law. Even after issuing of the quit notice the defendant not vacated the suit property. The defendant also had taken a contention that he was paying rent regularly. So, I am of the opinion that the mere acceptance of the rent after termination of lease does not result in waiver of right to evict a tenant and it all depends on intention of the landlord and do not take away the right of the landlord to SCCH-11 23 SC No.575/2019 evict his tenant and the payment of rent is his obligation. The defendant is in possession of the suit property from decades as a tenant. As he is in possession of the suit property from decades it cannot be said that he cannot be evicted from the suit property and he is to be continued in the same property. On meticulous perusal of the entire records the plaintiff by issuing a quit notice as per Ex.P7 terminating tenancy of defendant and even after termination of the tenancy, the defendant not vacated the suit property. Hence, I answered Issue No.2 and Additional Issue in the Affirmative.
20. Issue No.3: This court already came to conclusion that the plaintiff has proved jural relationship of landlord and tenant and this court also came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has terminated the tenancy of defendant by issuing quit notice. The plaintiff in addition to the eviction also sought for damages. This court at this juncture cannot decide damages in this case, it required enquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 of CPC., Hence, I answered Point No.3 partly in the affirmative. SCCH-11 24 SC No.575/2019
21. Issue No.4: - In view of my findings given to Issue No.1 to 3 and Additional Issue, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs in part.
The Defendant is hereby directed to vacate and hand over the vacant suit schedule premises to the plaintiff, within three months from the date of this order. Failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to precede with due process of law.
As far as damages are concerned there shall be separate enquiry as contemplated under Order 20 Rule 12 of CPC.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly typed by him script corrected and revised by me and then pronounced in the open court on this 04th day of January - 2024.) (RAGHAVENDRA.D) I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of the premises #45, New SCCH-11 25 SC No.575/2019 Municipal No.17, old number 1605, MKK Road, Opposite Devaiah Park, Bengaluru - 560021, measuring East to West 10.2 Sq.Ft. And North to South: 14.9 Sq.Ft., and bounded on:
East by - Property # 1604 West by - Queens Studio South by - Owner's remaining portion of the vacant land North by - MKK Main Road ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF:
PW.1 - Renuka Dilip DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.P.1 SPA Ex.P.2 Certified copy of Sale Deed Ex.P.3 Death Certificate of Ashwath Narayan Ex.P.4 Certified copy of Khata Ex.P.5 Copy of Khatha Ex.P.6 Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P.7 Copy of Legal Notice Ex.P.8 Postal Receipt Ex.P.9 Postal Acknowledgment Ex.P.10 Reply Notice SCCH-11 26 SC No.575/2019 WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANT: Nil DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT: Nil (RAGHAVENDRA. D) I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE BENGALURU Digitally signed by D D RAGHAVENDRA RAGHAVENDRA Date: 2024.01.12 15:34:22 +0530