Karnataka High Court
M/S Sree Jagadish Colour Company vs Sri. Mahantara Math Trust on 27 September, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:40798
RFA No. 784 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 784 OF 2015 (RES)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. SREE JAGADISH COLOUR COMPANY,
NO.19, P.S. ACHAR LANE,
A.S. CHAR STREET CROSS,
CHICKPET, BENGALURU - 560 053.
2. SRI. VEDAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
S/O LATE D.V. JAGADISH,
R/AT NO.477, 40TH CROSS,
9TH MAIN ROAD, 5TH BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 041.
3. SRI. SHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
Digitally S/O LATE D.V. JAGADISH,
signed by R/AT NO.477, 40TH CROSS,
MALATESH
KC 9TH MAIN ROAD, 5TH BLOCK,
Location: JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 041.
HIGH ...APPELLANTS
COURT OF (BY SRI. V.B. SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
SRI. MAHANTARA MATH TRUST,
CHICKPET, BENGALURU - 53,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. G.V. DAYANANDA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:40798
RFA No. 784 of 2015
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96(1) CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.2.2015 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.3917/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 3), DECREEING THE
SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.V.B.Shiva Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.G.V.Dayananda, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the appellants challenging the validity of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.3917/2002 dated 20.02.2015 on the file of XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, (CCH-3).
3. Parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendants for the sake of convenience as per their original ranking before the Trial Court.
4. Brief facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under: -3-
NC: 2024:KHC:40798 RFA No. 784 of 2015 4.1. Plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment of the defendants from the shop bearing No.19, P.S.Aachar Lane Bengaluru measuring 11 feet x 19 feet, bounded on East by Private property, West by shop No.18, North by Sri.Mahanthara Math and South by P.S.Achar Lane, (hereinafter referred to as schedule property).
4.2. Plaintiff contended that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property. Plaintiff has been providing free boarding and lodging facility to poor students.
Residential facility for the religious leaders who visit Bengaluru city was also provided by the plaintiff. Apart from catering to the needs of the poor children, plaintiff is also interested in holding regular religious discourses and religious functions in the precincts of the plaintiff Math and the trust depends on the income derived from the rents of the properties let out to several tenants, one such tenants being the defendants.
4.3. It is further contended that defendant No.1 being the tenant of one of the shops which is the suit -4- NC: 2024:KHC:40798 RFA No. 784 of 2015 property, on a monthly rent of Rs.350/- was not regular in paying the rents. Therefore, plaintiff issued a notice on 31.10.2001 terminating the tenancy with effect from 15.12.2001. Defendant did reply the notice raising technical defences and did not comply the callings of notice. Therefore, plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for ejectment.
5. Pursuant to the receipt of suit summons, defendants appeared through their Advocate and filed detailed written statement denying the plaint averments in toto including improper termination of tenancy and sought for dismissal of suit.
6. Learned Trial Judge based on the rival contentions of the parties, framed following issues:
1. Whether the defendant No.1 is a tenant in respect of the suit premises?
2. Whether the termination of Tenancy is as per law?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession?
4. To what relief?-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:40798 RFA No. 784 of 2015
7. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, Yajaman Srikanthappa, an authorized person from the plaintiff Muth and N.R.Pandit Aradhya are examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and placed on record four documents comprising of copy of the legal notice, certified copy of the trust deed, copy of the reply notice, minute book of the trust as Exs.P.1 to P.4.
8. As against the evidence placed on record by the plaintiff, on behalf of defendants Vedamurthy, who is son of defendant No.2 is examined as D.W.1. As many as, twenty documents were placed on record as ExsD.1 to D.20 comprising of copy of letter dated 20.12.2008 issued to the plaintiff Trust on behalf of the defendant, copy of letter dated 29.12.2008 issued to the plaintiff Trust on behalf of the defendant, copy of the letter dated 08.05.2010 issued to the plaintiff Trust on behalf of the defendant, copy of the letter dated 05.09.2011 issued to the plaintiff Trust on behalf of the defendant, Rent receipt -6- NC: 2024:KHC:40798 RFA No. 784 of 2015 dated 07.06.2008 for Rs.6,000/-, Rent receipt dated 11.09.2008 for Rs.6,000/-, Rent receipt dated 20.12.2008 for Rs.1,483/-, Rent receipt dated 20.12.2008 for Rs.6,741/-, Rent receipt dated 17.02.2009 for Rs.6,000/-, Rent receipt dated 17.02.2009 for Rs.741/-, Rent receipt dated 11.02.2010 for Rs.6,000/-, Rent receipt dated 11.02.2010 for Rs.742/-, Rent receipt dated 10.05.2010 for Rs.18,000/-, Rent receipt dated 10.05.2010 for Rs.1,854/-, Rent receipt dated 08.11.2010 for Rs.1,854/-, Rent receipt dated 08.11.2010 for Rs.18,000/-, Rent receipt dated 04.05.2011 for Rs.19,854/-, Rent receipt dated 12.09.2011 for Rs.21,178/-, copy of letter dated 24.03.2010 issued on behalf of plaintiff trust to the defendant regarding monthly rend and service tax and copy of letter issued on behalf of the plaintiff trust to the defendant through its Chartered Accountants regarding service tax payable on the rent.
9. On conclusion of recording of the evidence, learned Trial Judge took into consideration the relationship -7- NC: 2024:KHC:40798 RFA No. 784 of 2015 that existed between the plaintiff and defendants and also the effect of the termination notice which is marked at Ex.P.1, decreed the suit of the plaintiff directing defendants to evict and hand over the suit premises within a period of four months from the date of decree.
10. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants are before this Court, in this appeal.
11. It is submitted at the Bar, that the appeal was delayed by two days and in the interregnum, plaintiff had filed an execution petition and obtained the possession of the property by executing the decree. In other words, present appeal now confines itself to the validity of the impugned judgment and decree for the academic interest.
12. Sri.V.B.Shiva Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/defendants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, contended that Trial Court did not take into consideration the documentary evidence placed on record including the authority of the plaintiff to issue -8- NC: 2024:KHC:40798 RFA No. 784 of 2015 Ex.P.1 i.e., legal notice and validity of Ex.P.1 in not properly terminating the tenancy of the defendants resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the appeal.
13. Per contra, Sri.G.V.Dayananda, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff supports impugned judgment and decree.
14. He further pointed out that when there is no dispute as to the jural relationship, defendants were estopped from contending contra with regard to the authority of plaintiff seeking ejectment of the defendants from the suit property. Therefore, judgment and decree of the Trial Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity or perversity and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
15. Having heard the parties in detail, this court perused the material on record meticulously.
16. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration: -9-
NC: 2024:KHC:40798 RFA No. 784 of 2015
1. Whether the tenancy of the appellants/defendants were duly terminated by issuing the legal notice under Ex.P.1?
2. Whether the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity or perversity and thus calls for interference?
3. What order?
REG. POINT Nos.1 AND 2:
17. In the case on hand, there is no dispute that defendants were tenants under the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs.350/- in respect of the suit property. Ex.P.1 is the legal notice terminating the tenancy. Same is dated 31.10.2001.
18. In the contents of the legal notice itself, it has been specifically mentioned that the tenancy stands terminated on and from 15.12.2001. In other words, there was a period mentioned clearly as per statue in Ex.P.1 while terminating the tenancy.
19. Admittedly, having regard to the measurement of the property, defendants were not protected from
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:40798 RFA No. 784 of 2015 Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and therefore, suit for ejectment was very well maintainable before the Civil Court.
20. After the termination of tenancy, when there was no compliance to the callings of the notice, plaintiff was constrained to file the suit. Material documents placed on record would amply establish the same. The contentions taken by the defendants are technical in nature and it was not proved by placing necessary evidence on record. D.W.1 is the legal representative of defendant No.2, who was the proprietor of defendant No.1.
21. Under such circumstances, when it has been established that the legal notice has been properly terminated under Ex.P.1, the Trial Court was justified in ordering the ejectment of the defendants from the suit property.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:40798 RFA No. 784 of 2015
22. Under such circumstances, this Court does not finding any legal infirmity or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment calling for interference of this Court on reappreciation of the material evidence on record power vested in this Court under Order XCVI of CPC. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in affirmative and point No.2 in negative.
REG.POINT No.3:
23. In view of the finding of this Court on point Nos.1 and 2 as above, following:
ORDER i. Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed.
ii. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
KAV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58/CT: BHK