Bangalore District Court
Karthik S.N vs Pankaj Supplies on 17 January, 2026
KABC020006042023
Form No. 9
(Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgment in
Suits
(R.P.91)
C.R.P. 67] Government of Karnataka
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGEMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE SMALL CAUSES AT
BENGALURU
SCCH-14
Dated this the 17th day of January, 2026
Present: SMT.N.ANUPAMA.
B.A.L.,L.L.B.,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.
S.C.No.21/2023
PLAINTIFFS: Sri.S.N.Karthik,
S/o S.M.Nataraj,
Aged about 32 years,
residing at No.113,
28th Cross, VII Block,
Jayanagar,
Bengaluru - 560082
(By pleader Sri.Naveen Chandra
Shetty, Adv.)
- V/S -
DEFENDANT/S : 1.M/s.Pankaj Supplies,
No.123, Mamulpet,
SCCH-14 2 SC.21/2023
Bengaluru - 560053,
Represented by its Partner.
2.Sri.Bhawarlal,
S/o Sri.Misrilal.
(DEAD - DELETED)
3.Mahaveer Chand,
S/o Sri.Bhawrlal.
4.Smt.Hemalatha Bai,
W/o Sri.Gowtham Chand,
(DEAD - DELETED)
5. Smt.Leel Bai,
W/o Sri.M.Shanthilal.
All are carrying business at No.17,
Ground floor, Belli Basavanna
Temple Cross Street, Mamulpet,
Bengaluru - 560053.
6.Sri.Suresh Katrela,
No.123, Mamulpet,
Bengaluru - 560053.
(By pleader Sri.V.B.Shiva Kumar
for Deft No.1, 3 , 5 & 6, Adv)
Date of institution of the suit: 05-01-2023
Nature of the suit (suit on
pronote, Ejectment
suit for declaration and
possession
suit for injunction, etc.,):
SCCH-14 3 SC.21/2023
Date of the commencement of 07-02-2024
recording of the evidence:
Date on which the Judgment 17-01-2026
was pronounced:
Year/s Month/s Days
Total duration: 03 - 12
*****
JUDGMENT
This is a suit for Ejectment filed by Plaintiff against the defendants.
The 'schedule-property' is the Godown Portion of the premises bearing no.17, Ground Floor, in Belli Basavanna Temple Cross Street, Mamulpet, Bengaluru - 560053.
2. Brief facts of the case is as under:-
That one S.M.Nataraj - plaintiff's father was the Owner of Property bearing no.17, Ground Floor, in Belli Basavanna Temple Cross Street, Mamulpet, Bengaluru - 560053 totally measuring 2,756 Sq.Feet which is hereinafter referred to as the 'schedule-property'. Plaintiff's father had executed the SCCH-14 4 SC.21/2023 Unregistered Lease Deed dated 20.10.1995 in favour of M/s Pankaj Supplies and its Partners namely, Bhawarlal, Mahaveer Chand, Hemalatha Bai and Leela Bai on monthly-rent of Rs.4,000/- per month. These Partners are defendant no.1 to 5 in the suit.
3. Then the said S.M.Nataraj executed the Registered Gift Deed dated 25.10.2021 in favour of plaintiff in respect of the schedule-property. In pursuance thereof, the plaintiff got the katha of the schedule-property registered in his name and paid the taxes to BBMP, Bangalore. Thus, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the schedule-property. After the execution of Gift Deed, the plaintiff got the notice dated 17.11.2022 issued to defendant no.1 and its partners to attorn the tenancy. Plaintiff was surprised to know that M/s Pankaj Supplies was no longer in existence and two of its Partners - Bhawarlal and Hemalatha Bai were no more as per the 'Postal shara'. The plaintiff has no confirmation of the death of these two Partners of M/s Pankaj Supplies, and has thus made them as parties to this suit. One SCCH-14 5 SC.21/2023 Suresh Katrela who is defendant no.6 claiming to be the Proprietor of M/s.Pankaj Supplies, has issued the cheque towards payment of arrears of rent as a tenant. But defendant no.6 is in no way connected to M/s Pankaj Supplies and plaintiff's father - S.M.Nataraj has not executed the Unregistered Lease Deed dated 20.10.1995 in favour of M/s Pankaj Supplies and its Partners, and never executed any Lease Deed or Lease Agreement in favour of Proprietor of M/s Pankaj Supplies - Mr.Suresh Katrela. That M/s Pankaj Supplies and its Partners are the tenants in the schedule-property on a monthly rent of Rs.4,000/- since the inception of tenancy. Now the present rent of schedule-property is Rs.8,000/- per month. M/s Pankaj Supplies has sub-let the schedule-property in favour of defendant no.6. There is no Lease Deed or Rental Agreement executed in favour of Defendant no.6. Defendant no.6 is a stranger to the schedule-property. That the Period of Lease under the Lease Deed executed by plaintiff's father in favour of M/s.Pankaj Supplies and its Partners is already over. SCCH-14 6 SC.21/2023 Defendant no.1 to 5 are due a sum of Rs.72,000/- from 01.04.2022 to 31.12.2022.
4. Further, defendant no.1 to 5 have taken the schedule- property on lease to be used as a Godown, but they are not using the same and have kept it under lock. The plaintiff requires the schedule-property for his bonafide use & occupation. The plaintiff intends to continue his father's business of Ayurvedic/Herbal and Chemical items under the name and style 'Rudrappa & Company' in the schedule- property. The schedule-property is suitable and convenient for the plaintiff for carry on his business. The plaintiff thus issued the legal-notice to the defendants on 05.12.2022 calling-upon them to vacate and deliver the vacant-possession of the schedule-property within 15 days. That defendant no.6 sent the untenable reply to the said notice on 10.12.2022, and had also enclosed the cheque in favour of plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1,02,000/- towards the arrears of rent. That defendant no.6 is a sub-tenant and is in no way connected to the schedule- SCCH-14 7 SC.21/2023 property. Hence the plaintiff has returned the said cheque with covering letter to the learned counsel for defendant no.6.
5. That the defendant's occupation of the premises from 24.12.2022 is unauthorized and at sufferance. That the plaintiff is to be compensated by the defendant at Rs.20,000/- per month by way of future damages for wrongful occupation of schedule-property from the date of suit till delivery of the possession. Hence this suit.
6. Pursuant to the service of suit summons, defendant no.3, 5 & 6 appeared through their counsel and filed the written statement. Defendant no.1 is the Firm. Defendant no.2 & 4 have been deleted from the cause-title of the plaint as per the order on the memo dated 04.12.2025.
7. In the written statement, the jural-relationship of landlord and tenant is denied. It is stated that the suit is not maintainable since there is no jural-relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendants. That the SCCH-14 8 SC.21/2023 defendants had sent the reply to the alleged Notice of Termination dated 05.12.2022 issued to all the parties including defendant no.6. That defendant no.6 is not a party to the Lease Deed dated 12.2.1992 executed by S.M.Nataraj.
8. That the Lease Deed dated 12.02.1992 has been executed by S.M.Nataraj in favour of M/s.Pankaj Supplies represented by its Partners - P.Dinesh Kumar, P.Navrathnamal, Jatnabai and Parasmal. That the notice to defendant no.6 has been issued at the address of Bhawarlal S/o Misrilal, Hemalatha Bai and Leela Bai. That M/s Pankaj Supplies is a Business concern of defendant no.6 and he is not entitled to comply with any of the demands made in the notice as there has been no jural-relationship between this defendant and S.M.Nataraj. That in the said Notice, it is stated that the Gift Deed has been executed by S.M.Nataraj on 25.10.2021 and that the Notice of Attornment of Tenancy has been issued on 17.11.2022; that the notice has been served on Party no.1, 3 & SCCH-14 9 SC.21/2023 5 but Party no.2 & 4 are dead; thus the present suit filed against the dead persons is to be dismissed as abated.
9. That the existence of jural-relationship of landlord and tenant becomes amply clear only if the plaintiff produces the Unregistered Lease Deed. The said Lease Deed only would indicate the persons who occupy the schedule-property under S.M.Nataraj, who had allowed them to continue the leased portion to be used as Godown. That there is no Termination Clause, and even if there is such a clause, by virtue of the continuous occupation of the premises, these defendants have perfected the occupation of the premises, and the present suit for ejectment does not sustain.
10. That the Gift Deed merely does not confer any right. The contents of the Gift Deed will have to be read with the Lease Deed, and if the Gift Deed does not provide for occupation of the premises, and the premises being in the occupation of these defendants, the Gift becomes unenforceable, in the absence of SCCH-14 10 SC.21/2023 acceptance of possession. There is no Attornment of tenancy in the absence of legal-heirs of dead parties.
11. That the Unregistered Lease Deed dated 20.10.1995 has to be read as a contractual obligation and there is interse contract between M/s Pankaj Supplies and S.M.Nataraj.
12. That the monthly-rent was Rs.4,000/- at the inception of tenancy, and the present rent is Rs.8,000/-, which ousts the jurisdiction of courts. On these grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the suit.
13. In support of her case, the Plaintiff has got himself examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P.1 to 30 have been marked. On the other hand, defendant no.6 has got himself examined as DW.1 but no documents are marked.
14. Heard the arguments of both-sides.
15. The Points that arise for the consideration of this Court are as under :
SCCH-14 11 SC.21/2023
POINTS
1. Whether the plaintiff proves the jural-relationship of landlord & tenant between him and the defendants?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the lease agreement has been terminated by efflux of time ?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the tenancy has been terminated ?
4. Whether the plaintiffs proves that the defendants have sub-leased the schedule property illegally ?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed ?
6. What order or decree ?
16. My findings to the above Points are as under :
Point No.1 : Partly In the Affirmative Point No.2 to 5: In the Affirmative Point No.6 : As per final order for the following:SCCH-14 12 SC.21/2023
REASONS
17. Point No.1 to 5 : Since all these Points are inter- linked, they are taken-up together for discussion.
That the plaintiff is stated to have derived his title to the schedule-property from his father - S.M.Nataraj by virtue of the registered gift deed dated 25.10.2021, and has filed the present suit for Ejectment and Recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.72,000/- from 01.04.2022 to 31.12.2022.
18. As per the plaint, the plaintiff's father - S.M.Nataraj had executed the Unregistered Lease deed dated 20.10.1995 in favour of M/s Pankaj Supplies represented by its Partners - defendant no.2 to 5 in respect of the schedule-property. That Suresh Katrela - defendant no.6 has been made a party to the suit since he had issued a cheque towards the payment of arrears of rent claiming to be the Proprietor of M/s Pankaj Supplies. That the schedule-property is used as a 'Godown'; and the plaintiff came to know that the Partnership Firm - M/s Pankaj Supplies was not existing, and that two of its Partners SCCH-14 13 SC.21/2023 namely Bharwarlal and Hemalathabai were 'no more' as per the Postal Shara, when he sent the Notice of Termination of Tenancy dated 17.11.2022. It is also pleaded that the period of lease under the lease deed dated 20.10.2025 has already expired.
19. Per contra, defendant no.3, 5 & 6 have filed the written statement and have denied the existence of jural- relationship of land-lord & tenant. As per the written statement, there is no jural-relationship between defendant no.6 and S.N.Nataraj; that M/s Pankaj Supplies is the business concern of defendant no.6 and he is not liable to comply-with any of the demands in the notice of termination. In this way, the written statement is although signed by defendant no.3, 5 & 6, from the defences taken therein, it appears to have been filed by defendant no.6 alone. In other words, defendant no.6 appears to be the only contesting defendant, and he is the only one to have led the evidence on behalf of defendants. SCCH-14 14 SC.21/2023
20. The admitted-facts are:
i) that the plaintiff's father - S.M.Nataraj had executed the Unregistered Lease Deed dated 20.10.1995 in favour of M/s Pankaj Supplies represented by its Partners namely, Bhawarlal, Mahaveer Chand, Hemalatha Bai & Leela Bai - defendant no.2 to 5;
ii) that the plaintiff's father has not executed the said unregistered lease deed in favour of the Proprietor of M/s Pankaj Supplies - Suresh Katrela - defendant no.6; but that defendant no.6 has been in possession of the schedule-property now;
iii) that the issuance of Notice of Termination dated 17.11.2022 is admitted.
Thus as per the Unregistered Lease Deed dated 20.10.1995, the jural-relationship of land-lord and tenants is between plaintiff's father and defendant no.1 to 5 only. In other words, the jural-relationship of land-lord and tenant is between plaintiff's father/plaintiff and defendant no.1 to 5 only, but not with defendant no.6.
SCCH-14 15 SC.21/2023
21. Initially, the suit was filed against defendant no.1 to 5 (the Partners of Pankaj Supplies) & defendant no.6; then at the fag-end of the case, on the basis of the averment in the written statement that defendant no.2 & 4 are dead, the plaintiff got defendant no.2 & 4 deleted from the cause-title of the plaint as per the memo dated04.12.2025.. Thus the contention of defendants that the present suit filed against 'dead persons' is not maintainable, is nullified.
22. In support of his case, the plaintiff has got himself examined as PW.1. He has reiterated the plaint-averments in the affidavit filed in lieu of his examination-in-chief and has got marked Exs.P.1 to 29. Ex.P.1 is the Original Unregistered Lease Deed dated 20.10.1995. Ex.P.2 is the copy of the Gift Deed dated 25.10.2021. Ex.P.3 is the Office-copy of Notice of Attornment of Tenancy dated 17.11.2022 issued to defendant no.1 to 5. Ex.P.4 is the Endorsement issued by BBMP that the Khata of the schedule-property is standing in the name of plaintiff-S.N.Karthik. Ex.P.5 is the Office-copy of Notice of SCCH-14 16 SC.21/2023 Termination of Tenancy dated 05.12.2022 issued to defendant no.1 to 6. Ex.P.6 is the Reply to the Ex.P.5 sent by defendant no.6. In his Reply at Ex.P.6, defendant no.6 had although denied the existence of jural-relationship of land-lord and tenant between him and plaintiff, has sent a cheque dated 23.12.2022 for Rs.1,02,000/- Thus, the plaintiff has sent a Rejoinder at Ex.P.7 to the Reply Notice at Ex.P.6, stating that defendant no.6 was a 'sub-tenant' in the schedule-property, and has returned the said cheque to defendant no.6. Ex.P.8 is the Khatha Extract of the schedule-property standing in the name of plaintiff. Exs.P.9 to 21 are the Postal receipts. Exs.P.21 to 24 are the Postal Acknowledgements. Exs.P.25 to 29 are the Unserved Postal Envelops. Exs.P.25(a) to 29(a) are the Notices in the Envelops at Exs.P.25 to 29. Ex.P.30 (marked on confrontation to DW.1) is the Covering Letter dated 04.08.2005 (in the letter-head of Pankaj Supplies) signed by B.Mahaveerchand for Pankaj Supplies that the cheque dated 04.08.2005 for Rs.24,000/- towards the rent of the premises from April 2005 to August 2005 has been enclosed. SCCH-14 17 SC.21/2023
23. On the other hand, Defendant no.6 has got himself examined as DW.1 but no documents are marked. DW.1 has reiterated the averments of the written statement in the affidavit filed in lieu of his examination-in-chief.
24. As already discussed above, the Original Unregistered Lease Deed dated 20.10.1995 at Ex.P.1 is admitted. As per Ex.P.1, "the rent payable was Rs.4,000/- per month, and the period of lease was 11 months commencing from November 1995; and that there shall be an increase in rent once in 5 years at the rate of 20% on the existing rent, in the event of lessee continuing as tenant by holding-over". This shows that the Lease Deed was initially for 11 months and the same has been renewed from time to time due to which the defendants have (admittedly) remained in possession of the schedule-property. Thus the Lease Deed dated 20.10.1995 at Ex.P.1 which was initially for a period of 11 months (must have been renewed from time to time by mutual consent of parties), has been terminated by 'efflux of time'.
SCCH-14 18 SC.21/2023
25. Next, the plaintiff has derived his title to the schedule- property from his father - S.M.Nataraj by virtue of the registered gift deed dated 25.10.2021 at Ex.P.2. The plaintiff who has thus stepped-into the shoes of the original land-lord - S.M.Nataraj, has filed this suit for Ejectment against the defendants. The defendants have no locus-standi to dispute the Gift Deed executed by S.M.Nataraj in favour of his son - Karthik - plaintiff.
26. Next, the office-copy of Notice of Termination of Tenancy at Ex.P.5 and the Postal Receipts at Exs.P.9 to 21 depict the issuance of said notice to the defendants. In the said Notice at Ex.P.5, the plaintiff has called-upon the defendants to vacate the schedule-property within 15 days from the date of receipt of the same. The defendants have admitted the issuance of Notice of Termination of Tenancy at Ex.P.5. Thus the service of Notice of Termination of Tenancy on defendants is admitted. As already discussed above, defendant no.6 has sent the Reply at Ex.P.6 is to the Notice of Termination at Ex.P.5. In his SCCH-14 19 SC.21/2023 Reply at Ex.P.6, defendant no.6 had although denied the existence of jural-relationship of land-lord and tenant between him and plaintiff, has sent a cheque dated 23.12.2022 for Rs.1,02,000/- Thus, the plaintiff has sent a Rejoinder at Ex.P.7 to the Reply at Ex.P.6, stating that defendant no.6 was a 'sub-tenant' in the schedule-property, and has returned the said cheque to defendant no.6. From the service of Notice of Termination at Ex.P.5 on defendants, it is clear that there is valid termination of tenancy.
27. Next, according to plaintiff, defendant no.6 is a 'sub- tenant' in the schedule-property. Whereas, defendant no.6 has although denied his status as a 'tenant' in the schedule- property stating that the lease deed at Ex.P.1 has not been executed in his favour, and that he is need not comply any of the demands made in the Notice of termination. But there is no explanation whatsoever by him as to in what 'capacity' has he actually come in possession of the schedule-property. On the contrary, defendant no.6 claims to have perfected the SCCH-14 20 SC.21/2023 occupation of the schedule-property by being in continuous period of occupation. This shows the 'conduct' of defendant no.6. Here it would be also be apt to refer to the relevant- portion of cross-examination of defendant no.6/DW.1 which clearly shows that his 'conduct' is not 'fair':
ನಾನು ನನ್ನ ಮುಖ್ಯ ವಿಚಾರಣೆಯ ಪ್ರಮಾಣ ಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ಕೇವಲ ನನ್ನ ಪರವಾಗಿ ಹಾಕಿರುತ್ತ ೇನೆ. ನಾನು 3 ಮತ್ತು 5 ನೇ ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಯರ ಪರವಾಗಿ ಸದರಿ ಪ್ರಮಾಣ ಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ಹಾಕಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಈ ಕೇಸಿನ ಲಿಖಿತ ತಕರಾರನ್ನುಾ ನಾನು ಕೇವಲ ನನ್ನ ಪರವಾಗಿ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿರುತ್ತ ೇನೆ. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಗೆ ತಮ ್ಮ ಲಿಖಿತ ತಕರಾರನ್ನು ತೋರಿಸಿ, ಅದನ್ನು 3 ಮತ್ತು 5 ನೇ ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಯರ ಪರವಾಗಿಯೂ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ಇರಬಹುದು, ಆದರೆ ತಮಗೆ ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ಬರೆದಿರುವ ವಿಚಾರಗಳು ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲವೆಂದು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾ ರೆ. ನನ್ನ ಲಿಖಿತ ತಕರಾರಿಗೆ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ನನ್ನ ಅಂದಿನ ಪಾಲುದಾರರು ನೀಡಿರಬಹುದು, ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ.
ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆ ಃ ಆ ಪಾಲುದಾರಿಕೆ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆ ಯ ಹೆಸರೇನು? ಉತ್ತರಃ ಆ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆ ಯ ಹೆಸರು ಪಂಕಜ್ ಸಪ್ಲೆ ೃಸ್ ಎಂದು ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆ ಃ ಸದರಿ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆ ಯ ಪಾಲುದಾರರು ಯಾರು? ಉತ್ತರಃ ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ, ನನಗೂ ಸದರಿ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆ ಗೂ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.
2. ನನ್ನೊ ಡನೆ ಲಿಖಿತ ತಕರಾರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಸಹಿ ಮಾಡಿರುವ ಮಹಾವೀರ್ ಚಂದ್ ಹಾಗೂ ಲೀಲಾಬಾಯಿ (3 ಮತ್ತು 5 ನೇ ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಗಳು) ಸದರಿ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆ ಯ ಪಾಲುದಾರರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಪಂಕಜ್ ಸಪ್ಲೆ ೃಸ್ ನ ವಿಳಾಸಃ ನಂ.123, ಮಾಮೂಲ್ ಪೇಟೆ ಎಂದು SCCH-14 21 SC.21/2023 ನಿ.ಪಿ.1 ರ ಬಾಡಿಗೆ ಕರಾರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಬರೆದಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಗೆ ನಿ.ಪಿ.1 ಅನ್ನು ತೋರಿಸಿ ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ಪಂಕಜ್ ಸಪ್ಲೆ ೃಸ್ ನ ಪಾಲುದಾರರೆಂದು- ಬವರ್ ಲಾಲ್, ಮಹಾವೀರ್ ಚಂದ್, ಹೇಮಲತಾ ಬಾಯಿ ಮತ್ತು ಲೀಲಾಬಾಯಿ ಇವರನ್ನು ಕಾಣಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಇರಬಹುದು.
ಅದೇ ರೀತಿ ನಿ.ಪಿ.1 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಷೆಡ್ಯೂ ಲ್ ಸ್ವತ್ತನ್ನು - ನಂ.17, Ground floor, Mamulpet, Bengaluru ಎಂದು ಕಾಣಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಹೌದು. ನಾನು ಎಂದಿಗೂ ಪಂಕಜ್ ಸಪ್ಲೆ ೃಸ್ ನ ಪಾಲುದಾರನಾಗಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಸುಮಾರು 30 ವರ್ಷಗಳ ಹಿಂದೆ ನಾನು ಸದರಿ ಷೆಡ್ಯೂ ಲ್ ಸ್ವತ್ತಿನ ಸ್ವಾ ಧೀನಕ್ಕೆ ಬಂದಿರುತ್ತ ೇನೆ. ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆ ಃ ನೀವು ಯಾವ ಆದಾರದ ಮೆ ೕಲೆ ಸದರಿ ಷೆಡ್ಯೂ ಲ್ ಸ್ವತ್ತಿನ ಸ್ವಾ ಧೀನಕ್ಕೆ ಬಂದಿರುತ್ತೀರಿ?
ಉತ್ತರಃ ಬಾಡಿಗೆ ಆದಾರದ ಮೆ ೕಲೆ ಬಂದಿರಬಹುದು, ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆ ಃ ಸದರಿ ಷೆಡ್ಯೂ ಲ್ ಸ್ವತ್ತಿನ ಮಾಲೀಕರು ಯಾರು? ಉತ್ತರಃ ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ.
3. ನಾನು ಸದರಿ ಷೆಡ್ಯೂ ಲ್ ಸ್ವತ್ತಿನ ಬಾಡಿಗೆಯನ್ನು ಯಾರಿಗೂ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಬಾಡಿಗೆಯನ್ನು ಯಾರು ಕೇಳಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ, ನಾವು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ನಾನು ಬಾಡಿಗೆಯನ್ನು ಸದರಿ ಷೆಡ್ಯೂ ಲ್ ಸ್ವತ್ತಿನ ಮಾಲೀಕರ ಬ್ಯಾ ಂಕ್ ಖಾತೆಗೂ ಹಾಕಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ನಾನು ಷೆಡ್ಯೂ ಲ್ ಸ್ವತ್ತಿನ ಮಾಲೀಕರು ಯಾರೆಂದು ಇಲ್ಲ್ಮಿಯವರೆಗೂ ತಿಳಿದುಕೊಂಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಈ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ತಿಳಿದುಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ನನಗೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ತೊಂದರೆ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ನಾನು ಸದರಿ ಷೆಡ್ಯೂ ಲ್ ಸ್ವತ್ತಿನ ಮಾಲೀಕನಲ್ಲ. ನಾನು ಸದರಿ ಷೆಡ್ಯೂ ಲ್ ಸ್ವತ್ತಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಬಾಡಿಗೆದಾರನಾಗಿ ಇದ್ದ ೇನೆ, ನಾನು ಮಾಲೀಕನಲ್ಲ. ಎಷ್ಟು ಬಾಡಿಗೆಗೆ ಸದರಿ ಸ್ವತ್ತನ್ನು ಬಾಡಿಗೆಗೆ ಪಡೆದಿರುತ್ತೆ ೕವೆ ಎಂದು ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ, ಈ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಮಾತುಕತೆ ಆಗಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಸದರಿ ಷೆಡ್ಯೂ ಲ್ ಸ್ವತ್ತಿಗೆ ನಾನು ಎಂದಿಗೂ ಕಂದಾಯವನ್ನು ಪಾವತಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ, ಅದರ ಕಂದಾಯ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳು ಎಂದಿಗೂ ನನ್ನ ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. SCCH-14 22 SC.21/2023
4. ವಾದಿಯು ಈ ದಾವೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿರುವ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ನಾನು ನೋಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ದಿಃ20.10.1995 ರಂದು ಎಸ್ .ಎಂ.ನಟರಾಜು ರವರ ಸದರಿ ಸ್ವತ್ತಿನ ಮಾಲೀಕರಾಗಿ, ಪಂಕಜ್ ಸಪ್ಲೆ ೃಸ್ - ಪಾಲುದಾರಿಕೆ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆ ಯ ಪಾಲುದಾರರಿಗೆ ಅಂದರೆ ಬವರ್ ಲಾಲ್, ಮಹಾವೀರ್ ಚಂದ್, ಹೇಮಲತಾ ಬಾಯಿ ಮತ್ತು ಲೀಲಾಬಾಯಿ ಇವರಿಗೆ ನಿ.ಪಿ.1 ರಂತೆ ಬಾಡಿಗೆ ಕರಾರನ್ನು ಮಾಡಿಕೊಟ್ಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ.
5. ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆಯ ಹೆಸರು ಪಾರಸ್ ಮಲ್. ಮಿಶ್ರಿ ಲಾಲ್ ರವರ ಮಗ - ಬವರ್ ಲಾಲ್ - ಇವರಿಗೂ, ನನಗೂ ಯಾವುದೇ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಅದೇ ರೀತಿ, ಮಹಾವೀರ್ ಚಂದ್, ಹೇಮಲತಾ ಬಾಯಿ ಮತ್ತು ಲೀಲಾಬಾಯಿ - ಇವರಿಗೂ, ನನಗೂ ಯಾವುದೇ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.
6. ನಾನು ಈಗ ಮಿಶ್ರಿ ಲಾಲ್ ಪಾರಸ್ ಮಲ್ ಅಂಡ್ ಸನ್ಸ್ ಎಂಬ ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ವ್ಯಾ ಪಾರ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ೇನೆ. ಸದರಿ ವ್ಯಾ ಪಾರವನ್ನು ನಾನು ನಂ.111, ಮಾಮೂಲ್ ಪೇಟೆ - ಇಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ೇನೆ. ಮಿಶ್ರಿ ಲಾಲ್ ರವರು ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆ - ಪಾರಸ್ ಮಲ್ ರವರ ತಂದೆ (ಅಂದರೆ ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆಯ ತಂದೆ). ಬವರ್ ಲಾಲ್ ರವರೂ ಮಿಶ್ರಿ ಲಾಲ್ ರವರ ಮಗ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಬವರ್ ಲಾಲ್ ರವರ ಮರ ಮಹಾವೀರ್ ಚಂದ್ ಆಗಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ. ಶಾಂತಿಲಾಲ್ ರವರು ಮಿಶ್ರಿ ಲಾಲ್ ರವರ ಮಗ. ಶಾಂತಿಲಾಲ್ ರವರ ಪತ್ನಿ ಲೀಲಾಬಾಯಿ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಗೌತಮ್ ಚಂದ್ ಪಾರಸ್ ಮಲ್ ರವರ ಮಗ (ಅಂದರೆ ಗೌತಮ್ ಚಂದ್ ನನ್ನ ಸಹೋದರ). ನನ್ನ ಅಣ್ಣನ ಹೆಂಡತಿಯೇ ಹೇಮಲತಾ ಬಾಯಿ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಬವರ್ ಲಾಲ್, ಮಹಾವೀರ್ ಚಂದ್, ಹೇಮಲತಾ ಬಾಯಿ ಮತ್ತು ಲೀಲಾಬಾಯಿ ಇವರೆಲ್ಲರೂ ಪಂಕಜ್ ಸಪ್ಲೆ ೃಸ್ ನ ಪಾಲುದಾರರಾಗಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಹೌದು, ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಪುನಃ ಇರಬಹುದು ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾ ರೆ.
SCCH-14 23 SC.21/2023
From the above evidence of DW.1/defendant no.6 it is clear that the Partners of Pankaj Supplies in whose favour the unregistered lease deed at Ex.P.1 has been executed by plaintiff's father - Nataraj, are none other than the relatives of defendant no.6 by blood but defendant no.6 has gone to the extent of denying the same, which shows his 'conduct'.
28. On the contrary, although there is no pleading that the Partnership Firm - Pankaj Supplies has been dissolved on 31.03.2008, the learned counsel for defendant no.3, 5 & 6 has cross-examined PW.1 by suggesting that, no rent has been paid by Pankaj Supplies since then, and that defendant no.6 has been in possession of the schedule-property from past 19 to 20 years. But in what 'capacity' ??? No answer.
29. Be that as it may, as already discussed above, when defendant no.6 has admitted his possession over the schedule- property but has failed to explain his 'status' in the schedule- property, the contention of plaintiff that defendant no.6 has SCCH-14 24 SC.21/2023 been a 'sub-tenant', is to be accepted. Then the question is, whether defendant no.6 can be evicted from the schedule- property by the land-lord/plaintiff eventhough there is no 'privity of contract' between them ?? The answer is 'yes' since:
i) since 'sub-letting' is expressly prohibited in Clause 5 of the lease deed at Ex.P.1;
ii) since the Primary Lease of Main tenants (i.e., defendant no.1 to 5) under the lease deed at Ex.P.1 stands terminated by 'efflux of time' as well as by issuance of 'Notice of Termination';
the sub-tenant (i.e., defendant no.6) whose right stems from the 'unauthorised sub-letting' by the Main tenants, is liable to be 'evicted' from the schedule-property.
30. Last but not the least, defendant no.6 without pleading his 'status' in the schedule-property claims to have 'perfected' the occupation of the schedule-property by being in continuous possession, which cannot be accepted. Moreover, it is settled law that "a tenant (muchless a sub-tenant) can never SCCH-14 25 SC.21/2023 become the owner of a rented property, regardless of the duration of his stay".
31. Thus from the discussion made supra, it is clear that the plaintiff has terminated the tenancy by issuing the notice of termination to defendants. That apart, the lease under the Lease Deed dated 20.10.1995 at Ex.P.1 which was initially for a period of 11 months (renewed from time to time), stands terminated by 'efflux of time'. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of Ejectment as prayed. The defendants are liable to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the schedule-property to Plaintiff.
32. Further, the plaintiff has pleaded that defendant no.1 to 5 are due to a sum of Rs.72,000/- (at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month) from 01.04.2022 to 31.12.2022. As already discussed above, the defendants have admitted the service of Notice of Termination dated 05.12.2022 at Ex.P.5 on them. Also, defendant no.6/DW.1 has unequivocally admitted that he has been in possession of the schedule-property but has not SCCH-14 26 SC.21/2023 paid any rent to plaintiff or his father. Thus defendant no.1, 3 & 5 who are the Main tenants, are jointly & severally liable to pay the rent of Rs.72,000/- to plaintiff.
Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 "Partly in the Affirmative" and Point no.2 to 5 in the "Affirmative".
33. Point No.6: In view of my findings on Point No.1 to 5 as above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Suit is decreed with costs.
Defendant no.1, 3, 5 & 6 are directed to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the schedule-property to Plaintiff within two months from this day. Failing which, the Plaintiff is at liberty to recover the same through due process of law.
Further, defendant no.1, 3 & 5 are liable to pay the arrears of rent of Rs.72,000/- to plaintiff.
Draw decree accordingly.SCCH-14 27 SC.21/2023
(Dictated to the Stenographer and transcribed by her and then corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 17th day of January, 2026) (N.ANUPAMA) XVI ADDL.JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU.
SCHEDULE PREMISES One Godown portion of the premises bearing No.17, Ground Floor, in Belli Basavanna Temple Cross Street, Mamulpet - Bengaluru - 560053, measuring East to West 31 Feet and North to South 23 feet and bounded on the:
East by: Smt.Gowramma Channaveera Setty's House now Smt.Puttathayamma's property West by: Passage and Maharaja's Work Go down North by: Portion of the same property is in possession of the lessor;
South by: Belli Basavanna Temple Cross Road.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff :
PW-1 Sri.S.N.Karthik SCCH-14 28 SC.21/2023 Documents exhibited on behalf of the plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 Original Lease Deed, dated 20.10.1995
Ex.P.2 Notarized copy of Gift Deed dated
25.10.2021.
Ex.P.3 Office Copy of Legal Notice dated
17.11.2022
Ex.P.4 Endorsement dated 29.10.2022 issued by
BBMP
Ex.P.6 Reply Notice dated 19.12.2022
Ex.P.7 Office copy of Rejoinder Notice dated
26.12.2022
Ex.P.8 Property Tax Paid Receipt of the year 2022-
2023
Ex.P.9 to 21 13 Postal Receipts
Ex.P22 to 24 3 Registered Postal Acknowledgment Due Cards Ex.P25 to 29 5 Returned Postal Envelops Ex.P25(a) Copy of Notice dated 17.11.2022 found inside Ex.P25(a) when sealed cover was opened in the Open Court Ex.P26(a) Copy of Notice dated 17.11.2022 found inside Ex.P26(a) when sealed cover was opened in the Open Court Ex.P27(a) Copy of Notice dated 05.12.2022 found inside Ex.P27(a) when sealed cover was opened in the Open Court Ex.P28(a) Copy of Notice dated 05.12.2022 found inside Ex.P28(a) when sealed cover was opened in the Open Court Ex.P29(a) Copy of Notice dated 05.12.2022 found inside Ex.P29(a) when sealed cover was opened in the Open Court Ex.P.30 Letter addressed to S.M.Nataraj by Pankaj Supplies dated 04.08.2005 (Confronted through DW.1) SCCH-14 29 SC.21/2023 Witnesses examined on behalf of the defendant:
DW.1 - Suresh Katrela Documents exhibited on behalf of the defendant
- NIL -
XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes, BENGALURU.
Digitally
signed by
ANUPAMA
ANUPAMA N
N Date:
2026.01.19
15:27:59
+0530