Bangalore District Court
Shantah Bai S vs M/S Jabm Onesource Pvt Ltd on 8 October, 2025
KABC010062002023
IN THE COURT OF XXXV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU (CCH-36)
DATED ON THIS THE 8th DAY OF OCTOBER 2025
Present: Sri.J.V.Kulkarni, B.Sc., L.L.B.,
XXXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
O.S.No.1512/2023
Plaintiff : 1. Smt.S.Shantha Bai,
W/o.Late Mr.Murudeshwar Sridhararao
Ramadas,
Aged about 79 years.
2. Ms.Mayuri Murdeshwar,
D/o.Late M.S.Ramadas,
Aged abut 48 years.
3. Sri.Gurucharan R Murudeshwar @
Gurucharan Ramadass Murdeshwar,
S/o.Late Ramadas Murdeshwar,
Aged about 51 years,
Represented by his GPA Holder
Ms.Mayuri Murdeshwar.
All residing at:
No.169/3, between 6th & 7th Cross,
8th Main, Malleshwaram,
Bangalore North,
BANGALORE-560 003.
(By Sri/Smt.C.N.S., Advocate)
-Vs-
Defendants : 1. M/s.JABM ONESOURCE PVT.LTD.,
2
O.S.No.1512/2023
Having its office at:
2nd Main Road,
Nila Investment Layout,
Bettadasanapura,
Electronic City Phase I,
Bengaluru-560 100.
Represented by its Managing Director,
Mr.Sunil More Shivaji Rao
2. Mr.MD.NAWAS KHAN,
S/o.Md.Abdul Samad,
25-2-773, Pipe Line, Pragadhi Nagar,
Near Cancer Hospital, Nellore,
Andhra Pradesh-524004.
(By Sri/Smt.A.N./S.I.A.,advocate for
defendant No.2, defendant No.1 - exparte)
Date of institution of the suit : 03-03-2023
Nature of the suit : Ejectment
Date of commencement of : 11-12-2023
recording of the evidence
Date on which the judgment : 08-10-2025
was pronounced
Total duration : Years/s Month/s Day/s
02 07 05
(J.V.KULKARNI)
XXXV Addl.City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the legal heirs of the original landlord against the tenants for ejectment,damages, arrears of rent compensation etc., 3 O.S.No.1512/2023
2. The facts which are necessary for disposal of the suit are briefly stated as follows:-
The plaintiff s are the L.Rs of late Murudeshwar Sridhararao Ramdas. He was the absolute owner of the residential premises in ground floor named 'Mukthi', bearing No.169, situated at 8 th main road, between 6th & 7th cross, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru.
The first defendant is the company and has approached the plaintiffs in the year 2020 sought to take the suit property on rental basis for initial period of 11 months and extendable for further period of 1 year for mutual consent. The first defendant sought late Murudeshwar Sridhararao Ramdas seeking permission to sublet the premises. It was agreed by late Ramdas. Therefore, there was an agreement called as 'Service Agreement' entered between the Murudeshwar Sridhararao Ramdas and first defendant. As per the said Agreement, the first defendant agreed to pay monthly rent of ₹40,000/- and ₹4,500/- towards monthly maintenance. He agreed to pay refundable security deposit of ₹2,00,000/-. Accordingly, the possession of the suit premises handed over to the first defendant.
On 4-1-2022, Murudeshwar Sridhararao Ramdas was died leaving behind the plaintiffs as L.Rs. After taking over the assistance 4 O.S.No.1512/2023 of late Ramdas, the plaintiffs came to know that the first defendant has sublet the suit premises to defendant No.2 on the lease agreement for a period of two years. The alleged lease agreement was entered on 20-06-2020. It is known to the plaintiffs that the first defendant has sublet the premises to the defendant No.2 on lease amount of ₹28,00,000/- which was agreed to be return by the first defendant at the time of vacating the premises. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement between the plaintiff and first defendant, the first defendant started making payment of ₹40,000/- p.m. on the joint account of the plaintiffs and late Ramdas. But, from the year 202, he fails to make payment of rent. Therefore, the first defendant sought to vacate the premises and hand over he vacant possession to the plaintiffs. The first defendant has not vacated the premises not directed the defendant No.2 to vacate the premises. Both the defendants have not paid the rent an amount of ₹6,97,500/- was unpaid by the first defendant. The defendants are not at all authorized to retain the possession because of service of legal notice of termination on 9-10-2022. The defendants are liable to pay the plaintiffs an amount of ₹8,31,000/- towards damages including the arrears of rent. Hence, they prayed to decree the suit. 5
O.S.No.1512/2023
3. The suit summons issued to the defendants. The defendant No.1 placed exparte. The defendant No.2 appeared through the counsel and filed the written statement. The defendant No.2 denies the plaint averments in toto. He denied event he ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit property. The second defendant was searching for decent accommodation in the city of Bengaluru for the self and family members. By that time, he approached the representative of defendant and shown the suit property for lease for a period of two years on no interest basis. It was a beneficial agreement between the second defendant and first defendant. Therefore, second defendant has readily agreed to get the premises on lease of ₹28,00,000/-. The second defendant gone through the service agreement and fully satisfied that late Murudeshwar Sridhararao Ramdas authorized the first defendant to lease or rent the suit premises.
The second defendant contended that late Murudeshwar Sridhararao Ramdas appointed the first defendant as his agent to look after and manage the affairs of the suit property and for services rendered by the first defendant late Ramdas agreed to pay ₹ 9999/- as service charges annually. Late Murudeshwar Sridhararao 6 O.S.No.1512/2023 Ramdas was authorized the first defendant to negotiate with third parties for rent or lease of the premises. Accordingly, the second defendant paid ₹28,00,000/- to the first defendant company through Bank transfer and put in possession of the suit premises. The second defendant contended that on 13-6-2022, he received a notice from Arjumand Syed & Associates on behalf of the second plaintiff, wherein, she claimed that she is the owner of the suit property.
The second defendant issued reply notice on 23-6-2022 stating that he will vacate the premises only if the plaintiff return the ₹28,00,000/- which he has paid to the first defendant. Since there is an agent and relationship between the first defendant and late Ramdas, the plaintiffs are under obligation to refund lease amount of ₹28,00,000/- payable to the defendant No.2. Hence, he prays to dismiss the suit.
4. Based on the pleadings, My predecessor in office has framed the following:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the legal heirs of deceased Shri.Murudeshwar Sridhararao Ramdas?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the landlords and defendant No.1 is tenant under 7 O.S.No.1512/2023 them and defendant No.1 has sublet the schedule premises to defendant No.2?
3. Whether plaintiffs prove that the tenancy of the defendants is legally terminated?
4. Whether plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for the damages as prayed in the plaint?
5. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for arrears till the date of handing over the vacant possession of suit schedule property?
6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs as prayed in the plaint?
7. What Order or Decree?
5. The plaintiff No.2 examined as P.W.1. Exs.P.1 to P.14 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff, they closed their side. The second defendant examined as D.W.1. Exs.D.1 to D.4 were marked on behalf of the defendants, they closed their side.
6. I heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiffs. The learned counsel for the defendant filed written arguments.
7. My findings to the above issues are as follows:-
Issue No.1 : Affirmative
Issue No.2 : Affirmative
Issue No.3 : Affirmative
Issue No.4 : Affirmative
Issue No.5 : Affirmative
Issue No.6 : Affirmative
8
O.S.No.1512/2023
Issue No.7 : As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
8. Issue No.1:- Since these issues are revolving around
landlord and tenant relationship as well as as authority of the plaintiffs to file the suit. No-doubt, the second defendant has denied the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property but being the sub-tenant under the first defendant is not authorize landlord and tenants relationship. Apart from this, while denial,t here is an admission during the cross-examination of D.W.1 as well as in the reply notice issued by the second defendant on 23-06-2022. However, it is the initial burden on the plaintiffs to prove that hey are the legal heirs of late Murudeshwar Sridhararao Ramdas. In this regard, the plaintiffs have produced Ex.P.14 which is the death certificate of late Ramadas, wherein, the name of wife is shown as Shanthabai i.e., first plaintiff of this case.
9. Apart from it, Ex.P.11 is the Will executed by late Ramdas in favour of his wife and children. This clearly goes to show that the plaintiffs are the Legal representatives of late Murudeshwar Sridhararao Ramdas and the suit property belongs to the plaintiff. It establish the fact that there is a landlord and tenant relationship 9 O.S.No.1512/2023 between the plaintiffs and defendants. Even during the cross- examination of the P.W.1 a suggestion was made to him that the P.W.1 is residing in the upper floor and the second defendant is residing in the ground floor of the suit property. It also clearly goes to show that the second defendant recognized that the plaintiffs are the L.Rs of Ramdas. Now, the question remains is that whether the plaintiffs have legally terminated the tenancy. In this regard, the vital and important document is Ex.P.2 which is said to have been a certificate entered between late Ramdas and first defendant - company. The premises of Ex.P.2 can be seen on perusal of page No.3 of the document, wherein, the first defendant took the suit premises on lease for a period of 11 months and shall be auto renewed for another one year unless the first party terminates the agreement in writing.
10. This agreement completes on 6-5-2021. The possession is also delivered to the first defendant from 6-6-2020 itself. The husband of the first plaintiff agreed to pay ₹9,999/- towards annual service charges to the first defendant. The first defendant agreed to pay an amount of ₹2,00,000/- as security deposit. He agree to pay monthly rent of ₹40,000/- and maintenance of ₹4,500/- to the 10 O.S.No.1512/2023 landlord. The crucial and important of the agreement is clause 8 of Ex.P.2, wherein, the landlord authorizes the first defendant to sublet the suit premises and to negotiate with the third parties for he purpose of renting or leasing out the suit property for families only and he is competent to see any required papers pertaining to the lease or rent. Based on this clause, the second defendant stated that the first defendant was duly authorized the landlord to lease the property for a certain period. Therefore, the fist defendant has got ₹25,00,000/- as lease amount. The initial period of lease was two years. The first defendant agreed to refund ₹28,00,000/- after the completion of two years and the second defendant agreed to handed over the vacant possession.
11. The lease is defined in Chapter-V. Section 105 of T.P.Act, it says that a lease of immovable property is a transfer of right to enjoy such property made for a certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or promised.
12. Section 106 of the T.P.Act states that in the absence of a contract, lease of immovable property for any other purpose other than agricultural or manufacturing purpose deemed to a lease for 11 O.S.No.1512/2023 month to month can be terminable either by lesser or lessee by 15 days notice.
13. Section 107 of T.P.Act defines about how a lease can be made. Lease can be made in case of immovable property extending one year by the registered documents. According to the case of the defendant No.2, there was a lease agreement entered between the second defendant and the first defendant wherein, second defendant has received ₹28,00,000/- and let out the premises for two years. Let me believe that the first defendant opted on the authority given by late Murudeshwar Sridhararao Ramdas as per Ex.P.2.
14. The second defendant has not produced the vital and important document such as lease deed to ascertain that whether there is a valid contract existing between the first defendant and second defendant for a period of two years. Only the document produced by the defendant No.2 is the Bank statement, legal notice and legal notice issued by the plaintiff and reply notice issued by him. Ex.D.1 is the Bank account statement of the second defendant, wherein, it shows that there are two entries on 3-6-2020 which are marked as Ex.D.1(a) & Ex.D.1(b). These two entries are made on 12 O.S.No.1512/2023 3-6-2020, whereas, on that day, there is a transfer of ₹22,00,000/- from JABM one source which is also called as Oye space. This is the Bank statement of plaintiff No.1 relied by the second defendant. If it is to be believed on 3-6-2020, here was no agreement between the plaintiff No.1 and first defendant and there is another cheque for he first defendant to transfer of ₹22,00,000/- to the account of first defendant. On 3-6-2020, there was no agreement entered between the first defendant and first plaintiff, how one can believe that when any agreement entered between first plaintiff and first defendant such a huge amount was transferred to he account of first plaintiff. The alleged service agreement entered between the husband of first defendant on 6-6-2020. But, Ex.P.1 is contrary to Ex.P.2 because the refundable security deposit is only ₹2,00,000/-. There was no agreement between the husband of first plaintiff and the first defendant that the first defendant - Company has to transfer ₹22,00,000/- to the first plaintiff account.
15. Apart from it, as per Ex.P.11, till 12-12-2016, the plaintiffs have not become the owners of the suit property. There is no written agreement between the husband of the first plaintiff and first defendant that the security deposits are to be transfer to the account 13 O.S.No.1512/2023 of his wife. There is no property cash given by D.W.1 how an amount of ₹22,00,000/- transferred to the account to first plaintiff. On the date of execution of Ex.D.1, thee was no valid contract entered between the husband of the first plaintiff and first defendant. Therefore, these entries Ex.D.1(a) and D.1(b) creates serious doubt.
16. As per the contents of the written statement of the second defendant, the alleged lease agreement came to be entered on 20- 06-2020. If the lease agreement was in existence on 20-06-20202, how an amount of ₹22,00,000/- came to be paid on 3-6-2020 to the account of the first defendant without there being any agreement between the first defendant and late Ramdas.
17. During the argument, the learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that there is a consistency in two legal notices issued by the plaintiff. One legal notice dated 9-10-2022 issued by HNC legal Consultancy and one is issued as per Ex.D.2. The meaning of subletting is misunderstands by the second defendant and fall by prey to the trap of first defendant. In the absence of the lease agreement, I cannot determine whether the second defendant was 14 O.S.No.1512/2023 authorised by the first defendant to remain in possession of the suit premises by paying ₹28,00,000/- as lease agreement.
18. The learned counsel for the defendant in written argument stated that there is difference in the legal notice issued on 13-06- 2022 and on 9-10-2022. I have gone through the Exs.P.3 and Ex.D.2. The contents of both the legal notices are identical except the fact that in Ex.D.2, which is first in point of time the plaintiffs have sought rent from the month of June 2021, whereas, in the Ex.P.3, they have sought rent from September 2021 except these terms the other contents of the both documents are identical. The issuance of legal notice is admitted by the defendant because he issued reply notice as per Ex.D.2, wherein he stated that he took the suit premises on lease of ₹28,00,000/- which is no rent, no interest basis. First defendant has agreed to repay ₹28,00,000/- as and when he asked the defendant No.2 to vacate the premises. But, the fact is that though there is an authority given in Ex.P.2 to sublet the premises and also to lease the property, it does not mean that it is to be leased for uncertain period of two years. Moreover, the alleged agreement entered between the first defendant and second defendant was not surfaced neither the plaintiff nor the defendants 15 O.S.No.1512/2023 have produced the said document. Subletting in Indian Law refers to a tenant renting out the leased premises wholly or partially to a third party while retaining the primary tenancy and responsibility to the landlord. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Indian Contract Act 1872 govern the subletting arrangement. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of A.Mahalakshmi Vs.Balavenkataram dead through her L.Rs held that subletting assigning or otherwise parting with the possession of the tenancy premises without obtaining the consent in writing of landlord is not permitted and if done the same provides a ground for eviction. In this case also, though there is an agreement between the deceased husband of the first plaintiff M.S.Ramdas and the first defendant regarding subletting the premises but there is no reference that it is for uncertain time and for huge sum of ₹28,00,000/-.
19. The plaintiffs by producing the documents and by examining the plaintiff No.2 as P.W.2 were able to prove that they are the L.Rs of deceased Murudeshwar Sridharrao Ramdas and they are the landlords. First defendant is the primary tenant and second defendant is the subsidiary tenant and by issuing the legal notices dated 13-06-2022 and 09-10-2022 the tenancy between the 16 O.S.No.1512/2023 plaintiffs and first defendant was legally terminated and therefore, the defendants are bound to hand over the vacant possession to the plaintiffs. Accordingly, I answer issue Nos.1 to 3 in affirmative.
20. Issue No.4:- As per Ex.P.3, the plaintiffs have sought rent from the month September 2021 stating that the first defendant has not paid the rent of ₹40,000/- and maintenance of ₹4,500/- p.m., to the plaintiffs. In this regard, neither the first defendant nor the second defendant has produced any documents to show that they are regular in paying the rent to the plaintiff in terms of Ex.P.2. Ex.P.2 clearly stipulates that the rent should be paid within 20 th day of the calendar month. There is also clause 6 which states that the first defendant agreed to increase the rent at the rate of 5% after every 11 months. Since from 9-10-2022, the tenancy was terminated and the occupation of the first and second defendant of the premises is illegal from the month of November 2022. Therefore, the defendants are liable to pay the damages to the plaintiff in the form of arrears of rent as well as actual damages to the suit property. Though there is a no evidence regarding the quantum of damages caused to the suit premises because the defendant No.2 did not allowed the plaintiff to enter the suit premises anyhow I award 17 O.S.No.1512/2023 lumpsum amount of ₹50,000/- towards the damages which can be payable by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally to the plaintiffs. Accordingly, I answer issue No.4 in affirmative.
21. Issue No.5:- At the cost of repetition, the first defendant remained exparte, the second defendant appeared and contested the case, both are relying upon the service agreement, as per the service agreement, it is the duty of the first defendant to pay monthly rent of ₹40,000/- and maintenance of ₹4,500/- to the plaintiffs. Since from the month September 2021, the rent was not paid by the first defendant. This fact is though disputed but it is not proved by the defendant No.2 that the first defendant is regular in paying the rent. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs are entitled to recover arrears of rent from September 2021 to till the vacant possession is handed over to the plaintiffs jointly and severally from the defendants at the rate of ₹40,000/- p.m., for the year 2020 and from 6-05-2021 onward, they are liable to add 5% to the amount of ₹40,000/-. The maintenance will be remained as ₹4,500/- p.m., For subsequent tenancy year, there should be an increase of 5% rent until the vacant possession is handed over to the plaintiffs. Accordingly, I answer issue No.5 in affirmative.
18
O.S.No.1512/2023
22. Issue No.6:- In view of my findings to the above issues, the plaintiffs are entitled to get the vacant possession of the suit property, they are entitled for the arrears of rent, damages as sought in the plaint. Accordingly, I issue No.6 in affirmative.
23. Issue No.7:- In view of my findings to the above issues, I pass the following:-
ORDER Suit of the plaintiffs decreed with costs. The defendants are liable to hand over the vacant premises to the plaintiffs within one month failing which the plaintiff is entitled to execute the decree.
The defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the damages of Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiffs.
The defendants are also jointly and severally liable to pay arrears of rent as per the terms incorporated in Ex.P.2 from the date of 19 O.S.No.1512/2023 due of rent to till handing over of vacant possession.
Draw Decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment-Writer, transcribed and typed by her and then corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of October 2025) (J.V.KULKARNI) XXXV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff.
P.W.1: Mayuri Murdeshwar Witnesses examined on behalf of the defendant.
D.W.1: MD Abdul Samad Documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff.
Ex.P.1 : GPA
Ex.P.2 : Original Service Agreement
Ex.P.3 : Copy of the legal notice,
dated 09-10-2022
Ex.P.4 : Postal Receipts (3)
Ex.P.5 : Returned postal cover
Exs.P.6 : Postal acknowledgments
& P.7
20
O.S.No.1512/2023
Ex.P.8 : Postal tracking letter
Ex.P.9 : Reply notice, dated 31-10-2022
Ex.P.10 : Online certified copy of Joint
Development Agreement, dated
12-12-2016
Ex.P.11 : Online certified copy of the registered
Will, dated 12-12-2016
Ex.P.12 : Online Certified copy of Encumbrance
Certificate
Ex.P.13 : Tax paid receipt
Ex.P.14 : Death Certificate
Documents marked on behalf of the defendants.
Ex.D.1 : Bank Statement
Ex.D.2 : Legal notice dated 13-06-2022
Ex.D.3 : Reply notice dated 23-06-2022
Ex.D.4 : General Power of Attorney
JEEVAN Digitally signed by JEEVAN
KULKARNI
KULKARNI Date: 2025.10.15 16:40:58
+0530
(J.V.KULKARNI)
XXXV Addl.City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru