Bangalore District Court
And The vs The Dhr Has Filed This Ep Alleging on 24 June, 2016
Dt.24.06.2016
DHR-VBS
JDR1-MLS
JDR2-VA
For orders
Order on IA No.2 to 5
IA No.2 is filed by the DHRs U/Sec.151
of CPC for a direction to ACP and
Jurisdictional police to provide assistance
to court bailiff to execute the delivery
warrant.
IA No.3 is filed by the DHRs U/o 21
rule 35 of CPC for reissuing of deliver
warrant with direction to the bailiff to
break open the locks of the premises.
IA No.4 is filed by the JDRs U/o 21 rule
36 r/w 151 of CPC to recall order dated
20.02.2016.
IA No.5 is filed by the JDRs U/o 21 rule
11(e) of CPC for a direction to the DHRs to
provide correct and certified accounts for
the payment received by them.
On 20.02.2016, this court has issued
delivery warrant with police help and with
direction to break open the locks.
Objections are filed to the said IAs by
the respective parties.
Heard both sides and perused records.
SCCH-14 2 Ex.No.63/2015
Since, these IAs are interlinked, I have
taken them together for disposal by a
common order.
This EP is emerged out of compromise
decree in SC No.1446/2011. The parties
have got the matter compromised in
following terms:
2) The defendants confirm that M/s.
Sri.Venkateswara Clearing and
Forwarding Services is a tenant in
occupation of the suit schedule
property under the plaintiffs and that
there is a jural relationship of
landlord and tenant between the
plaintiffs and the defendants
respectively,
3) In the Agreement to lease, the
name of the tenant in respect of
schedule premises in indicated as
Essvee Cargo. The defendants submit
that it is a sister concern of M/s. Sri.
Venkateswara Clearing and
Forwarding Services. And M/s.
Sri.Venkateswara Clearing and
Forwarding Services is a tenant in
occupation of the schedule property
under the plaintiffs,
4) The plaintiffs have agreed to
permit the defendants in the above
case to continue as Lessees for a
period of ten years commencing from
1.04.2011 to 31.03.2021 subject to
enhancement of 25% increase on the
existing rent for the first fire years
and by another 25% increase on the
existing rent for the next five years,
effective from 01.04.2016.
5) The defendants have agreed to
vacate and deliver vacant possession
of the schedule premises
unconditionally to the plaintiffs on
expiry of the lease period i.e. on
31.03.2021.
SCCH-14 3 Ex.No.63/2015
6) The defendants have agreed to
pay the rents regularly and
interruptedly without committing any
default and that if the rentals for
three consecutive months are not paid
and withheld by the defendants, the
plaintiffs are entitled to execute the
compromise decree and seek
possession of the premises.
7) In the event of default in payment
of arrears as agreed under this
compromise, the plaintiffs are entitled
to seek determination of lease and
take possession of the premises by
executing the compromise decree.
8) The defendants have agreed to
discharge the outstanding arrears of
rentals by payment Rs.3,825/-(Rupees
three thousand eight hundred and
twenty five only) per month. The said
amount of Rs.3,825/- will be given as
follows:
a) Rs.875/- by way of cheque
in favour of Sri Vinay B.R.
represented by his GPA holder
Sri B.V.Ramesh.
b) Rs.875/- by way of cheque
in favour of Ms. B.K.Shruthi
represented by her GPA holder
Smt. B.K.Praveena.
c) Rs.2,075/- by way of cheque
in favour of Sri B.M. Pavan.
In the above terms, the defendants
will celar the accumulated arrears
of Rs.91,800/- over of period of two
years but not later than September
2013.
9) The defendants have agreed to
pay the rentals in a sum of Rs.3,187/-
per month by issuing separate cheques
as follows for the use and occupation
of the schedule property as tenants.
a) Rs.729/- in the name of
Sri. B.R. Vinay represented by
SCCH-14 4 Ex.No.63/2015
his GPA holder Sri
B.V.Ramesh.
b) Rs.729/- in the name of
Ms. B.K.Shruthi represented
by her GPA holder Smt. B.K.
Praveena.
c) Rs.1,729/- in the name
of Sri. B.M.Pavan.
10) The defendants have undertaken
not to sublet or under-let or create
third party rights in respect of the
schedule property in occupation of the
defendants.
The DHR has filed this EP alleging
that the JDRs have failed to pay arrears of
rent and thereby committed breach of
specific condition mentioned in
compromise petition. Hence, the DHR has
come up with this EP for execution of the
decree dated.01.08.2011. He has filed IA
no.2 and 3 for orders as stated above.
The JDRs have filed objections denying
the grounds urged by the DHRs as false.
They have contended that entire arrears of
rent is paid and EP is un executable. They
have sought for furnishing accounts for
the amount received by the DHRs. In view
of rival contention, this court has passed
order dated.20.07.2015 in following terms:
The JDR hereby directed to
adduce evidence on his
contention taken in his
objection to decide the issue
which is on record by
12.08.2015.
The JDRs were required to produce
evidence regarding payment of amount to
the DHRs. But, the JDRs have not
complied the said order and have not
SCCH-14 5 Ex.No.63/2015
adduced any evidence regarding payment
of arrears of rent. In the absence of
evidence, adverse inference shall have to
be drawn against the JDRs that the JDRs
have not paid the amount to the DHRs as
per compromise decree. Even after filing of
this EP, they have not paid any amount to
the DHRs. Hence the contention of the
JDRs regarding payment of amount is
liable to be rejected. Since, the JDRs have
not paid the arrears of rent, the DHRs are
entitled to seek for possession of the
property. They ought to have maintained
accounts regarding payment. For which
DHRs cannot be directed to produce
accounts.
The records reveal that delivery
warrant is not executed. The property is
locked. Police help is required to execute
the warrant. Hence, I pass following:
ORDER
IA No.2 and 3 filed by the DHRs are allowed.
Issue delivery warrant as prayed by DHRs with direction to concerned police to assist the bailiff in executing delivery warrant. The bailiff is authorized to break open the locks of the schedule premises in executing the warrant.
IA No.4 and 5 filed by the JDRs are dismissed.
For report by:
16thAddl.,Judge SCCH-14 6 Ex.No.63/2015