Bangalore District Court
Accompanied By His Family Members vs To Take The Schedule Premises On Lease On ... on 3 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SMALL CAUSES, AT BANGALORE
(SCCH-7)
Dated this, the 3rd day of February, 2016.
Present : SMT. INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR
B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl.), L.L.M.,
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
S.C.No.428/2015
Sri.C. Channappa, : .....PLAINTIFF
S/o Late Chikkananjaiah,
Aged about 60 years,
No.2, 2nd Cross,
Near Muneshwara Temple,
Nagashettihalli,
Sanjaynagar,
Bangalore-64.
(By Sri.Prabhakar. L. Shetty,
Adv.,)
V/s
M/s. Jyothi.M., : .....DEFENDANT
D/o M.C.Srirama,
Aged about 45 years,
"Prarthana"
No.109/1, Ashwath Nagar,
Coconut Garden,
RMV 2nd Stage Extension,
Bangalore-560 094.
Also at:
State Bank of India,
Trade Centre Building,
SCH-7 2 S.C.No.428/2015
No.29/4, Race Course Road,
Bangalore-560 001.
(By Sri.Lohit Anand. B.G.,
Adv.,)
1. Date of Institution : 22.04.2015
2. Nature of Suit : Recovery of Money
3. Date of Evidence : 31.07.2016
4. Date of Judgment : 03.02.2016
5. Total duration : YEAR/S MONTH/S DAYS
00 09 12
(INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR)
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM,
Court of Small causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff has filed this suit as against the Defendant for recovery of Rupees 91,125/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a., from the date of filing of this suit till its realization and costs.
2. The brief averments of the Plaintiff's case are as follows;
a) The Defendant is the owner of House Property bearing No.109/1, situated at Ashwath Nagar, Coconut Garden, RMV 2nd Stage Extension, Bangalore-560 094.
SCH-7 3 S.C.No.428/2015
b) The Defendant had placed an advertisement in OLX and CHECK TOLET to let-out the ground floor residential premises of the said property, which is referred to as the Schedule Premises.
c) Response to said advertisement placed by the Defendant, he has approached the Defendant to take the schedule premises on lease on monthly rent.
d) By the mutual understanding between the Defendant and him, the Defendant has agreed to let-out the schedule premises to him on monthly rent a sum of Rupees 17,000/- and further fixed a sum of Rupees 1,50,000/- as refundable security deposit for the lease.
e) Accordingly, on 04.03.2015, he has paid a sum of Rupees 50,000/- to the Defendant towards part payment of the security deposit for lease of schedule premises. The Defendant has also issued a receipt in her own handwriting for having received the said sum of Rupees 50,000/- as advance from him.
f) After receipt of the said amount, the Defendant has confirmed to let-out the schedule premises to him with effect from 23.03.2015 and accordingly, he has intimated to his SCH-7 4 S.C.No.428/2015 present land lord that, he would vacate the present rented premises on or before 23.03.2015.
g) As he has agreed to vacate the present rented remises, his landlord also committed to let-out the said premises to other tenant.
h) After approval of the draft rental agreement on 22.03.2015, when he went to the Defendant and requested her to handover the schedule premises to him, by offering to pay the remaining balance of security deposit by cash, to his utter shock and surprise, the Defendant has refused to acknowledge the balance security deposit and also refused to let-out the schedule premises to him.
i) However, when he requested the Defendant to refund the advance amount of Rupees 50,000/-, the Defendant has refused to repay the same. On the other hand, the Defendant has threatened to him with dire consequences that, if he comes to her house for demanding to repay the said amount, he will be attached by her goonda associates and the Defendant has also stated to him that, she knows all power full politicians, IPS and IAS Officers and for any reason, he cannot take back the advance amount from her and declared that, she is not going to repay the said advance amount to him and further declared that, she will see how he will get back the said amount.
SCH-7 5 S.C.No.428/2015
j) Thereafter, he came to know through people from the locality of the schedule premises that, it is modus operendi of the Defendant to cheat innocent people by taking advance amount from them and thereafter, refusing to let-out the premises to them and he is also one of them.
k) On the assurance of the Defendant that, she would let-out the schedule premises to him, he has agreed to vacate his present rented premises to his landlord on or before 23.03.2015 and due to the Defendant refusal to let-out of the schedule premises, he could not vacate his present rented premises in time and his present landlord is pressurizing on him to vacate the present rented premises and thereby, the Defendant has caused mental agony to him.
l) By taking advance amount of Rupees 50,000/- from him on the guise of letting out the schedule premises to him, thereafter, the Defendant refusing to handover the schedule premises to him, refusing to repay the advance amount and threatening to him is an act of cheating, criminal breach of trust and criminal intimidation and therefore, on 22.03.2015, he has approached the Sadashivanagar Police to take necessary action as against the Defendant and the Police have issued an acknowledgment to receive the complaint. However the Police have not taken any action as against the Defendant.
SCH-7 6 S.C.No.428/2015
m) In addition to repayment of Rupees 50,000/-, the Defendant is also liable to pay a sum of Rupees 35,000/- to him as damages for mental agony and monitory loss that is caused to him due to the said act of the Defendant.
n) In the circumstances, by the legal notice dated 26.03.2015 sent by RPAD, called upon the Defendant to repay the said sum of Rupees 50,000/- damages with 18% interest per annum, from the date of 04.03.2015 to till the date of realization of the amount within 7 days from the date of receipt of this notice, failing which, he will approach the Court of law for recovery of the said amount with further interest, at the cost and consequences of Defendant.
o) Despite of the receipt of the notice regarding demand for payment, the Defendant has failed and neglected to pay the same. On the other hand, the Defendant has sent an untenable reply to the said notice.
p) The Defendant is due and liable to pay the following amount to him.
1. Advance Security Deposit Rs. 50,000/-
2. 18% interest per annum from the date 04.03.2015 to till 22.03.2015 Rs. 1,125/-
3. Mental Agony and damages Rs. 35,000/-
4. Legal Notice Charges Rs. 5,000/-
_______________
Total Rs. 91,125/-
________________
SCH-7 7 S.C.No.428/2015
q) There is no other suit filed on the same cause of
action as against the Defendant. Hence, pleading cause of action, the Plaintiff has filed this suit.
3. In response to the suit summons, the Defendant has appeared before this Court through her Learned Counsel. But, initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the Defendant had not filed the written statement. Later, as per the Order dated 27.07.2015 passed on I.A.No.I, the written statement filed by the Defendant is taken on file.
4. The Defendant inter-alia denying the entire case of the Petitioner, has further contended as follows;
a) The Plaintiff has not valued the subject-matter of the suit property and has failed to pay appropriate Court fee. The Plaintiff has failed to show proper cause of action.
b) She is the absolute owner of the property bearing No.109/1, Ashwanath Nagar, Coconut Garden, R.M.V, 2nd Stage, Bangalore-560 094. With an intention to let-out the residential premises on monthly rent, she placed an advertisement, in 99 Acres.Com and other related web sites to find prospective tenants, in the month of January 2015.
c) She received numerous quarries from prospective tenants and one of such quarry was on behalf of the Plaintiff by SCH-7 8 S.C.No.428/2015 his son one Mr.Harish and subsequently, on 24.01.2015, the Plaintiff accompanied by his family members, approached her and requested her to let-out the schedule premises on monthly rent.
d) After due negotiations, it was mutually agreed by the Plaintiff and her that, the premises would be let-out to the Plaintiff on monthly rent of Rupees 18,000/- and refundable security deposit of Rupees 1,80,000/- (i.e., Ten months advance rents) on the same day, i.e., 24.01.2015 and she also sought further time to make payment of the arrears of security deposit and take possession of the schedule premises. The Plaintiff looking at the age of her and on humanitarian grounds, conceded to the request of the Plaintiff and it was mutually agreed that, the Plaintiff would pay an amount of Rupees 45,000/- on the same day, i.e., 04.03.2015 and pay the balance amount of Rupees 1,30,000/- within 7 days from 04.03.2015, failing which, she would forfeit an amount of Rupees 50,000/-, as arrears of rent and damages caused to her for keeping the premises vacant and losing prospective tenants, who were told that, the Plaintiff had been let-out the property.
e) The electricity bills clearly indicate that, she has kept the premises vacant relying on the oral mutual agreement between the Plaintiff and her.
SCH-7 9 S.C.No.428/2015
f) On 24.03.2015, the son of the Plaintiff Mr.Haish
has visited the working place of her, i.e., State Bank of India, Trade Center Building, Race Course Road, Bangalore-560 001 and tried to obstruct her from carrying out her Official duty and also made certain frivolous acquisition to the collogues of her and she reserves liberty to initiate appropriate action for the same.
g) The Plaintiff inspite of their being an oral agreement, has failed to perform his part of the contract and on the other side filed to noted suit for recovery of money rather than opting for specific performance of agreement.
h) By non-performance of the part of agreement by the Plaintiff, she has suffered substantial loss. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
5. In order to prove his case, the Plaintiff himself has been examined as P.W.1 by filing an affidavit as his examination-in-chief and has placed reliance upon Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. On the other hand, the Defendant herself has been examined as D.W.1 by filing an affidavit as her examination-in- chief and has placed reliance upon Ex.D.1.
6. Heard the arguments.
7. Now, the Points that arise for my consideration are as follows;
SCH-7 10 S.C.No.428/2015 POINTS
1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a sum of Rupees 91,125/-
with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till its realization with costs from the Defendant as prayed for?
2. What Order?
8. My answers to the above Points are as follows;
Point No.1 : Partly in the Affirmative, Point No.2 : As per final Order, for the following;
REASONS
9. POINT NO.1 :- The Plaintiff has filed this suit as against the Defendant for recovery of Rupees 91,125/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a., from the date of filing of this suit till its realization and costs.
10. The P.W.1, who is the Plaintiff, has stated in his examination-in-chief that, the Defendant is the owner of House Property bearing No.109/1, situated at Ashwath Nagar, Coconut Garden, RMV 2nd Stage Extension, Bangalore-560 094 and she had placed an advertisement in OLX and Check to let- out the Ground Floor residential premises of the said property.
SCH-7 11 S.C.No.428/2015 He has further stated that, in response to the said
advertisement placed by the Defendant, he had approached the Defendant to take the schedule premises on lease on a monthly rent and by mutual understanding between the Defendant and him, the Defendant has agreed to let-out the Schedule Premises to him on monthly rent a sum of Rupees 17,000/- and further fixed a sum of Rupees 1,50,000/- as refundable security deposit for the lease. He has further stated that, on 04.03.2015, he has paid a sum of Rupees 50,000/- to the Defendant towards part payment of the security deposit for lease of Schedule Premises and the Defendant has also issued a receipt in her own handwriting for having received the said sum of Rupees 50,000/- as advance from him.
11. To corroborate his oral version, the Plaintiff has produced Ex.P.1 Copy of Advertisement published in OLX, Ex.P.2 Copy of Advertisement published in Check To-let and Ex.P.5 Receipt dated 04.03.2015 issued by the Defendant.
12. The P.W.1 in his cross-examination has stated that, after seeing OLX.com advertisement, he has contacted the Defendant through his own mobile phone and also his son Harish contacted the Defendant through his mobile phone No.9844542474 and the entire conversation, which was taken place in between the Defendant and his son was video recording through his son Harish.
SCH-7 12 S.C.No.428/2015
13. The D.W.1, who is the Defendant has stated in her examination-in-chief that, she is the absolute owner of the House Property bearing No.109/1, situated at Ashwath Nagar, Coconut Garden, RMV 2nd Stage Extension, Bangalore-560 094 and she had placed advertisement in OLX and check to let-out the Ground Floor of the residential premise and the Plaintiff approached her on January 24th 2015, requesting her to permit him to take the Schedule Premises on a monthly rental basis. She has further stated that, after due negotiations between both of them, it was agreed that, the premises would be let-out to the Plaintiff on monthly rent of Rupees 18,000/- and refundable Security Deposit of Rupees 1,80,000/-, i.e., 10 months advance rent. She has further stated that, it was also agreed that, the entire Security Deposit would be paid before handing over possession of the premises. She has further stated that, the Plaintiff sought a week's time to make arrangements for payment of the Security Deposit, which has been agreed by both of them. She has further stated that, the Plaintiff paid an amount of Rupees 5,000/- as token advance. She has further stated that, on 04.03.2015, after a lapse of nearly one and half month, the Plaintiff approached her at her residence and pleaded with her that, he had severe health related problems and one of his close relative had expired and hence, he was not in a position to abide by the terms of the oral agreement. She has further stated that, by looking at the age and health of the Plaintiff, on humanitarian grounds, she conceded to his request and it was mutually agreed that, the amount of Rupees 45,000/- would be paid on the same day SCH-7 13 S.C.No.428/2015 and balance amount of Rupees 1,30,000/- would be paid within seven days, i.e., 11.03.2015, failing which, the oral agreement would stands automatically cancelled and the said amount of Rupees 5,000/- + Rupees 45,000/-, in total Rupees 50,000/- would be forfeited, as arrears of rent and damages caused to her for keeping the premises vacant and losing prospective tenants, who have been told that, the premises was let-out to the Plaintiff.
14. The D.W.1, who is the Defendant in her cross- examination, has further clearly stated that, she has received Rupees 50,000/- from the Plaintiff and has issued Ex.P.5 Receipt. She has further clearly stated that, no written agreement was taken place in between her and the Plaintiff in respect of the said alleged lease.
15. From the said material evidence, i.e., oral version of P.W.1 and D.W.1 as well as the contents of Ex.P.1, Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.5, it is clearly proved that, the Defendant is an owner of house property bearing No.109/1, situated at Ashwath Nagar, Coconut Garden, RMV 2nd Stage Extension, Bangalore and she had placed an advertisement in OLX and Check to let-out the premises of the property and in response to the said advertisement placed by the Defendant, the Plaintiff had approached the Defendant to take the Schedule Premises on lease on monthly rent and on mutual understanding were taken place in between the Plaintiff and Defendant in respect of the said lease and on 04.03.2015, the Plaintiff has paid a sum SCH-7 14 S.C.No.428/2015 of Rupees 50,000/- to the Defendant as advance for the said house.
16. The P.W.1 has stated that, after receipt of the said amount, the Defendant has confirmed to let-out the Schedule Premises to him with effect from 23.03.2015 and accordingly, he has intimated to his present land lord that, he would vacate the present rented premises on or before 23.03.2015. He has further stated that, as he has agreed to vacate the present rented premises, his landlord also committed to let-out the said premises to other tenant. He has further stated that, after approval of the draft rental agreement on 22.03.2015, when he went to the Defendant and requested her to hand over the Schedule Premises to him by offering to pay the remaining balance of security deposit by cash, to his utter shock and surprise, the Defendant has refused to acknowledge the balance security deposit and also refused to let-out the Schedule Premises to him. He has further stated that, when he requested the Defendant to refund the advance amount of Rupees 50,000/-, the Defendant has refused to repay the same. He has further stated that, the Defendant has threatened to him with dire consequences that, if he comes to her house for demanding to repay the said amount, he will be attacked by her goonda associates. He has further stated that, the Defendant has also stated to him that, she knows all powerful politicians, IPS and IAS Officers and for any reason, he cannot take back the advance amount from her and SCH-7 15 S.C.No.428/2015 declared that, she is not going to repay the said advance amount to him and she further declared that, she will see how he will get back the said amount. He has further stated that, as he has agreed to vacate the present rented premises, his landlord also committed to let-out the said premises to other tenant. He has further stated that, thereafter, he came to know through people from the locality of the Schedule Premises that, it is modus operendi of the Defendant to cheat innocent people by taking advance amount from them and thereafter, refusing to let-out the premises to them and he is also one of them. He has further stated that, by taking advance amount of Rupees 50,000/- from him on the guise of letting out the Schedule Premises to him and thereafter, refusing to handover the Schedule Premises to him, refusing to repay the advance amount and threatening to him, is an act of cheating, criminal breach of trust and criminal intimidation and therefore, on 22.03.2015, he has approached the Sadashivanagar Police to take necessary action as against the Defendant and the Police have issued an acknowledgment for receiving the complaint. He has further stated that, the Police have not taken any action as against the Defendant. He has further stated that, in addition to repayment of Rupees 50,000/-, the Defendant is also liable to pay a sum of Rupees 35,000/- to him as damages for mental agony and monitory loss that is caused to him due to the said act of Defendant. He has further stated that, in the circumstances above, by the legal notice dated 26.03.2015 sent by RPAD, called upon the Defendant to repay the said sum of Rupees 50,000/- damages with 18% interest per annum, from SCH-7 16 S.C.No.428/2015 the date of 04.03.2015 to till the date of realization of the amount, within seven days from the date of receipt of this notice, failing which, he will approach the Court of law for recovery of the said amount with further interest at the cost and consequences of the Defendant. He has further stated that, despite of the receipt of the notice regarding demand for payment, the Defendant has failed and neglected to pay the same and on the other hand, the Defendant has sent an untenable reply to the said notice. He has further stated that, the Defendant is due and liable to pay the amount, i.e., advance security deposit of Rupees 50,000/- at the rate of 18% per annum from 04.03.2015 to 22.03.2015, which is Rupees 1,125/-, mental agony and damages Rupees 35,000/- and legal notice charges of Rupees 5,000/-, in total, Rupees 91,125/-.
17. On the other hand, the D.W.1 has stated in her examination-in-chief that, on the same day, she has handed over the keys of the Schedule Premises to facilitate the Plaintiff to clean the premises to make it suitable for residential use and he had promised to occupy the premises within a week's time. She has further stated that, the Plaintiff approached her and returned the keys back to her on 05.03.2015 stating that, he would take the key on 11.03.2015. She has further stated that, on 22.03.2015, the Plaintiff sought refund of the advance amount, to which, she disagreed to the same and the Plaintiff, who was accompanied by his family members used abusive SCH-7 17 S.C.No.428/2015 language as against her and even physically threatened her of dire consequences. She has further stated that, the Plaintiff's son one Mr.Harish, who claimed to be a media person used filthy language as against her and also boosted about the bringing the entire episode before the media and he would see that, he would cough up of Rupees 5,00,000/- as damages. She has further stated that, only when her relative intervened by calling of the local Police, the Plaintiff along with his family members vacated the residential premises of her relative. She has further stated that, subsequently the Plaintiff has approached the Sadashivanagar Police Station and lodged a complaint making frivolous and malicious allegations as against her. She has further stated that, on 24.03.2015, the Plaintiff's son Mr. Harish with active instructions from the Plaintiff has come to her working place, viz., State Bank of India, Trade Centre Building, No.29/4, Race Course Road, Bengaluru-560 001 and tried to obstruct her from performing her official duty. She has further stated that, he has also tried to spread frivolous and malicious allegations with an intention to damage her reputation and this act of Plaintiff's son has caused severe embarrassment to her and her reputation has defamed by such act. She has further stated that, she has kept the Schedule Premises vacant relying on the words of the Plaintiff as per the oral agreement between her and the Plaintiff and she has suffered severe financial losses.
SCH-7 18 S.C.No.428/2015
18. To consider her defence, the Defendant has produced Ex.D.1 Electricity Bills 3 in numbers, which are dated 09.01.2015, 09.02.2015 and 09.03.2015, respectively.
19. But, the said Ex.D.1 Electricity Bills are relating prior to the date of entering into the lease, as, as per the admission made by the Defendant as well as the contents of Ex.P.5 Receipt dated 04.03.2015, the Defendant has received an advance amount of Rupees 50,000/- from the Plaintiff in respect of her premises, which agreed to let-out to the Plaintiff. Further, the D.W.1 in her cross-examination has clearly admitted that, she has not produced the electricity bills relating to after 09.03.2015. Further, though it is a specific defence taken by the Defendant that, she consented the Plaintiff to occupy the premises by the Plaintiff on or before 11.03.2015, to consider the same, no acceptable material evidence is produced by the Defendant. She has further clearly stated in her cross-examination that, no rental agreement was taken place in between her and the Plaintiff in respect of the said alleged lease dated 11.03.2015 and the said date, i.e., 11.03.2015 is not mentioned in Ex.P.5 Receipt. Therefore, the defence taken by the Defendant that, the Plaintiff has agreed to occupy the premises on 11.03.2015 cannot be believed and accept as not proved.
20. On the other hand, the Plaintiff has produced Ex.P.3 Police Receipt, Ex.P.4 Endorsement dated 22.03.2015 issued by the Police, Ex.P.6 Office Copy of Legal Notice dated SCH-7 19 S.C.No.428/2015 26.03.2015 and Ex.P.7 Reply dated 04.04.2015, which clearly disclosed that, after receipt of the said admitted advance amount of Rupees 50,000/-, the Defendant has confirmed to let-out the premises to the Plaintiff with effect from 23.03.2015, but, when the Plaintiff has approached the Defendant, the Defendant has refused to let-out the premises to the Plaintiff by accepting the balance security deposit and also refused to refund the admitted advance amount of Rupees 50,000/- and as such, the matter was went to the Police and it was not encouraged by the Police on the ground that, it is a civil dispute and thereafter, the Plaintiff had issued Ex.P.6 Legal Notice to the Defendant calling upon her to repay a sum of Rupees 50,000/-, which is an advance amount and Rupees 1,00,000/- towards damages with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 04.03.2015 till its realization within 7 days from the date of receipt of the said notice and the Defendant had issued Ex.P.7 Reply to the said notice by taking the same defence. Except the production of Ex.D.1 Electricity Bills, that too, before 04.03.2015, the Defendant has not produced any authenticate material documents to show that, the said advance amount of Rupees 50,000/- is forfeited as per agreement as arrears of rent and damages caused to her for keeping the premises vacant and losing prospective tenants, who have been told that, the premises was let-out to the Plaintiff. It is pertinent to note here that, the D.W.1 in her cross-examination has stated that, even though the tenant has already occupied the suit schedule property after the said advertisement, she has not yet deleted the said advertisement SCH-7 20 S.C.No.428/2015 and the new tenant has occupied the premises in the month of April 2015. From this, it appears that, though another tenant is occupied the said premises in the month of April 2015 itself, still the Defendant has not deleted the said advertisement made in OLX and Check To-let. This implies that, the intention of the Defendant is only to take the advance amount from the tenants and refused to let-out the premises to the tenants by cheating them. She has further stated that, since the Plaintiff has not paid the entire advance amount, she has not handed over the key of the suit schedule property to the Plaintiff. The said evidence of D.W.1 is quite contrary to her own version stated by her in the examination-in-chief and also cross- examination as well as the contents of Ex.P.5 Receipt issued by her in favour of the Plaintiff. She has further stated that, on the same day itself, she had handed over the key of the premises to the Plaintiff for cleaning purpose and on the same day itself, she has received the said key from the Plaintiff. From the said evidence, it further appears that, only for cleaning purpose, the key of the premises was handed over to the Plaintiff by the Defendant and thereafter, it was returned to the Defendant by the Plaintiff. In this regard, the P.W.1 has also clearly stated in his cross-examination that, he had cleaned the schedule premises through 4 workers by spending Rupees 2,000/-. From the said material evidence, it is made crystal clear that, on 04.03.2015, when the Plaintiff had paid advance amount of Rupees 50,000/- to the Defendant, the Defendant had handed over the key of the premises to the Defendant and thereafter, the Plaintiff never occupied or received the key of SCH-7 21 S.C.No.428/2015 the premises from the Defendant in pursuance of advance amount of Rupees 50,000/-. In this regard, the P.W.1 has further clearly stated that, on 04.03.2015, they have received the key from the Defendant after making advance amount of Rupees 50,000/- and they have agreed to pay balance amount on 22.03.2015. Since admittedly, the Plaintiff has not paid the balance advance amount to the Defendant, the question of occupying the said premises of the Defendant by the Plaintiff did not arise at all. Further, the Defendant has not adduced any acceptable material evidence to consider her defence in respect of forfeiture of the said advance amount of Rupees 50,000/-.
21. From the above said material evidence, it is clearly proved that, the Plaintiff has paid a sum of Rupees 50,000/- to the Defendant on 04.03.2015 towards advance security deposit. Hence, the Defendant is liable to pay the said amount of Rupees 50,000/- to the Plaintiff.
22. The Plaintiff has claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the said advance security deposit of Rupees 50,000/- at the rate of 18% per annum from 04.03.2015 to 22.03.2015 which is of Rupees 1,125/- and legal notice charges of Rupees 5,000/- from the Defendant.
23. The Plaintiff has produced Ex.P.6 Office Copy of Legal Notice dated 26.03.2015 and Ex.P.7 Reply dated SCH-7 22 S.C.No.428/2015 04.04.2015 issued by the Defendant to the said Ex.P.6 Legal Notice.
24. Though the said amount of Rupees 50,000/- towards advance security deposit, by receiving the same, the Defendant has not let-out her premises to the Plaintiff and kept the said amount till today without refund it to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the claim of interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the said advance security deposit of Rupees 50,000/- from 04.03.2015 to 22.03.2015, which is of Rupees 1,125/-, is legal and reasonable one. Hence, the Plaintiff is entitled for the said amount of Rupees 1,125/- towards interest.
25. The very issuance of Ex.P.6 Legal Notice clearly disclosed that, prior to filing of the present suit, the Plaintiff has made prompt efforts for recovery of the said advance security deposit amount of Rupees 50,000/- from the Defendant and without complying his admission made in Ex.P.6 Legal Notice, the Defendant has replied Ex.P.7 Reply notice and also dragged the Plaintiff to file the present suit for recovery of the said advance security deposit amount of Rupees 50,000/-. As this Court has already observed that, the D.W.1, who is the Defendant has clearly admitted in her cross- examination that, she has received the said advance security deposit of Rupees 50,000/- from the Plaintiff by executing Ex.P.5 Receipt. Hence, the Plaintiff is entitled for legal notice charges from the Defendant. But, the claim of Rupees 5,000/-
SCH-7 23 S.C.No.428/2015 towards legal charges by the Plaintiff from the Defendant is an exorbitant and unreasonable. This Court feels that, it is just, proper and necessary to award a sum of Rupees 1,000/- towards legal notice charges, which is reasonable and acceptable one. Hence, the Plaintiff is entitled for a sum of Rupees 1,000/- towards legal notice charges from the Defendant.
26. The Plaintiff has also claimed a sum of Rupees 35,000/- for mental agony and damages. But, to consider the same, except his oral version, the Plaintiff has not adduced any other acceptable material evidence. Since, sufficient acceptable material evidence is not adduce by the Plaintiff to consider the claim of mental agony and damages of Rupees 35,000/-, the Plaintiff is not entitled for the same as not proved.
27. Since the Defendant has dragged the Plaintiff to file the present suit as against her claiming admitted advance security deposit amount of Rupees 50,000/- inspite of issuance of legal notice, it is just, proper and necessary to award the costs of the present suit in favour of the Plaintiff.
28. In view of the above said reasons, this Court has come to the conclusion that, the Plaintiff is entitled for a sum of Rupees 50,000/- towards advance security deposit, interest amount of Rupees 1,125/- and legal notice charges of Rupees 1,000/-, totally for a sum of Rupees 52,125/- from the SCH-7 24 S.C.No.428/2015 Defendant. Since, the Defendant has dragged the Plaintiff for recovery of the said advance security deposit amount of Rupees 50,000/-, there are merits in the claim of interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of this suit till realization. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the current and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the actual advance security deposit amount of Rupees 50,000/- from the date of the suit till its realization.
29. Under the above said facts and circumstances as well as reasons given below, this Court has come to the conclusion that, the Plaintiff is entitled for a sum of Rupees 52,125/- with current and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the actual advance security deposit amount of Rupees 50,000/- from the date of suit till its realization with costs. The Defendant is liable to pay the same to the Plaintiff. Hence, the suit filed by the Plaintiff as against the Defendant is liable to be partly decreed with costs. Accordingly, I answered Point No.1 partly in the Affirmative.
30. POINT NO.2 :- For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The suit filed by the Plaintiff is hereby partly decreed with costs.
SCH-7 25 S.C.No.428/2015
The Defendant is hereby
directed to pay a sum of Rupees
52,125/- to the Plaintiff with
current and future interest at the
rate of 18% per annum on the
actual advance security deposit
amount of Rupees 50,000/- from
the date of the suit till its
realization, within One month from
the date of this Order.
If the Defendant fails to pay, by
then, the Plaintiff is at liberty to
recover the same, in accordance
with law.
Draw decree accordingly.
[
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and then, pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 3rd day of February, 2016.) (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PLAINTIFF :-
P.W.1 : C. Channappa SCH-7 26 S.C.No.428/2015 2. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE PLAINTIFF :-
Ex.P.1 : Copy of Advertisement published in OLX Ex.P.2 : Copy of Advertisement published in CHECK TOLET Ex.P.3 : Police Receipt Ex.P.4 : Endorsement dated 22.03.2015 issued by Police Ex.P.5 : Receipt dated 04.03.2015 Ex.P.6 : Office Copy of Legal Notice dated 26.03.2015 Ex.P.7 : Reply dated 04.04.2015
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE DEFENDANT :-
D.W.1 : Mrs. Jyothi
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE DEFENDANT :-
Ex.D.1 : Electricity Bills (3 in nos.)
(INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR)
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.