Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Handicrafts vs M/S Message Entrance Lobby on 21 February, 2011
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
IN THE HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DA"§"ED THIS THE 2153" DAY OE FEBRUARY, 2011 BEFORE TEE EAOAESLE EAR. EUSTICE ASHOK BK ESAJcE:;OE'A:«'..';_....'._j R.F.A.No.119'7/2010 (RES) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA STATE HANDICRAFTS _ DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTO;, KSHDC COMPLEX No.45, M (3 ROAD BANGALORE A 560 O0: _ " ; _ _ REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR a_ } APPELLANT (BY Sm S V SHASTR1 AND SR1 RA.\Vm~J'1Os2ANA1*;=:v1~.s<,_1~AOVOCATES) AND: M/S MESSAGE E"AifmAN'CE"LOSB'n< KSHDC COMPLEX ' '-- M45, M C; ROAO BANGALORE 5560 O0: ---- REE. IBYAITS PARTE\fE.R } SR.1;<A.f_ri>:§S'--+§:+EA'r~:S_ RESPONDENT
TA'-1'§§RFA.I§'I.FAfLED UNDER ORDER Ar: RULE if R/W SEC.96 {OE EEC; A€§A1'M'$T THE EUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED .A.1EE*:.A,3'..2O1O PASSED IN OS M5529/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE 4_'§'TH"'A.D£3{EE,'_ <:m/ CIVIL 8:. SESSEONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, (CCH O:'SM1SS:A:O THE SUET EOE EJECTMENT, MESNE PRQFETS. TASS SEA COMING OS EOE EINAE OESEOSAE 'EHIS OAS:
. C£E_4L:'R"€"§EEEvER§§ "§"%éE EOEEOWEAO: ' U;
considering the rivai pteaemgs, the Trial Court framed the feitewing issues:
'*1. Whether the pieinriff is entitied £20 vacamftte-.44'_"t~.._ pessession of the schedule premises? 7 Whether the pfeintiff is entitled re mesne '"2 Wizether the suit £3 premature? t " 4'
4. To what decree er order?" ' 1 ' ' '
4. On behaif of the appeliant,-.__ its téiteheerei Roerigues Devprasad is examine{t*~:.es .2PW2--1« the documents at E><.P.1. to 7. PW-1 but the respondent did__not erxtet in support of what it has
5. Conséderintg - VtE{e'~V p§eé*d.i:'n--gs, orai and documentary evidence piaeed o r'Hts re{:oa?(i_, {He Trial Court dismissed the suit.
It:.'j'é'I'srJ diEeE:te_€E: that ttte"iea'se agreement, dated 11.6.2004 be sent't:0"' '{;'>efip?L.¥t'\,,is:VCommissioner for the recovery 01' Stamp :it».,,.',;aVii2e afidftze ;;§e;'s*§e..i_':§} thereon, Agg":'iVe€;eee by the aforesaid judgment ane decree; the {'E;:3t%'%--f§Ev.{;'j=VE'f{,:5.§_S' §Ef_§ eeeeai eefere this Cami, ?. Sr': S.\f,S§"zastri, the iearned counsel for the appeiiant submits that siméiar suits; fiied by the appeliarzt against other tenants in the game buiidéng are aiready decreed, He s.atb§9rz§t$ that the ¥"€S§GE"§d&F*st haa not addueed any eviderute,j_""E'he';'e§'a:<aj_ there was as occasion for the Triai Court to_-~d-E»s:b:e.E2e'v:e 'V version of the appeiiant - plaintiff. 3 4'
8. On the direction for refVe:=r:E'hg> the VJeaseftahg-ree'm'ent, 'V dated 11.6.2004 to the Deputy.'Com.:*2':'ia:§}:er1'e»r_for theareedvery of stamp value and the penaitfif firvévr.jSL.V--..Shastri wouid submit that even anfE:r1::;,:ff§{:ierf:»tE_y; sta'r§fa_;:3ed 'dwvcument and an unregistered[VHdteearwjeyjttfi,it diatthhhdtherwise compuisorély registerabie, = be «for coilaterai purpose. He submits izhatv thea"T:j§a!V..Coa':?tVAEi'as fallen inta an error by not Eedk'i::g &ir:'4§.4c;'ttia'e: lease aere'e':'aent, dated 11.62004. r.§§"?_{.h'e riff:-atrrévtwar-sfdument of Sri S4\f,Shastri however is that TriaiA€:aart~ha$.~ eat noticed the previséons centaéned in sub-
(1) andi' (3) of Sectétm 106 of the Transfer of Property are extracted §3;iE3f"€§§"%;§€§GW:
V "I36, flzxratien af cartarfn Afeases in aesenea ef " writtem eentraet at geeai maarge m {1} in the abeence ef a <:e.r2§rac:t er Saga? Saw er usage {G the earnfrary, a feage er §§":"~%*§% 'J§ immovable property for egrieuiture! or manufacturing purposes she}! be cfeemee to be e lease from year te1 "1 year, iermmebie, er: the part of either iesser er iessee, six months' neei"i<:e; end a ieese of immeveefe eroperfy fer.' 'V' " any ether purpose Sheff be deemed to be 3 ie.e5e_j''frem:'' ' meme fie menth, term:'r2ee!e, en the ;;§erf'e<:'. Q/';.Taf"?€-3'.'.:'«f~:_'-$A'{'$;*.f.r_,;',r'V L" or /eseee, by fifieen days' notice.
(2) ...........
('3) A notice under sub-seefi{c=r} () 2;--'2e!I"zi*;e_ deemed to be inveiid merely because tne_per';'et;f mefivfifflfiéd therein fairs short of fheperied ;:_',:§e¢)"f}'e;:: thefliubnsection, Where 5:? Suit Qr§._Vpre{(;'eedin§,v filed, Vff7e'V'exp1'ry of the period men€fq,¢e;j"fp .thet.$i1fi§.%5eC::'c:n.
10. Witeh re_fe'rerieé§~Ae.§er».ifhe:efo%e-extracted provisions, Sri S.V.Shastri raiseLd,tr~:eV'ergAu_Vrfi'er~§t that the suit is filed only on
2."}".'8._.v_2OO._S i'3'«i§e,; after e'bou.t__.2fl/2 months after the service of the q u nosffee. Q r*:._tV:'H 'respondent.
11.'71'hev.__vres,e"eAndent is served with the notice on 3.12.2010. ' """%:*%§'~fi;iv«.»;e"vetLit haefemeieee unrepresented. :2. Ge the eeeie ef the ejeeiimeret eeerees eemg greetee in eiéfier eaeee er itrze reeeeeeemi: me: enteréeg the witeees bex in Veueeerft ef fie eefeece, the see: eeneet ee deeeeedk E are eiee eei:
§ fa impressed of Sri Shastri's argument that even Jan ihsufficientiy stamped document and an unregistered document, whi:€;h_t'~.i_s otherwise corepuisoriiy registerabie, can be Eoekeifi iiht-of---..%oii.._j". eoéieteraé purpose, The Apex Court ih_;the__eas_e"et'* V KUMAR CHAUHAN v. vnm' KRISHNA' M':s%+I§A; (2009) 3 KCCR SN 91. has takerittV_:i:eg cops-Eciere_dt"$f'i'eii§v«--Vt.hVet ah insufficiently stamped document isfietv._ad_fnissib3«e:,_iR evidence even for coiiaterai purpose.
13. Howeveg;~'tt;e.VL:p1Facts_ are the existence of the the tperties and the issuance of 1i'.._'6'."2t)OS§ averred in para--6 of the piaEht.:z'~.'i"'--ti«ea'e of the issuance of the notice. AsAV_hVeldV--%by §2":e:;*'3¥--i3e;;s in the case JAHURI SAH Ai€¢'e.ioTe5Ee,s.: no\.ri{i\'s<*~I-:<'A PRASAD JHUNJHUNWALA AND OTVH§R$T_ 196? SC 109, if a party makes a Vi'-A.._:s-,.r»ag:.,:e a'n.__r:tT eva;is5i'\s'%:=;'c'ienie§, the necessary adverse "inference has
-4 ..b'e._d rawn: _ tres{pe':"i'eeet fer having reeeived "fee pestai eeieeeeziedgemeet care euiy signed by the the Eegai notice at E>(P.4 is produced as E><.P.'3. It hears the postai seei, dated 17.6.2605. This does not appear to have been netitzed by the Triai Cou.F.tLa'.._':'"'a._V
15. Even assuming that the notice, datee "
tetminating the tenancy was reteivee on f£i3.V6'.'2.Q_Q"S a_:n'd§i'theV't%éfne fer vacating the suit scheduie premises and thus; the said notice is faiiéng sh6~rt:'V"ef the in Section 106(1) ef the said Aet,'_wheit"'c'aVtn:h'e'tethe iesteigfiht of is that the suit itseif is filed after' the service of the notice. Thet'etCite' faii back on Section 106(3) l:itt%'t::Aa'h.tt'::'V.seitzcessfuiiy contend that giving the 'tn.e"'te%rminatien notice is not fatal to the ihtetixatioin for ejectrnent. For net examining the a ppe1'ii.antfs"e'ase on the touchstone of Section Aet,"t'h'eVjudgment and decree under appeat are"'iiat}ieVte and accordinghg they are set aside. But '""ti"*ie same %sV.ehii%g'iVinsefar as it pertains to turning dewn the "--«3:)2;i1'§e£:?i¥Aant'S.' aafayer for evicting the respondent. As far as that '"'v';j'a;FtV'.{3f' Ttiai Ceuits judgment which tefers the matter to the '* t";e§:_;t_:t§g Cemnetsetenet fer the teeevety of the stenne vetue ane eeeaitgz is eeneemee; E em ét te he aesettttehg sustaénahée .4'~,.2-W"'v . §'.\"«'X@5'&'5 and correct. Therefore that part of the judgment stands confirmed.
16.. There is no specific issue framed by the H whether the termination hetiee itseif is vaiié <:ii_:~~r"-:»:f>4.:i:}f~..Vii'iiithQ:;t"
framing a speeific issue but by ihciutiirig th.eéA.saim.e.E4.,.i':'3-- issue, the Trial Court has adjudicated therhattesht framing ef the issue renders thei"'V«j':{sdgmeht appeai uhsupportabie.
:17. In the i'€_',?iS«!'£:i':'vL","'_ti'!§:rA3' 3ii?Jf1eai.j 'i~s"_~.ai«it)viiet:¥ in part. The matter is rerraah'd'eiii_"--.t£<'3-"the for framing of issues afresh and eidjtifliCaVtiVt;:"i:"-i.iiiati(:€§:r'i;*ai"ifi@ with iaw. The Triai Court shaii disease i:>f"tijie rveh':ahti'edV:'ri.*ieitter within 4 months time from the date the rece'ipt,V:ef the L,C.Rs. Neediess to observe that the__rria:teriais:;:.i.;;:eeti, en the record are kept intact. Parties are at iibertir~.te.---ad§utfe»--atiifiitiorsai/fresh evidence. 13 Ne; erder as ta C<}SiiS.
"$3252"