Bangalore District Court
Sri.M.Appanna vs Sri. Syed Nasarulla @ Noorjan on 27 April, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES (SCCH-23)
AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF APRIL 2017
PRESENT: SRI.N.N.YALAVATTI, Bcom, LLB,
XXI ADDL. SCJ & XIX ACMM
MEMBER - MACT
BANGALORE
S.C No.1456 of 2012
PLAINTIFF: Sri.M.Appanna
Since dead by his LRs
1(a) Smt.Kamalamma
W/o late Sri.M.Appanna,
Aged about 66 years,
R/at No.1/1, Appanna mansion,
Chocolate factory road, Tavarekere, BTM
layout, I stage, Next to federal bank,
Bengaluru-560 029.
(b) Sri.A.Venkatesh Murthy,
S/o late.Sri.M.Appanna,
Aged about 52 years, R/at No.2662,
8th B main, 17th cross, BSK II stage,
Opp. To ward office,
Bengaluru-560 070.
(c) Smt.A.Hamsavathi
D/o late Sri.M.Apparna
W/o Sri.A.S.Krishnappa,
Aged about 51 years, R/at No.171/2,
Conservancy lane, III main road,
7th cross, Chamarajpet,
Bengaluru-560 018.
2 Sc.No.1456/2012
SCCH-23
(d) Sri.A.Prabhakar
S/o late.Sri.M.Appanna,
Aged about 48 years, R/at No.63,
SLN towers, No.202, II floor,
Bikasipura, Bengaluru-560 062.
(By Sri.T.R., Advocate)
Vs.
DEFENDANTS: Sri. Syed Nasarulla @ Noorjan,
Since dead by his LRs.
D1(a) Smt.Razia W/o late.Syed Nasarulla
@ Noorjan, Aged about 70 years
D1(b) Sri.Ajmal S/o Late.Syed Nasarulla
@ Noorjan, aged about 47 years
D1(c) Sri.Jalpin S/ Late.Syed Nararulla @
Noorjan, Aged about 70 years
D1(d) Smt.Uma D/o Late.Syed Nasarulla
@ Noorjan, Aged about 45 years
All are residing at No.15/1,
Ranoji Rao lane, Kalasipalyam,
Bengaluru-560 002.
Also residing at No.66, 2nd floor, D.No.1,
Masque road, Basavanagudi,
Bengaluru-560 004.
(By Sri.R.A.S., Advocate)
Date of Institution of the suit : 21-09-2012
3 Sc.No.1456/2012
SCCH-23
Nature of the suit (suit on pronote, : Ejectment
Suit for declaration and possession
Suit for junction, etc.):
Date of commencement of : 21.07.2014
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 27.04.2017
was pronounced
Total Duration Years Month/s Days
04 07 06
XXI Additional Judge
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff for a judgment and decree against the defendants directing them to quit and deliver the vacant possession, mesne profits for costs and for such other relief.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint is as follows:-
The LRs of the original plaintiff have filed this suit for ejectment alleging that the original deceased defendant was tenant of the suit schedule property under one deceased 4 Sc.No.1456/2012 SCCH-23 Manikyamma on a monthly rent of Rs.450/-. Later on the deceased original plaintiff became a absolute owner of entire property of the Manikyamma by virtue of the sale deed obtained. So the deceased original defendant became the tenant of the original deceased plaintiff. The deceased original defendant is a chronic defaulter in matter of payment of rent. Therefore deceased original plaintiff has got issued notice by terminating tenancy and requested to deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property. The said statutory notice was served on the deceased original defendant as required Under Section 106 of T.P Act. Inspite of it, he did not deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property. Therefore the plaintiff has constrained to file this suit and requested to pass the decree as prayed.
3. In response to the notice, the original deceased defendant has appeared through his counsel and resisted the case of the plaintiff by filing written statement. The original deceased defendant has contended that he was not tenant under 5 Sc.No.1456/2012 SCCH-23 deceased Manikyamma or under the deceased original plaintiff. The deceased original defendant occupied the schedule property as his own. The defendant has denied service of statutory notice and decree of specific performance of the contract obtained by the deceased plaintiff. There is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant in between plaintiff and defendants. The main contention of the defendant is that he is not tenant of schedule property, but he is in occupation of his own from past several years. Therefore suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. the suit is bared by law of limitation and this court do not have jurisdiction. Therefore suit of the plaintiff may be dismissed.
4. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the GPA of the original deceased plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1 and Ex- P1 to 21 are got marked. In order to prove the case of the defendants, the defendant No.1(d) who is the 4th LR of deceased got himself examined as DW-1 and on behalf of other LRs of the deceased defendant and no documents are got marked. 6 Sc.No.1456/2012
SCCH-23
5. I have heard the argument from both side.
6. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Does the plaintiff proves jural relationship of landlord and tenant in between himself and defendants?
2. Does the defendants prove that they are not tenants of the deceased Manikyamma or deceased original plaintiff and they are occupying the suit schedule property as their own from past several years?
3. Does the plaintiff proves the arrears of rent and they are entitle it ?
4. Does the plaintiffs are entitle the mesne profit?
5. Does the termination of notice is properly served as required under section 106 of T.P.Act?
6. Does the plaintiffs are entitle the relief as sought for ?
7. What order or decree?
7. My findings on the above points are as under: 7 Sc.No.1456/2012
SCCH-23 Point Nos.1 to 6: Affirmative Point No.7: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1, 2 and 5: As I have already stated what the case of the plaintiff and defendants is. Before going into the merits of the case, I would like to say some admitted facts. One deceased Manikyamma was the absolute owner of the property bearing No.16, old No.25, she has purchased the same under registered sale deed ( this fact is admitted by the original defendant in his suit filed against LRs of the deceased Manikyamma). The deceased M.Appanna was one of the tenant in the above said property under deceased Manikyamma, later on, the deceased Manikyamma has executed agreement of sale agreeing to sale of the entire property. She died without executing the sale deed. So the deceased M.Appanna has filed suit for specific performance of the contract against the LRs of the deceased Manikyamma. He succeeded to obtain decree of specific performance of contract by filing RFA No.309/1990. He became the absolute owner of the property of the deceased 8 Sc.No.1456/2012 SCCH-23 Manikyamma by virtue of the sale deed executed in Execution Petition No.551/1994. The court has handed over the symbolic possession of the entire property as per the sale deed. Ex-P2 to 5 are sufficient to prove that he became the absolute owner of the entire property of the deceased Manikyamma. Ex-P6 to 9 are sufficient to show that he has received symbolic possession of the entire property of the deceased Manikyamma. Ex-P10 are the kathas and certificates of the schedule property. Ex-P2 to 9 are the certified copies of the documents pertaining to the original suit filed by the deceased Appanna and pertaining to the decree passed in RFA No.309/1990. It has reached finality.
9. During the course of argument, learned advocate for the plaintiff strenuously contending before me that the deceased defendant was occupying the schedule property which is the part and parcel of the property purchased by deceased plaintiff under sale deed from deceased Manikyamma on a monthly rent of Rs.450/-. The deceased plaintiff has terminated the tenancy of the deceased defendant by issuing the statutory notice and same 9 Sc.No.1456/2012 SCCH-23 was served as required Under Section 106 of TP Act. Inspite of it, the defendants have failed to deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property. Therefore suit of the plaintiff may be dismissed.
10. On the other hand, the advocate for the defendants strenuously contending before me that the deceased defendant was not a tenant in respect of schedule property but he was in occupation of his own from the past several years. The advocate for the defendant further submits that he was a mortgagee of the suit schedule property and further submits that once mortgagee is always a mortgagee. Therefore without suit for redemption, the present suit is not maintainable.
11. I have given careful consideration to the points urged by both side. I have gone through the written statement filed by the deceased defendant. The deceased defendant has not at all pleaded anything about the mortgage transaction. No doubt the advocate for the defendant has obtained two line admissions 10 Sc.No.1456/2012 SCCH-23 from the mouth of the PW-1 in regards to this mortgage. I have carefully scrutinized entire evidence of PW-1. It reveals that PW-1 has stated as the deceased defendant was occupying the suit schedule property as a tenant.
12. The advocate for the defendant has attacked on the evidence of PW-1 and submits that PW-1 in cross examination recorded on 16-10-2014, he has categorically admitting as the defendant has occupy the suit premises during the year 1955 as a mortgage. The defendant had entering the mortgage transaction with one Smt.Manikyamma. Relying on these two sentences, advocate for the defendant trying to prove that these two sentences are comes under the meaning of admissions and these two admissions are sufficient to say that the defendant was not a tenant of the schedule premises under Manikyamma or under the deceased plaintiff. Therefore present suit is not maintainable. I have given careful consideration to the points urged by advocate for the defendant. The moot question before us is whether these two sentences are comes under the meaning of admissions or 11 Sc.No.1456/2012 SCCH-23 stray sentence. Once again I have gone through the written statement filed by the original defendant as well as the pleadings of the suit which was filed by the deceased defendant (O.S.No.10832/93) for specific performance of the contract. The deceased defendant never pleaded in the present suit as well as in his previous suit as `` he is a mortgage of the suit premises under deceased Manikyamma``. As we all know the rules of pleadings and proof. It is settled law from various Hon`ble High Court that `` evidence without pleading are not at all evidence under eye of law ``. Therefore, the Hon`ble Supreme Court and High Court held in several occasions as pleadings and proof are the two faces of the one coin. It goes to shows that evidence without pleading is not at all evidence in the eye of law. Here we shall turn our attention on a decision reported in 2015 (2) KCCR 1368 Smt.Puttasiddamma and others Vs Siddaraju and others. The Hon`ble High Court of Karnataka has held in the above decision as `` a stray answer cannot be blown out of proportion to dilate the documentary evidence``. If we assess the entire pleadings of plaintiff and evidence of PW-1, he has 12 Sc.No.1456/2012 SCCH-23 categorically spoken as the deceased defendant was a tenant, but not a mortgage. Here we shall turn our attention on a decision reported in ILR 2003 KAR page 2253. The Hon`ble High Court of Karnataka has held under head note (d) as CPC order 6 rule 2 pleadings-absence of pleadings in written statement on an issue- no evidence can be looked into a relation thereof. Again we shall turn our attention on a decision reported in 2007 KLJ (3) 28 (A) Puttanna Shetty Vs Padma. The Hon`ble High Court of Karnataka held in the above decision as stray statement elicited from the party in cross examination cannot be construed as a admission``. The above decisions are squarely applicable to case on hand. Therefore the stray sentence appearing in the evidence of PW-1 are not comes under the meaning of admission, because there is no pleading in that regards.
13. Here we shall turn our attention on Ex-P22, which is a vital and important document to decide whether the deceased defendant had occupied the schedule property as a tenant or as his own.`` Ex-P22 is a deposition of the deceased defendant 13 Sc.No.1456/2012 SCCH-23 gave it in his own suit filed under O.S.10832/1993 under PW-1 on 1-8-01995. I wanted to say some back ground of this Ex-P22. The deceased defendant had filed o.S.10832/1993 against the LRs of deceased Manikyamma for the decree of specific performance of contract alleging that they have executed agreement of sale agreeing to sell property of Manikyamma. In his own suit, he gave this evidence under PW-1. We shall turn our attention on page 4 of Ex-P22. The deceased defendant has categorically admitting in the 3rd para at page 4 as`` he is a tenant in shop of ground floor of the suit property``. In the same page in the 17th line from the first line, he has categorically admitting as `` it is true that suit property is concerning property of property No.25 of which I am the tenant``. Again we shall turn our attention on page 8, the deceased defendant has categorically admitting in the 8th line at page 8 of Ex-P22 as `` I am not paying the rent of suit property from the date of Ex- P1``. So deceased defendant has categorically spoken in his suit as he had occupying the suit schedule property as a tenant, but not as a owner of the same. Therefore Ex-P22 is a vital and 14 Sc.No.1456/2012 SCCH-23 material document to say that deceased defendant was a tenant of the suit schedule property under deceased Manikyamma. The admission given by the deceased defendant at page 4 and 8 of Ex-P22 are sufficient to say that the deceased defendant was the tenant of the suit schedule property and LRs are also became the tenants of the suit schedule property.
14. The available records speaks that the deceased defendant had filed O.S.10832/93 against the LRs of the deceased Manikyamma for decree of the specific performance of contract based on the agreement of sale alleged to be executed by the LRs of the deceased Manikyamma. In that suit the deceased defendant got himself examined as PW-1 (as per Ex- P22 filed in the case on hand). The suit which was filed by the defendant was dismissed after full pledged trial, the deceased plaintiff got himself impleaded. In the above suit filed by the deceased defendant as a defendant No.5 and contested the said suit by filing written statement. Even though, the suit of the deceased defendant was dismissed, he did not challenged that 15 Sc.No.1456/2012 SCCH-23 dismissal order before the appellate court. Therefore the dismissal order passed in the suit which was filed by the deceased defendant has reached the finality. So question of claiming of the ownership or title of the plaint schedule property does not arise at all. Ex-P22 is sufficient to say that the deceased defendant was occupying the plaint schedule property as a tenant, but not as a owner. As per available records, deceased plaintiff has purchased the entire property of Manikyamma. The plaintiff schedule property is the part and parcel of above purchased property. When the deceased Appanna became the owner of the suit schedule property, he stepped into shoe of original owner and became the landlord to all tenants who were residing in the plaint schedule property including the deceased defendant. The available records speaks that the deceased Appanna, then the LRs are the absolute owner of the purchased property from the deceased Manikyamma. The deceased defendant or his LRs have not filed any piece of document to show that, the deceased defendant was the mortgagee. So it is 16 Sc.No.1456/2012 SCCH-23 crystal clear from Ex-P22 that the deceased was occupying the suit schedule property as a tenant not as an mortgagee.
15. The advocate for the defendant much argued on validity of the termination of tenancy notice. The advocate for the defendant vehemently submits that the statutory notice was not at all properly served. The deceased plaintiff did not comply the mandatory requirements as required under section 106 of T.P.Act. In support of his argument, he has relied on catena of decisions and requested to dismiss the suit. On the other hand, the advocate for the plaintiff strenuously contending before me that the deceased plaintiff has complied section of 106 of T.P.Act. The statutory notice was properly served on the defendant as required Under Section 106 of T.P.Act.
16. I have given careful consideration to the points urged by both side. The thrust of the defendant contention is that the quit notice was not properly served on him. Those notices are not at all sent to his residence. Therefore the plaintiff did not comply 17 Sc.No.1456/2012 SCCH-23 Section 106 of T.P.Act. The advocate for the defendants draw my attention on a decisions reported in AIR 1990Allahbad 280, AIR 1976 Delhi 111, AIR 2016 SC 4038, AIR 2008 Calcutta 285 and AIR 1988 Gujarat 5 and submits that the evidence of DW-1 is sufficient to say that the quit notice was not properly served on the deceased defendant. I have given careful consideration to the points urged by both side. The facts of the above said decisions are all together different to facts of the case on hand. Therefore the law laid down in the decision relied on by advocate for the defendant are not applicable to case on hand. I have gone through the decision reported in AIR 2008 Calcutta 285. In this decision quit notice had been issued by mentioning 10 days instead of 15 days. Therefore the Hon`ble Calcutta High Court has held that notice is not valid. But in the case on hand, the notice had been issued by mentioning clear 15 days. Therefore the law laid down in the above decision is not applicable to case on hand. Here we shall turn our attention on Ex-P18. Two photos along with CDs. DW-1 who is the son of the deceased defendant has clearly admitting in his evidence at para 7. As the shop 18 Sc.No.1456/2012 SCCH-23 appearing in photo marked at Ex-P18 is their shop. Now we shall turn our attention on Ex-P18 and evidence of PW-1, it reveals that the deceased plaintiff had served the quit notice by affixing it on the main door of the shop of deceased defendant, which is the suit schedule premises. This fact is very clear from Ex-P18 and from the evidence of DW-1. Here we shall turn our attention on Section 106 of T.P.Act. `` Every notice under this section must be in writing, signed by or on behalf of the person giving it and either by sent by post to the party who is intended to be bound by it or be tender or deliver personally to such party, or to one of his family member or servants on his residence or (if such tender or deliver is not practicable) affixed to a conficious part of the property``. The available records speaks that the quit notice is in writing, it is signed by the deceased plaintiff and had been sent by post to the deceased defendant. Those notice were returned as intimation is delivered not claim. Another RPAD was returned as door locked. Therefore the deceased plaintiff had served this quit notice by affixing on the main door (shutters) of the deceased defendant shop and took the 19 Sc.No.1456/2012 SCCH-23 photos with CD. DW-1 has categorically admitting in his cross examination at para 7 as the shop appearing in photo are their shop. We can seen the notice affixed on the shutters on the shop of defendant form the photos marked at Ex-P18. Therefore the plaintiff has served this quit notice by affixing on the main door of the shop of the defendants, where they are daily doing the business in the said shop. Therefore we can safely say that the quit notice has properly served on the defendant as per Section 106 of T.P Act.
17. I have gone though the laid down in a decision reported in AIR 2016 SC 4038. This decision is relied on by advocate for the defendant. In the above decision Hon`ble Supreme Court has held as Agreement being unregistered tenancy has to be deemed as monthly tenancy-
Terminable as per Section 106-Clause 6 in said agreement dealing with termination of 20 Sc.No.1456/2012 SCCH-23 tenancy only in case of non payment of rent for three consecutive months.
But in the case on hand, the question arose before us whether quit notice is properly served on the defendant or not. Therefore the law laid down in the above decision cited by the advocate for the defendant is not applicable to case on hand. In my opinion the quit notice got issued by the plaintiff is valid one and served properly on the defendants. Therefore the argument canvassed by advocate for the defendant is not sustainable. Hence I answered point No.1, 2 and 5 accordingly.
18. Point No.3:- Again we shall turn our attention on Ex- P22 along with evidence of DW-1. The Ex-P22 and evidence of DW-1 reveals that they have not paying the rent from the date of Ex-P1 of O.S.10832/93. The defendants have pleaded in their pleading as they have been occupying the suit schedule premises as their own from the past several years. But they do not produced any title deeds where as the plaintiff has produced numerous documents to prove their ownership. Here we shall 21 Sc.No.1456/2012 SCCH-23 turn our attenitn on a decision reported in (2012) 8 SC case 584. The Hon`ble highest judiciary of this land has held in the above decision as `` the tenant in possession of the demised premises, estopped from questioning landlord's title so long as tenant does not surrender possession to landlord. `` In the case on hand, the plaintiffs have proved that they are the owners of the entire property which was standing in the name of Manikyamma, the suit schedule property is a part and parcel of this property. The father of DW-1 had admitting in Ex-P22 as he was staying in the suit schedule property as a tenant since 1955. Here we shall turn our attention on a decision reported in (2004) 6 SC case 325. It has been held in the above decision as ``under section 58 of the Evidence Act admitted facts need not be proved``. In the case on hand, the father of DW-1 has clearly admitted in Ex-P22 as he was a tenant of the suit schedule property. The father of the DW-1 further stated in Ex-P22 as he is not paying the rent from the date of Ex-P1 of his suit. It goes to shows that the defendants are chronic defaulters in paying the rent. The evidence of PW-1 and pleadings of the plaintiffs are 22 Sc.No.1456/2012 SCCH-23 sufficient to prove that the defendants are chronic defaulters in paying the monthly rent. Therefore the deceased plaintiff has got issued quit notice under section 106 of TP Act. In my onion the defendants are liable to pay arrears of the rent as claimed by the pontiffs. With these observations, I answered point No.3 accordingly.
19. Point No.4:- The plaintiffs have claimed mesne profit alleging that inspite of serving the quit notice, the defendants have not delivered the vacant possession of suit schedule property and continued their stay in the said schedule property. Therefore they are liable to pay mesne profit. In my opinion the plaintiffs have every right to claim mesne profit from the defendants for not delivering the vacant possession of the suit schedule property, inspite of serving the quit notice properly. Therefore the plaintiffs are at liberty to claim mesne profit by filing separate application under order 20 Rule 12 of CPC. Hence I answered point No.4 accordingly.
23 Sc.No.1456/2012
SCCH-23
20. Point No.6:- The plaintiffs have proved that they are the owner of the property bearing No.16, old No.25 by virtue of decree obtained from Hon`ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA No.309/1990. The Ex-P2 to 5 speaks that they have obtained the registered sale deed from court by filing the EP No.551/1994. Ex-P6 to 9 speaks that the court has issued delivery warrant. The court officials i.e., bailiff have executed the delivery warrant, draw the mahazar and obtained the receipt from the owner of the property. The available records speaks that deceased plaintiff has received symbolic possession of his purchased property and he became the owner of the suit schedule property. He has acquired all rights under registered sale deed in respect of his purchased property. He became the landlord to the tenants who are residing in his purchased property including the defendants. Therefore the plaintiffs have proved jural relationship of landlord and tenant. The decision relied on by advocate for the defendant reported in AIR 2016 SC 4038 would helping to the plaintiff instead of helping to the defendants. The available records speaks that the plaintiff has properly issued quit notice. It is valid 24 Sc.No.1456/2012 SCCH-23 notice. This notice has been properly served as required Under Section 106 of TP Act i.e., by sending quit notice through RPAD as well as by affixing the quit notice on the main door of the shop of the defendants in which they are doing their business daily. The plaintiffs have took photos with CDs to show that quit notice is properly served on the defendants by affixing the same on the main door of the shop of suit schedule property. Therefore the defendants and claiming any persons under them have to deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property and liable to pay arrears of rent as claimed by the plaintiffs. Hence I answered this point accordingly.
21. Point No.7:-In view of the discussions made supra, I proceed to pass the following:
-: ORDER :-
The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with cost. The defendants are directed to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises within three months from the date of this order and liable to pay arrears of rent of Rs.13,050/- for a period from 01-09-2009 to 01-02-2012.25 Sc.No.1456/2012
SCCH-23 The plaintiff is at liberty to claim mesne profit by filing separate application as required under order 20 Rule 12 of CPC.
Draw the decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof is corrected and then pronounced by me th in the Open Court on this the 27 day of April 2017) (N.N.YALAVATTI) XXI ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BANGALORE.
SCHEDULE Shop premises measuring East to west 15` north to south : 13` approximately, in the ground floor of property No.16, old No.25, Ranoji Rao lane, Kalasipalyam, Bengaluru-560 002, bounded on the :
East by: portion of same property bearing No.16 old No.25 West by: Ranoji Rao lane North by: passage and staircase in the same property South by: Private property 26 Sc.No.1456/2012 SCCH-23 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF PW-1: A.Prabhakar LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P-1: Power-of-attorney
Ex.P-2: RFA 309/1990 judgment
Ex.P-3: RFA 309/1990 judgment decree
Ex.P-4: Execution No.551/1994 ordersheet
Ex.P-5: Sale deed dated 12-6-2000
Ex.P-6: Delivery warrant
Ex.P-7: Mahazar
Ex.P-8: Bailiff report
Ex.P-9: Receipt
Ex.P-10: Katha extract
Ex.P-11: Katha receipt
Ex.P-12: Legal Notice
Ex.P-13: Postal receipt
Ex.P-14: Postal cover
Ex.P-15: Postal cover
27 Sc.No.1456/2012
SCCH-23
Ex.P-16: O.S.10832/1993 judgment
Ex.P-17: O.S.10832/1993 decree
Ex.P-18: Two photos and CD
Ex.P-19: Plaint of O.S.No.10832/1993
Ex.P-20: W.S. of O.S.No.10832/1993
Ex.P-21: Discharge summary and medical records Ex.P-22: Certified copy of deposition of deceased defendant in O.S.No.10832/1993 Ex.P-22(a): Particular sentence appeared at page No.9 of Ex-P22.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT DW-1: Mr.Syed Zulfiqar LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT: NIL (N.N.YALAVATTI) XXI ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BANGALORE.