Bangalore District Court
Parish Priest vs Sri.Alphonse Raj on 28 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF V ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
& XXIV A.C.M.M
Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore
(SCCH.20)
Dated this the 28th day of October, 2015
Present: Smt.K.BHAGYA,
B.Com., LL.B.
V Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXIV A.C.M.M.,
S.C.No.15494/2011
Plaintiff : Parish Priest,
Represented by Rev. Fr. Martin Kumar,
Aged about 52 years,
St. Joseph's Church,
Fr. Briand Square,
Bangalore-560 002.
(By Pleader Smt.Ransa Vasanthi.D.L)
-Vs-
Defendant : Sri.Alphonse Raj,
Aged about 43 years,
S/o Late Joseph & Therasa,
House Nos.81 & 82, Municipal No.16,
Barline, St. Mary's Church Compound,
Old Pension Mohalla,
Bangalore.
(By Pleader Sri.Rajagopala Naidu)
* * * * * *
(SCH-20) 2 SC 15494/11
J U D G M E N T
The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant in respect of suit schedule property, for the relief of vacant possession, and for arrears of rent and also for the damages & mesne profits for use and occupation of the suit schedule premises from February 2008 to June 2011 onwards, amounting to Rs.8,200-00 and for such other relief's.
02. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:-
The defendant is a tenant as per the Lease Agreement entered between the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule premises. The defendant is defaulter in payment of rents. Prior to the termination of tenancy the last rent was Rs.200-00 for the House Nos.81 & 82 and the defendant has not paid any rent from February 2008 to June 2011 amounting to Rs.8,200-00 for a period of 41 months.
Inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant has not made any payments towards the rent till this day.(SCH-20) 3 SC 15494/11
03. It is further case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff has shown sufficient indulgence in this matter and hence, informed the defendant by way of Legal Notice on 01-06-2011 sent by RPAD, by terminating the tenancy of the defendant and requested him to vacate the premises on the expiry of 30-06-2011 under his occupation in order to demolish the building and to construct a building therein for various Church administration, as the said Church is a shrine of Archdiocese of Bangalore and lot of pilgrim devotees visit the Church throughout the year and the premises is more than 50 years old and it is leaking and it is in very bad shape. Hence, it is required for their own use and occupation. The defendant has received the said legal notice and have given untenable reply, instead of complying with the demands made therein and continued as unauthorized occupant from 01-07-2011 onwards.
04. It is further case of the plaintiff that, HRC No.10109/2008 was filed against his mother and the defendant filed impleading application to implead (SCH-20) 4 SC 15494/11 him as a party to that petition. Hence, the defendant was aware of the HRC proceedings and the HRC petition was disposed off, as the plaintiff is a religious institution, and hence, it cannot claim any relief under Rent Control Act. Hence, plaintiff prayed to allow the suit.
05. After registration of the suit, the summons has been issued to the defendant. He has appeared before the Court through his counsel and filed written statement, in which, he has denied all the averments made in the plaint. Further he has contended that, the suit is not at all maintainable either in law or on facts and it is hit by the law of Res-judicata, as similar the petition was filed in HRC 10109/2008 against the mother of the defendant. The said eviction petition was dismissed for non- prosecution. He denied that, he is the tenant and has executed a lease deed in respect of shop Nos.81 and 82, Barline, St.Mary's Church Compound, Bengaluru and he is in the occupation of the same in the capacity, as a Owner and not as a tenant. Even, in the earlier eviction petition, this defendant has not been (SCH-20) 5 SC 15494/11 made as a party to the proceedings and hence, this defendant and other joint owners who have share in the family properties have been in possession of the branch of Mr.M.S.Joseph have filed impleading application and impleaded themselves as the respondents. The defendant has never executed any lease deed in the name of the plaintiff at any point of time. Hence the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties. He further denied that, he is in default in payment of rents and prior to termination he was paying Rs.200-00 for the said premises and he is in arrears of rent for 41 months.
06. It is further contended that, One acre of land in Sy. No.13 of Bhogenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk had been orally gifted to his Great-great-great grand father Mr.Cheluvappa @ Anthony Swamy @ Aladappa by the then Maharaja of Mysore in the year 1800. Subsequently the said property was identified at Ittige Anjappa Garden area. Similarly one acre of land had been donated by the Maharaja of Mysore, to a Muslim Sepoy wherein a mosque has been constructed by him. One more (SCH-20) 6 SC 15494/11 acre of land has been donated to a Hindu Sepoy wherein he has constructed Dandu Mariyamma temple. All the three properties do not have any written documents. But, respective beneficiaries have been enjoying the properties from the year 1800. He further denied the arrears of rent and damages and mesne profits amounting to Rs.8,200-00 and also denied that, the schedule building is more than 200 years old. He further denied the averments made in Para-5 and 9 of the plaint. He further contended, that, there is no cause of action to file this suit and prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary cost.
SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of residential premises bearing House Nos.81 & 82, Municipal No.16, Barline, St. Mary's Church Compound, Old Pension Mohalla, Bangalore.
07. The advocate for defendant has relied upon the following decisions:-
(SCH-20) 7 SC 15494/11
01. ILR 2006 KAR 1966 (Sri.K.Chandrashekara Vs Sri.S.Ganesha and others)
02. AIR 2007 (1) KAR R 377 (R.Abbaiah Reddy (deceased by LRs) and others Vs Udaya Chandra
03. ILR 2004 KAR 1546
08. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the General Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff by name Rev. Fr. D. Deva Dass got examined as P.W.1 and has got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8. (Earlier along with this suit, other 3 suits were clubbed together. So, regarding other suits documents also got marked upto Ex.P54. But, thereafterwards, all the suits got separatated. EX.P1 to 8 are the only documents which relate to this suit.) The defendant got examined as D.W.1 and has got marked documents at Ex.D.7 to Ex.D.25. (Ex.D1 to 6 documents relate to other suits, when they were clubbed with this suit)
09. Heard arguments of both side. Written arguments filed by the counsel for defendant is taken into consideration.
(SCH-20) 8 SC 15494/11
10. In view of the above pleadings, the following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, there is a valid termination of tenancy, as per law?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, it is entitled for arrears of rent and the damages and mesne profits as sought in the suit?
3. What Order or Decree?
11. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 In the affirmative
Point No.2 In the affirmative
Point No.3 As per final order
for the following:
R E A S O N S
12. Point Nos.1 & 2 :- In order to avoid the repetition of facts, I took these issues together for discussion.
(SCH-20) 9 SC 15494/11
13. As already observed above, the Parish Priest represented by Rev. Fr. Martin Kumar has filed this suit against the defendant by name Mr.Alphonse Raj for the vacant possession of the suit schedule property and for arrears of rent & the damages & mesne profits from the defendant.
12. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the GPA Holder of the plaintiff by name Rev. Fr. D.Deva Dass, Assistant Estate and Legal Administrator, got examined as P.W.1. He has filed his affidavit in lieu of his chief examination, in which, he has reiterated all the averments made in the plaint itself. (Earlier SC Numbers 15495/2011, 15496/2011, 15497/2011, 15498/2011 and 15499/2011 were clubbed with this suit, so, the evidence of this P.W.1 has been recorded in this main case with respect to other cases also. Thereafter, again all the cases have been separated). He has produced the original GPA executed by Rev. Fr. Martin Kumar, Parish Priest, St. Joseph's Church, in favour of this Rev. Fr. D.Deva Dass, Assistant Estate and Legal (SCH-20) 10 SC 15494/11 Administrator, which is marked at Ex.P.8. Through this GPA, this P.W.1 has deposed before this Court on behalf of the Parish Priest.
14. Here, the defence of the defendant as already observed above is that, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between themselves. The plaintiff is not at all the owner of the suit schedule property. The defendant is not a tenant under the plaintiff. But, he is a co-owner in respect of the suit schedule property, because the suit schedule property was gifted to the Great - great- great grand father of the defendant. Thus, the defendant also became a Co-owner of the property along with his mother. So, as there is no relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties to the suit, the defendant prayed to dismiss the suit.
15. Here, it is admitted by both the parties that, earlier this plaintiff filed HRC No.10109/2008 against the mother of this defendant. In the proceedings of the said petition, this defendant also got impleaded as one of the respondent. (SCH-20) 11 SC 15494/11 Thereafterwards as the plaintiff has not prosecuted the said HRC petition, it was dismissed. These facts are admitted by both the parties to the present suit. So, the argument, as well as the defence of this defendant is that, in the earlier HRC No.10109/2008, this plaintiff knowingly has not made this defendant as a party to the said proceedings. After dismissal of the said HRC petition, again the plaintiff came up with this suit against the son of Mary Teresa, so, the plaintiff also knew that, this defendant is not a tenant, but still came up with the false suit.
16. Here, it is very important to note that, the plaintiff is " Parish Priest, represented by Rev. Fr. Martin Kumar, St.Joseph's Church, Fr. Briand Square, Bangalore - 560002 ". Thus, this plaintiff is not a individual person, but a religious institution. He is not claiming the vacant possession of the suit schedule property, on his individual capacity, but claiming as a Parish Priest of St. Joseph's Church. It is one of the defence of the defendant that, the plaintiff has not at all stated in (SCH-20) 12 SC 15494/11 the Plaint that, he is the owner of the suit schedule property. But it is just averred as, 'defendant is a tenant under the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs.200-00'. So, the argument of the learned counsel for the defendant is that, when the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit schedule property, he cannot claim the vacant possession of the suit schedule property. Ofcourse, the P.W.1 has admitted in the cross-examination that, in the Plaint it is not stated that, the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property, but he has further deposed in his cross- examination stating that, regarding the ownership, he has produced the relevant revenue documents. So, this Court has gone through the documents produced by the plaintiff regarding the ownership. Ex.D.21 is the Khatha extract dt:13-03-2009 issued by the BBMP, which reveal the name of the owner as "Chappel" in respect of Municipal New No.16. Ex.D.22 is the Khatha certificate issued by the BBMP in respect of Ward No.30, Municipal New No.16, stating that, the property stands in the name of "Chappel". Ex.D.23 is the Khatha extract (SCH-20) 13 SC 15494/11 dt:26-08-2015 issued by the BBMP, in respect of Municipal New No.16, the name of the owner of the property as "Chappel". Thus, these latest and old Khatha extracts and Khatha certificate clearly reveal that, the owner of the property of Municipal No.16 is "Chappel". Moreover, Ex.D.16 is the endorsement given by the BBMP for the information sought by this defendant. Ex.D.17 is the letter issued to this defendant by the Tahsildar of Bangalore North stating that, they have furnished the information as sought by the said Alphonse Raj i.e., defendant. Ex.D.18 is the letter written by the Spl. Tahsildar, Bangalore North to the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, dt:18-04-2011. In this letter it is clearly stated as, 123" ªÀÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀAvÉ G¯ÉèÃTvÀ(1)gÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ºÀj eÉÆøɥsï «Ä¸ï ºÀj eÉÆøÉÃ¥sï, C¯ï ¸É¥sï gÉÄÁÃeï, £ÀA.81 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 82, N¯ïØ ¥É£ïµÀ£ï ªÉƺÀ¯Áè ¨Ájè£ï ZÀZïð PÁA¥ËAqï, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, EªÀgÀ ZÀgÀ ¹ÝgÀ D¹ÛAiÀÄ «ªÀgz À À §UÉÎ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸À°è¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆa¸À¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. CzÀgÀAvÉ ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀ gÁd¸Àé ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, ZÀÁªÀÄgÁd¥ÉÃmÉ ªÀÈvÀÛ gÀªÀjAzÀ ªÀg¢ À ¥ÀqÉAiÀįÁVzÉ. CªÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄAvÉ ¸ÀzÀj «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è ºÁåj (SCH-20) 14 SC 15494/11 eÉÆøɥsï (2) ºÁåj eÉÆùà£ï, (3) C¯ÉÆèãïì gÁd, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ (4) ªÉÄÃj PÀ®à£À gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÞ EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÀÄnÖzÁV¤AzÀ®Æ ¸ÀzÀj «¼Á¸ÀzÀ ªÁ¹UÀ¼ÁVgÀĪÀÅzÁV ºÁUÀÆ EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ºÉ¸Àj£À°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ ¹ÞgÀ D¹Û EgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛg.É ¢£À§¼ÀPÉ ªÀ¸ÀÄU Û À¼ÀÄ EgÀÄvÀÛªÉ. EªÀgÀÄ ªÁ¸À«gÀĪÀ ¹ÞgÁ¹ÛAiÀÄ §UÉÎ §ÈºÀvï ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉ PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ SÁvÁ £ÀPÀ®£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã®£É ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁV ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ZÁ¥É¯ï (ªÀÄA¢gÀ) JA§ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è SÁvÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÁåj eÉÆøɥsï gÀªÀgÀÄ ¨ÁåAqï ¨sÁj¸ÀĪÀ PÉ®¸À PÀÆ° ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. PÀÄB ºÁåj eÉÆùà£ï gÀªÀgÀÄ UÁªÉÄðAmïì£À°è ¹éÃ¥Àgï PÉ®¸À PÀÆ° ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀÄvÁÛg.É C¯ÉÆãïìgÁeï ¥ÉÃAmï PÉ®¸À PÀÆ° ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÉÄÃj PÀ®à£ÀgÀªgÀ ÀÄ UÀÈ»tôAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ PÉ®¸À ¸ÀĪÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ªÁ¹UÀ¼ÁVzÀÄÝ PÀÄlÄA§ ªÁ¶ðPÀ DzÁAiÀÄ gÀÆ.35,000-00 UÀ¼ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JA§ CA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä CªÀUÁºÀ£ÉUÉ ¸À°è¸ÀÄvÁÛ gÁd¸Àé ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉAiÀÄ SÁvÁ £ÀPÀ®Ä F ¥ÀvÀæPÉÌ ®UÀwÛ¹ ¸À°è¹zÉ.". Thus, this report of the Spl. Tahsildar of Bangalore North also reveal that, this defendant and others have been residing in the said property itself, but the said property's owner name is "Chappel". The said property is not in the name of (SCH-20) 15 SC 15494/11 either this defendant Alphonse Raj or Hari Joseph or Mary Kalpana. Further, this letter also reveal that, this defendant do not have any immovable property as per the said report. So, all these revenue documents clearly reveal that, the name of the owner of the property bearing No.16, Barline, St. Mary's Church Compound, Old Pension Mohalla, Bangalore, is "Chappel".
17. It is very important to mention here that, in Christianity, a small temple is called as "Chappel" i.e., Gudi, Mandira. So, as already observed above, this Parish Priest of St. Joseph's Church, not claiming this suit schedule property on his individual capacity. But, as a priest of the said church, claiming the vacant possession of the property, as these two premises are very old, they are intending to demolish the same and to build a new building for various Church administration as the said church is a shrine of Archdiocese of Bangalore. Thus, the revenue documents clearly reveal that, though this defendant had been residing since his birth in the said property, he is not the owner of the said (SCH-20) 16 SC 15494/11 property. It is also very important to mention here that, the defendant also deposed before the Court saying that, as he had been residing since his birth, he is claiming the premises as owner of those two premises. But this argument or defence of the defendant cannot be acceptable. At this juncture, it is also necessary to go through the evidence of the defendant Alphonse Raj also. He has filed his affidavit in lieu of his chief examination, in which he has clearly sworn to the effect as, "Predecessors have been the owners of one acre of land in Sy. No.13 of Bogenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, wherein, the then his highness Maharaja of Mysore has orally gifted the said land to my great great grandfather Mr.Cheluvappa @ Anthony Swamy @ Alodappa in the year 1800 and subsequently it was idenfied to have situated at Ittige Anjanappa garden area as the city grew. Similar kind of gift was given by his Highness Maharaja of Mysore, out of the adjoining 2-00 acres, one acre of land was gifted to Hindu devotees wherein a Dandu Mariyamappa temple was (SCH-20) 17 SC 15494/11 constructed, one acre of land was gifted to Muslim community wherein they have constructed a Mosque". Though, he has sworn to this effect, in his cross-examination he has deposed as, "ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ ªÀĺÁgÁdgÀÄ F 1 JPÀgÉ «¹ÛÃtðzÀ eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ZÀZïð ¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉAiÀÄÆ, EzÀgÀ CPÀÌ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°ègÀĪÀ vÀ¯Á MAzÀÄ JPÀgÉ eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀĹâ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉêÀ¸ÁÝ£ÀPÁÌV CAzÀgÉ MlÄÖ 3 JPÀgÉ eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀÄ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj". Thus, in the cross- examination, he has deposed that, Maharaja of Mysore gifted one acre of land to the Church and another one acre of land to a Masjid & another one acre of land to a Temple. Though, he has admitted this fact in his cross-examination, in his affidavit, filed in lieu of his chief examination he has sworn to the effect that, as, "the then his highness Maharaja of Mysore has orally gifted the said land to my Great-great grand father Mr.Cheluvappa @ Anthony Swamy @ Alodappa, in the year 1800". Though, he has sworn to this effect, he has not produced his family Genealogical tree. If at all, definitely, the Maharaja of Mysore has gifted one acre of land to his Great-Great- (SCH-20) 18 SC 15494/11 great grand father, definitely he could have produce his family genealogical tree as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. But it is very important to note that, in the cross- examination he himself has admitted very clearly stating that, the then Maharaja of Mysore gifted one acre of land to the church. Moreover, the Spl. Tahasildar of Bangalore North also gave information to the information sought by this defendant that, the property stands in the name of "Chappel" since many many years. Further, in this regard the defendant also deposed in his cross-examination at page No.6 as, "£Á£ÀÄ EgÀĪÀ eÁUÀzÀ CPÀÌ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è MlÄÖ 13 ªÀÄ£ÉU½ªÉ. D 13 ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ JgÀqÀÄ CAUÀr ªÀĽUÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ EªÉ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è MAzÀÄ ¸ÀtÚ ªÀÄzÀgï ªÉÄÃjAiÀÄ ªÀÄA¢gÀªÀÇ EzÉ. £À£ÀUÉ £ÉÆÃnøÀ£ÀÄß PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀ ºÁUÉÃ, ªÁ¢ G½zÀAvÀºÀ 13 ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼ÀÆ, JgÀqÀÄ CAUÀr ªÀĽUÉUÀ¼À°è EgÀĪÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ½UÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ £ÉÆÃnøÀ£ÀÄß PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀÝgÀÄ J£ÀÄߪÀ §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®.è £À£Àß ªÀQîgÉà G½zÀ ¨ÁrUÉzÁgÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV j¥ÉèÊ £ÉÆÃnøÀ£ÀÄß PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ J£ÀÄߪÀ «µÀAiÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. D £ÉÆÃnøÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆlÖ £ÀAvÀgÀ PÉ®ªÀÅ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ¨ÁrUÉzÁgÀgÀÄ CªÀgÁVAiÉÄà ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß SÁ° ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ (SCH-20) 19 SC 15494/11 ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ ¸À®ºÀUÉ ¸ÁQë, ªÁ¢ ºÀtzÀ D¸ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹, ºÀt PÉÆlÄÖ SÁ° ªÀiÁr¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ J£ÀÄßvÁÛg.É »ÃUÉ MAzÀÄ wAUÀ¼À »AzÉ EzÉà £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è EzÉà ªÁ¢ ¨ÉÃgÉ ¨ÁrUÉzÁgÀjUÉ ºÀt PÉÆlÄÖ, SÁ° ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ J£ÀÄßvÁÛgÉ". Thus, this defendant has admitted as above that, others who were in possession of the premises got vacated. But his say is that, the plaintiff got them vacated by giving money to those occupants. If at all those occupants were the owner of those premises as arguing like this defendant, whether they could have vacated the said premises by receiving money from the plaintiff?. Further this defendant also deposed as, "F ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ZÀZïð£À°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ PÉ®¸ÀUÁgÀjUÉ JAzÀÄ PÀnÖzÀÄÝ, D jÃw PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÝ £À£Àß vÀAzÉUÉ F ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß EgÀ®Ä PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀÄ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¸ÁQë ¸ÀévÀB £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ , F ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß , ZÀZïð£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄÄvÁÛvÀÛA¢gÉà PÀnÖzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀÄ". So, the say of the defendant is that, as his Great-Great-great grand fathers have constructed the houses as well as the said church, he cannot vacate these two premises. Further he has also deposed as, "£ÁªÀÅ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ co owners (SCH-20) 20 SC 15494/11 J£ÀÄߪÀ §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯ÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹®è. ¸ÁQë, ¸ÀévÀB £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ £ÁªÀÅ C°ègÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ¯Éà ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄwÛzÉÃÝ £É JAzÀÄ". Thus, the defendant's say is that, as he has been residing in the said premises, he is saying that, he is the owner of those premises. Can this argument is an acceptable one?. Further he has admitted very clearly that, he has not at all produced any document to show that, he is the co- owner or the owner of the said two premises.
18. From the above said evidence, it can be held that, the "Chappel" is the owner of the said one acre property. Here, the plaintiff-Parish Priest represented the said "Chappel". So, definitely, it can be held that, the defendant or his forefather's were not the owners of these two premises.
19. At this juncture, it is also necessary to go through the Ex.D.7 i.e., the Judgment passed in O.S. No.7821/2009 by the 39th Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore. This suit was filed by this defendant Alphonse Raj against the Parish Priest, St. Joseph's Church, Briand Square, Bangalore, for permanent injunction in respect of these two properties only. (SCH-20) 21 SC 15494/11 The said suit was decreed. But it is ordered as, "However, the defendant is at liberty to evict the plaintiff from the suit 'B' schedule property in accordance with law". So, in the present suit, the plaintiff got issued notice calling upon the defendant to vacate the premises, it was served on the defendant, but he has not vacated the premises. His say is "£ÁªÉà ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ zÁªÁ ¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß SÁ° ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛ®,è D eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ©lÄÖPÉÆqÀÄwÛ®è". So, as per law, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant calling upon him to vacate the premises by terminating the tenancy from 30-06-2011. But the defendant did not vacated. So, definitely, the defendant's possession over the suit schedule property become unauthorized from 01-07-2011. The plaint reveal that, the defendant is due for a sum of Rs.8,200-00 as arrears of rent from February 2008 to June 2011. Ofcourse, this suit was filed before this Court on 01-07-2011. Definitely, the defendant is liable to pay the arrears of rent of Rs.8,200-00. Further the plaintiff also sought for damages from the date of (SCH-20) 22 SC 15494/11 termination of the tenancy. As the last rent was Rs.200-00 p.m. for both premises, if an amount of Rs.200-00 p.m. will be awarded as damages, justice would met with. So, the defendant is also liable to pay the damages at the rate of Rs.200-00 p.m. from the date of termination of the tenancy, till the defendant hands over the vacant possession of the premises to the plaintiff.
20. Under the above said facts and circumstances, I answered point Nos.1 & 2 in the Affirmative.
21. Point No.3:- In view of my findings on point Nos.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Suit is decreed with costs.
The defendant is hereby directed to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the plaintiff within 60 days from the date of this order.(SCH-20) 23 SC 15494/11
The defendant is also hereby directed to pay arrears of rent of Rs.8,200-00 to the plaintiff and also to pay damages at the rate of Rs.200-00 p.m. from the date of termination of the tenancy till the defendant hands over the vacant possession of the premises to the plaintiff.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, then corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 28th day of October, 2015) (K.BHAGYA) V ASCJ & 24th ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE Plaintiff's Witnesses:
P.W.1 Rev. Fr. D. Deva Dass
(SCH-20) 24 SC 15494/11
Plaintiff's Exhibits:
Ex.P.1 Notarized copy of Order sheet in HRC
10109/2008
Ex.P.2 Office copy of Legal notice
Ex.P.3 RPAD receipt
Ex.P.4 Reply Notice given by the defendant
Ex.P.5 Copy of field book of detail map.
Ex.P.6 copy of property card.
Ex.P.7 copy of Survey Settlement and Land
Records
Ex.P.8 Power of Attorney
(Earlier along with this suit, other 3 suits were clubbed together. So, regarding other suits documents also got marked upto Ex.P54. But, thereafterwards, all the suits got separatated. EX.P1 to 8 are the only documents which relate to this suit.) Defendant's Witnesses:
D.W.1 Alphonse Raj Defendant's Exhibits:
(Ex.D1 to 6 documents relate to other suits, when they were clubbed with this suit) Ex.D.7 Copy of Judgment in O.S. No.7821/2009 Ex.D.8 Copy of Complaint given by the defendant to the S.H.O of Kengeri Gate Police Station, Bangalore Ex.D.9 Copy of F.I.R Ex.D.10 to Ex.D.14 Copy of Statements of the witnesses (SCH-20) 25 SC 15494/11 Ex.D.15 Copy of Chargesheet Ex.D.16 copy of endorsement given by BBMP in respect of R.T.I Ex.D.17 Letter written by the Special Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk to the defendant Ex.D.18 Copy of Letter written by Special Tahsildar to the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District Ex.D.19 copy of endorsement given by BBMP in respect of R.T.I Ex.D.20 Copy of Gas Cylinder delivery receipt Ex.D.21 copy of Khatha extract Ex.D.22 copy of Khatha certificate Ex.D.23 copy of Khatha extract Ex.D.24 & Ex.D.25 copy of Certificates of Baptism (K.BHAGYA) V ASCJ & 24th ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore.