Bangalore District Court
M Umadevi vs Raja B Shetty on 24 April, 2026
1
COM.O.S.1710/2024
KABC170034452024
IN THE COURT OF LXXXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURT,
BENGALURU (CCH-83)
PRESENT: SRI. VIDYADHAR SHIRAHATTI, LL.M.,
LXXXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
Com.O.S.No.1710/2024
Dated on this 24th Day of APRIL 2026
Plaintiff Smt. M. Umadevi, W/o. Dr. N.
Ramaiah, Aged about 68
years, R/at No. 418, 12th
Cross, Sadashivanagara,
Bangalore-560 080
Represented by her Power of
Attorney Holder namely, Sri.
Prashanth Ramaiah, S/o. Dr. N.
Ramaiah, Aged about 46
years, R/at No. 418, 12th
Cross, Sadashivanagara,
Bangalore - 560 080.
(By Sri.Madhukar
Deshapnde - Advocate)
//versus//
2
COM.O.S.1710/2024
Defendant Sri. Raja B Shetty, S/o. Sri.
Bhaskar Shetty, Aged about 48
years, R/at. No. 12, 2nd Cross,
K.N.Extension,Yeshwanthapura
Bangalore - 560 022.
Also at: Apartment No. 21228,
2nd Floor, Tower-I, Building-2,
Prestige Jindal City, Tumakuru
Road, Bangalore - 560073.
(By Sri.M.C.M.S- Advocate )
Date of Institution of
17.12.2024
the suit
Nature of the suit
(suit on pronote, suit
for declaration & Suit for recovery of money
Possession, Suit for
injunction etc.)
Date of
commencement of 13.02.2026
recording of evidence
Date on which
judgment was 24.04.2026
pronounced
Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
01 04 07
(VIDYADHAR SHIRAHATTI),
LXXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
3
COM.O.S.1710/2024
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of amount of Rs.1,20,33,289/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from December 2024 i.e., date of suit till the date of realization of the entire amount.
2. The Brief facts as per Plaint are as follows:-
The Plaintiff is the owner of the non-residential building "Umadevi Ramaiah Building" at No. 28, 2nd Cross, Yeshwanthapura, Bengaluru. In 2019, the Defendant approached the Plaintiff to rent the property for a lodge & restaurant. The parties entered into a registered lease deed on 13.03.2019, with an agreed rent of Rs. 2,25,000/- for the first 12 months, which increased to Rs. 5,13,500/- per month after that, with annual rent hikes. The Defendant became irregular in paying rent, stopping payments from March 2020. The Plaintiff issued a legal notice on 03.10.2020 demanding payment of arrears and vacating the property. The Defendant made partial payments in November 2020 and February 2021, requesting an extension, which the Plaintiff accepted. However, in April 2021, the Defendant sent a notice with false claims about rent waiver and demanded the return 4 COM.O.S.1710/2024 of the Rs. 55,00,000/- security deposit. The Plaintiff responded on 29.06.2021, agreeing to receive the property back upon payment of arrears and inspection of damages, but the Defendant did not comply. The Plaintiff issued another legal notice on 03.12.2022, demanding possession and payment of Rs. 1,13,02,792/-. The Defendant replied evasively on 23.12.2022, making false statements. On 14.07.2023, the Plaintiff received a set of keys from the Defendant, but did not open them until 05.08.2023, when an inventory was made in the presence of the Defendant, revealing Rs. 37,35,000/- in damages.
On 06.01.2024, the Plaintiff demanded Rs. 1,07,86,040/- for rent arrears and damages, but the Defendant failed to respond or pay. The total amount due, including arrears and damages, is Rs. 1,20,33,289/-. The Plaintiff filed a mediation application on 02.05.2024, but the matter was not settled and the District Legal Services Authority closed the case with a Non-Starter Report. The suit is filed before the Court for recovery of arrears of rent and damages.
3. The Defendant appeared and filed counterclaim stating that, the plaintiff has claimed Rs. 1,20,33,2889/- being the arrears of rent, damages and interest from the defendant in his plaint. The plaintiff has given the details 5 COM.O.S.1710/2024 of arrears of rent in para-14 of the plaint which is not just and correct. The plaintiff is misled this court by including amounts which are not part of lease agreement dated 13.03.2019. The defendant has worked the amount due against the claim of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 17,64,110/-. The calculation is made exactly on the basis of terms of lease agreement and also as per the inventories. The defendant has disowned the damages in schedule property to the extent of Rs. 37,35,000/- which has not been identified by the plaintiff and show to the defendant during the Joint inspection. The video recording of premises has not been handed over to the Defendant. The lease agreement that, any minor repairs and damages during the course of business to the premises is permitted by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has claimed interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of Rs. 1,25,51,010/- which is unlawful and against the terms of the lease agreement. The defendant has not kept any arrears of rent due to the plaintiff except during the period of Covid pandemic which is with the consent and permission of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has promised and assured the defendant to waive of the rent for 6 months of business during the covid period on account of restrictions imposed by the Government on the tourists and for using hotel foods. Hence, prays to direct the 6 COM.O.S.1710/2024 plaintiff to pay the counter claim amount of Rs. 17,64,110/- with interest.
4. The plaintiff has filed written statement to the counter claim of the Defendant stating that, the counterclaim filed by the Defendant for recovery of Rs. 17,64,110/- is without any basis and is a calculated ploy to deflect attention from failure to honour contractual obligations under the registered lease deed. The counterclaim is devoid of merits, raised as a retaliatory measure, and is an abuse of process of law without any cause of action, hence liable to be dismissed. The Defendant, having occupied the Schedule Property and failed to pay rent from March 2020, is estopped from raising any counterclaim based on alleged oral promises of rent waiver, which were never acknowledged in writing or given by the Plaintiff. The claims regarding rent waiver during COVID-19 are an afterthought and contrary to the lease terms. The claim of Rs. 17,64,110/- is arbitrary and unsupported by documentation, and alleged investments in improvements were neither approved nor supported by proof. No improvements were carried out by the Defendant nor any agreement for reimbursement exists, and unauthorized modifications cannot be claimed for 7 COM.O.S.1710/2024 reimbursement. The Plaintiff carried out improvements at her own cost and seeks recovery of arrears and damages due to breach. The Defendant's claims are vague, impermissible in law, and a misuse of judicial process. No clause in the lease permits such recovery, making the claims unenforceable and barred. The counterclaim also fails to disclose proper computation or valuation and lacks prescribed court fee, rendering it not maintainable in law. The counterclaim is therefore liable to be rejected in limine.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, I have framed the following issues.
1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that, defendants are due of rent and damages of Rs. 1,20,33,289/- to the plaintiff and Defendant is liable to pay the same with interest at 18% per annum from December 2024 to till its realization?
2. Whether the Defendant proves that, Plaintiff is to reimburse the amount of Rs.17,64,110/- to the Defendant?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief as prayed for?
8COM.O.S.1710/2024
4. Whether the Defendant is entitled for relief as prayed in counter claim?
5. What Decree or Order?
6. To prove its case, the plaintiff has examined Prashanth Ramaiah as a PW1 and relied 17 documents marked as Ex. P1 to P17. On the other defendant has examined Raja B Shetty as a Dw.1 and relied 13 documents marked as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.13.
7. I have heard the arguments of counsel for plaintiff and counsel for the defendants. On perusing the pleadings, issues and oral and documentary evidence. The both the parties have filed their written arguments..
8. My findings on the above Points are as under:
Issue No.1 :- In the Partly Affirmative Issue No.2 :- In the Negative Issue No.3 :- In the Affirmative Issue No.4 :- In the Negative Issue No.5 :- As per the final Order for the following reasons.9
COM.O.S.1710/2024 REASONS
9. Issue No.1:- The plaintiff is the owner of M.Umadevi Ramaiah building situated at No.28, 2nd cross, Anjaneya Temple Street, Yeshwanthapura, Bengaluru consisting of cellar floor, ground floor, first floor and second floor with RCC roofing, measuring East to West 130 Feet and North to south 30 Feet totally measuring 3900 square feet along with facilities and amenities (premises) as given a lease to the defendant for running a hotel business. Both plaintiff and defendant were entered into registered lease agreement executed on 13.03.2019 for the term between 09.07.2018 to 08.07.2023. The date of possession and the rent commencement date as mentioned in the date as 09.07.2018. The monthly rent for 12 months fixed is as under:-
Sl. Duration Monthly rent
No.
1. For the period from Rs.2,25,000/-
09.07.2018 till
08.07.2019
2. For the period from Rs.2,38,500/-
09.07.2019 till
08.07.2020
3. For the period from Rs.2,53,620/-
09.07.2020 till
08.07.2021
4. For the period from Rs.2,68,836/-
10
COM.O.S.1710/2024
09.07.2021 till
08.07.2022
5. For the period from Rs.2,84,964/-
09.07.2022 till
08.07.2023
10. Accordingly the defendant is liable to pay monthly rent within 10th of every month. However the defendant become irregular in the payment of rent from March 2020. Thereafter the plaintiff has issued legal notice on 03.10.2020 through her advocate for demanding a rent if failed issued for termination of lease and seeking handover the vacant possession of the schedule property. After service of notice defendant neither replied nor pay the rent. However the defendant on 13.11.2020 and 15.02.2021 made a part payment of Rs.20,00,000/- and said termination to pay the balance within 3 months. The defendant not paid the rent and defendant has issued legal notice dated 12/17.04.2021. the defendant by making false statement regarding waiver of rent for the period from April 2020 to august 2020 demanded for refund of the security deposit amount of Rs.55,00,000/- within 3 months and to take vacant possession of the schedule property. The plaintiff is also replied the said notice on 29.06.2021 for ready to receive the vacant possession of the schedule property. However the possession was not handed over, hence plaintiff has also 11 COM.O.S.1710/2024 issued legal notice dated 03.12.2022 claiming arrears of rent of Rs.1,13,02,792/- after adjudicating security deposit. The defendant sent a reply on 23.12.2022 and denied the contents of notice issued by the plaintiff. The defendant has sent the key of schedule premises through courier on 14.07.2023 however the plaintiff did not open the said courier and issued a legal notice dated 20.07.2023 for drawing the inventory of the schedule property on 05.08.2023 at 3:00 p.m. On 05.08.2023 defendant was present, the said courier cover was opened and the schedule property and unlocked the inventory was prepared in the presence of the defendant. There was a damage which was estimated by the engineer and the photography video was taken. Therefore plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 08.06.2024 calling upon the defendants for arrears of rent and damages of Rs.37,35,000/-. Accordingly plaintiff has filed the suit for claiming the arrears of rent, damages along with interest at 18% as stated in the table below:-
Sl. Particulars Amount (Rs.)
No.
1. Arrears of rent from June 2020 Rs.1,25,51,040/-
to June 2023 (A)
2. As per the notice dated Rs.1,07,86,040/-
06.01.2023, the plaintiff (B)
restricted its claim for
12
COM.O.S.1710/2024
Rs.1,07,86,040/-
3. Interest @18% p.a on the Rs.30,12,249/-
amount of Rs.1,25,51,040/- (C)
4. Damages to the schedule Rs.37,35,000/-
property (D)
Total {B+C+D=E} Rs.1,75,33,289/-
(E)
5. Deduct: security Deposit Rs.55,00,000/-
(F)
Grand Total {E-F} Rs.1,20,33,289/-
11. In support of claim of the plaintiff Prashant Ramaiah has filed an affidavit in chief and relied 17 documents are marked as Ex.P.1 to 17.
12. Ex.P.1 is the legal notice dated 12.04.2021 issued by the defendant to the plaintiff wherein the defendant has stated to terminated the lease agreement dated 13.03.2019 with immediate effect and also stated that this notice is treated as 3 months notice for termination of lease agreement dated 13.03.2019 commencing from the date of notice. It is also demanded to refund the security deposit amount of Rs.55,00,000/- on or before the expiry of 3 months by taking possession of vacant schedule premises.
13COM.O.S.1710/2024
13. Ex.P.2 is also notice dated 23.12.2022 issued by the defendant to the plaintiff for reply notice dated 03.12.2022. wherein the defendant has stated that Rs.22,00,000/- has paid from March 2020 onwards and further requested to wave off rent for 6 months due to lockdown in 2020. Ex.P.1 and 2 are admitted by the defendant no admissions are denied.
14. Ex.P.3 is the GPA executed by the plaintiff in the name of PW.1 to conduct the case. Ex.P.4 is the registered certified lease agreement dated 13.03.2019 entered between plaintiff and defendant for the suit schedule property. As per the recitals of clause (ii) & (v) of Ex.P.3 reads as thus:-
(ii) The lessor is the absolute owner in exclusive and peaceful possession of the said commercial building consisting of cellar, ground, first and second floors with RCC roofing, constructed on site measuring East to West 130 feet and North to South 30 feet totally measuring 3900 sq.ft and the said property is more fully described in the schedule written hereunder which hereinafter is referred to as the 'Demised Premises' which forms part of the said building.
(v) The lessor has ensured that valid permanent electricity connection granted by 14 COM.O.S.1710/2024 the competent authority is made available in the 'Demised Premises' for usage of commercial purpose.
15. It is also mentioned the lease term from 09.07.2018 and ending on 08.07.2023. The date of possession has been mentioned as 09.07.2018. The rent was fixed as per clause (vi) of deed. The rent shall be paid every month before the 10th day of succeeding month. The obligation of the lessee and lessor has been mentioned in the lease deed. It is obligated in clause 8.4 that redeliver the demised premises to the lessor in accordance with the terms of the lease.
16. Clause 8.6 which reveals that the lessee, except permitted construction, shall not erect any other structure of permanent nature without the permission of the lessor. The lessee shall not make any additions or structural alterations to the demised premises. The such obligations has been mentioned in the agreement. Clause 9.3 deals with the lessee is entitled to install fixtures and fittings as may be necessary for the purpose of carrying on its business, without damaging the demised premises. Upon termination of the lease, the lessee may remove the said fixtures and fittings put up by the lessee and handover the possession of the demised premises, to the lessor.
15COM.O.S.1710/2024 Normal wear and tear during such redelivery is exempted. By putting such conditions both the parties as agreed and entered into agreement.
17. Ex.P.5 is notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant on 03.10.2020. Wherein para 12 it is mentioned that the tenancy with respect to the schedule property is terminated with effect from the expiry of 3 months from the day you receive this notice of termination. Therefore you are further called upon to quit and deliver vacant possession of the schedule property to my client.
18. Ex.P.6 is the postal receipts. Ex.P.7 is a reply notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. Ex.P.8 is also reply notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. Ex.P.9 is a reply notice dated 19.01.2023 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. Ex.P.10 is a legal notice dated 06.01.2024. Ex.P.11 is a legal notice dated 08.10.2024 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. Ex.P.12 is the estimation copy and estimated for damages for Rs.37,35,000/-. Wherein it is mentioned estimation of repair work in a building that inspected the building on 9 th August 2023 by architects engineer. The estimation is as under:-
16COM.O.S.1710/2024
1. Tenant has converted car parking 15,00,000/-
area in cellar into kitchen illegally (repair and restoration charges)
2. Repair cost of split air-conditioner, Rs.7,50,000/- CCTV camera, tv, toilet, toilet fitting like wash basin, IWC, tap etc in 31 rooms
3. Solar water heater & panel repair Rs.35,000/- cost
4. Building roof repair work (leakage Rs.2,50,000/- due to unplanned drilling in terrace
5. Building full electrical and plumbing Rs.3,50,000/- repair works
6. Inside & outside Full building paint & Rs.5,00,000/- POP repair works
7. Wooden doors, locks, window and cot Rs.3,50,000/-
repair works
Total Rs.37,35,000/-
19. Ex.P.13 is the inventory by the plaintiff if the defendant and also produced photos marked as Ex.P.14. Ex.P.15 is certificate to established that the photos are taken the printout from the camera and certificate is authenticate under Sec.63 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Ex.P.16 is the bill issued by the photographer. Ex.P.17 is a deed of sale marked in confrontation by the defendant through PW.1.
17COM.O.S.1710/2024
20. By perusing the documentary evidence it is quite clear that the defendant does not have any rights to ulter erect any other structure or permanent nature without permission of the lessor and it is also noted that the defendant is liable to pay rent as per Ex.P.4 clause (vi). However it is claim of the plaintiff that defendant is not regular to pay the rent. Accordingly the plaintiff has issued various notices and defendant has also replied to the notice and defendant has issued termination notice on 12.04.2021 as marked as Ex.P.1. When defendant has issued the notice, but he has not handed over the possession of the premises to the plaintiff. Therefore this court is taken into consideration about the handed over the possession when inventory was drawn and key was opened in the presence of both sides. It is also admitted that key of the schedule premises handed over the defendant through courier to the plaintiff on 05.08.2023. The defendant was stopped to pay the rent on March 2020.
21. The plaintiff has claimed the rent and damages for Rs.1,20,33,289/-with interest at 18% p.a from April 2020 till its realization. However the plaintiff has not produced any document to show that the rent was fixed for Rs.5,13,500/- p.m. As per Ex.P.4 the rent was fixed as 18 COM.O.S.1710/2024 table referred. Accordingly the defendant has paid the rent, the payment of rent and due is mentioned is as under:-
Sl. Details Amount Total
No.
1 April to June - 2020 2,38,500X3 7,15,500/-
03 months Rent
2 July to December - 2,53,620X6 15,21,720/-
2020 06 months
Rent
3 January to June - 2,53,620X6 15,21,720/-
2021 06 months
Rent
4 July to December - 2,68,836X6 16,13,016/-
2021 06 months
Rent
5 January to July - 2,68,836X6 16,13,016/-
2022 06 months
Rent
6 July to December - 2,84,964X6 17,09,784/-
2022 06 month Rent
7 January to July - 2,84,964X7 19,94,748/-
2023 07 month Rent
1,06,89,504/
-
Amount paid as per -2700000
Ex.D.9
Security deposit -5500000
amount
Balance 24,89,504/-
19
COM.O.S.1710/2024
22. The defendant has denied that taken contention in the written statement that the defendant has paid the entire rent and the rent for 6 months given due to covid-
19. Therefore no any recitals or admissions from the plaintiff for waive of the rent. Therefore the contention of the defendant for wave of the rent for taken into consideration. In support of pleadings the defendant has examined as DW.1 and relied 13 documents marked as Ex.D.1 to 13.
23. Ex.D.1 to 3 are online copy of invoice dated 12.01.2017, 27.06.2017, 30.06.2017. Ex.D.4 is a tax invoice dated 29.05.2019. Ex.D.5 is a tax invoice dated 29.05.2019. Ex.D.1 to 3 are invoices are pertaining to the pumps installed in borewell. However defendant has not obtained the permission from the plaintiff to take the borewell for install the pump set. If pump set was installed that consent was not given by the plaintiff. Therefore Ex.D.1 to 3 did not taken into consideration for adjust arrears of rent. Ex.D.4 is an tax invoice and description of goods are Hikvision DVR, Doom Camera, Galaxy Intercom, Wifi Routers, Telephone Instruments. Installation charges are not confirmed with agreement as per Ex.D.4. Though the facilities was obtained by the defendant to run his business. However the said Ex.D.4 20 COM.O.S.1710/2024 is not common perview of agreement marked as Ex.D.4. Ex.D.5 is cash bill issued by the blue-tech in favour of the defendant wherein also it reveals about the installation of AC, copper pipe, installation charges, installation of TV the said materials has installed in the schedule demises. However the said installation & materials using by the defendant for run his business. Therefore the plaintiff is not liable to pay an amount mentioned in Ex.D.5. Ex.D.6 is the tax invoice issued by the Haryana Handloom Center purchase by the defendant to run his business on 16.11.2019. Wherein it is also the defendant has purchased the materials daily used for hotel/lodge business. However, pillow cover, mat, blanket, window screens are daily used by the defendant by smooth running of his business. Therefore, the plaintiff is not liable to pay the amount mentioned in Ex.D.6. Ex.D.7 is the rental agreement executed dated 21.08.2024 by Umadevi by name of Raghavendra Boj Shetty.
24. The said lease agreement was ended after handed over the key and made inventory as per Ex.P.13. Therefore the subsequent lease with 3 persons is not considered for adjudicate the case. However it is noted point that the right is mentioned on Ex.D.7 is taken into consideration for calculative the rent as agreed.
21COM.O.S.1710/2024
25. The plaintiff is claimed the rent of Rs.5,13,500/- p.m, however he has sated that rent amount is mentioned in the agreement lower the rent agreed. Plaintiff claimed the higher rent. However Ex.D.7 is a lease deed entered by the plaintiff in favour of 3 rd person and rent was fixed per month of Rs.3,24,000/- for period of 01.09.2025 to 31.08.2026. Therefore looking to the rent mentioned by the subsequent lease deed Ex.D.7 and the rent claimed by the plaintiff is not coroborate. Therefore rent mentioned in Ex.P.4 is taking into consideration for calculating arrears of rent. Ex.D.8 is the certificate u/Sec.63 of BSA. Ex.D.9 is the statement of account of defendant. The defendant has holding the account in Karur Bysya Bank. Accordingly the defendant has paid rent as per Ex.D.9.
27.01.2020 Rs.2,50,000/-
26.02.2020 Rs.2,50,000/-
29.06.2020 Rs.4,00,000/-
09.09.2020 Rs.1,00,000/-
13.11.2020 Rs.5,00,000/-
15.02.2021 Rs.10,00,000/-
22.03.2021 Rs.2,50,000/-
Total Rs.27,00,000/-
22
COM.O.S.1710/2024
26. As per Ex.P.9 the defendant paid total out of claim of Rs.27,00,000/-. However the plaintiff has pleaded in the plaint that the defendant was due on payment of rent on March 2020and he has stopped the payment. The due of rent was calculate on April 2020 and till the handed over of key up to August 2023. during that period the defendant has paid rent of Rs.22,50,000/-.
27. In the cross examination of PW.1 it as stated that defendant are not paid the rent every month but they have paid once in 3 months. It is also mentioned that the plaintiff has calculated the arrears of rent for Rs.1,25,51,040/- from June 2020 to 2023 on the basis of every month rent of Rs.5,13,000/- and also the plaintiff agreed that they have not produced any documents to show that the defendant has paid rent of Rs.5,13,000/- p.m. The P.W.1 has clearly admitted that the rent of Rs.5,13,000/- was not mentioned in Ex.P.4.
28. By looking to the Ex.P.4 documents of cross examination of PW.1 it is clearly admitted that the rent was taken into consideration as mentioned in Ex.P.4. The defendant has taken defence that in the covid-19 pandemic in March 2020 and there was a lockdown imposed by government of India and movement by 23 COM.O.S.1710/2024 restricted. Due to Covid-19 the business of the defendant was closed for 6 months. However the plaintiff was wave off the rent for 6 months. There is no any recitals as the plaintiff was wave off the rent of 6 months. Though the defendant has issued the notice as per Ex.P.1 and 2, but they have not handed over the keys. As per Ex.P.1 to 5, 7 to 11 and Ex.D.11 there is no wave off given by the plaintiff for 6 months of rent. Therefore the defendant is liable to pay rent as per Ex.P.4.
29. The plaintiff has also claimed the damages as the defendant was caused the damage to the building and constructed used the basement and constructed the office and also constructed in terrace. As per Ex.P.4 registered lease deed clearly states that no alterations shall be made to the suit schedule property without the permission of the plaintiff. However the defendant without the consent of the plaintiff made various allegations for his convenience of business. Without the permission the defendant is liable to pay damages for securing the premises as its mentioned in Ex.P.4. The defendant has made construction under the head of cost of construction of front evaluation work to the restaurant with tiles and glass. The inventory made by both the parties were signed the inventory. However the damages 24 COM.O.S.1710/2024 was claimed by the plaintiff as per Ex.P.4 has not signed by the defendant. However in the cross examination of DW.1 has admitted that the inventory was prepared in August 2023 and they are not shifted the things before sending key by courier. The owner was not present, therefore the defendant has not shifted the materials. The defendant has not prepared the list of goods to belongs to them and plaintiff while sending the case through courier. Therefore the defendant having possession and at the time of inventory the defendant was present. It is mentioned in para 4 of the cross examination the defendant has constructed a office after obtaining the permission from the plaintiff. The defendant has not produced any documents to show that they have constructed the office after obtaining the permission. But defendant himself has admitted that he has not obtained the permission. The defendant has made interiors into premises as per purpose of their business. The defendant has not obtained the permission in plaint from plaintiff during purchasing the materials at Ex.D.1 to 5. Therefore the amount mentioned by the engineer in Ex.P.12 is cost the damages for receive the premises by the plaintiff. The defendant is liable to pay an amount as damages as mentioned in Ex.P.12.
25COM.O.S.1710/2024
30. By looking to the oral and documentary evidence of PW.1 and DW.1. The defendant are liable to pay an amount of Rs.24,89,504/- as arrears of rent damages of Rs.37,35,000/- total amount of Rs.62,24,504/- as mentioned in Ex.P.12.
31. It is also noted point that the premises of the plaintiff is used by the defendant for the purpose of running the hotel business. Therefore the nature of the lease between plaintiff and defendant is commercial and arrears of rent and damages to be pay by the defendant with interest at 18% from December 2024 till its realization. Accordingly I answered issued No.1 in Partly Affirmative.
32. Issue No.2:- The defendant claimed Rs.17,64,110/- to reimburse the said amount. The claim of the defendant that he has constructed the office and also purchase the materials mentioned in Ex.D.1 to 5 through cash. The defendant is also installed the pumps and wires to bore well. He has not obtained the permission from water authority. The amount mentioned for installed the pump set and other expenses for borewell was not obtain a consent by authority. So it is also noted point that Ex.D.1 to 5 are pertains to the 26 COM.O.S.1710/2024 materials which are used by the defendant to run his business. Therefore the plaintiff is not liable to pay a amount mentioned in Ex.D.1 to D.6. the claim of the defendant for recovery of Rs.17,64,110/- is not supporting any documentary evidence. Therefore the defendant is not entitled for recovery of Rs.17,64,110/- from the plaintiff. Accordingly I answered issue No.2 in the Negative.
33. Issue No.3:- The defendant is due of arrears of rent of Rs.24,89,504/- and also the defendant has caused the damage to the premises for worth of Rs.37,35,000/- as observed in issue No.1. therefore plaintiff is entitled for recovery of amount of Rs.62,44,504/- with interest at 18% p.a from December 2024 till its realization. Accordingly I answered issue No.3 in the Affirmative.
34. Issue No.4:- The defendant has not prove to reimburse of Rs.17,64,110/- from the plaintiff as observed in issue No.2. Therefore the defendant is not entitled for relief as claimed in the counter claim. Accordingly I answered issue No.4 in the Negative.
27COM.O.S.1710/2024
35. Issue No.5 : -Therefore, I proceed to pass the following.
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff filed against the defendant is hereby decreed in part with costs.
The counter claim of the defendant is hereby dismissed.
It is hereby directed to the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.62,24,504/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a from December 2024 till its realization.
Draw Decree accordingly.
The Office is directed to send copy of this Judgment to Plaintiff and Defendant to their email ID as required under Order XX Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code as amended under Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, verified and corrected by me and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 24th day of April, 2026).
(VIDYADHAR SHIRAHATTI), XXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
28COM.O.S.1710/2024 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF PW-1 Prashanth Ramaiah LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF Ex.P.1 O/c of legal notice dated 12/17.04.2021.
Ex.P.2 Reply notice dated 23.12.2022
Ex.P.3 GPA dtd.17.12.2024
Ex.P.4 C/C of Lease deed dtd.13.03.2019
Ex.P.5 O/C of legal notice dtd.03.10.2020
Ex.P.6 02 Postal receipts
Ex.P.7 O/C of Legal notice dtd.29.06.2021
Ex.P.8 O/C of Legal notice dtd.03.12.2022
Ex.P.9 O/C of Legal notice dtd.19.01.2023 along with
postal receipt
Ex.P.10 O/C of Legal notice dtd.06.01.2024 Ex.P.11 O/C of Legal notice dtd.08.10.2024 Ex.P.12 Estimation dtd.10.08.2023 Ex.P.13 List of inventory dtd.05.08.2023 Ex.P.14 Photographs along with CD (pg no.22 to 110) Ex.P.15 Certificate U/s.63 of BSA Ex.P.16 Bill dtd.22.08.2023 Ex.P.17 Copy of registered sale deed dated 06.07.2023.
29COM.O.S.1710/2024 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT Dw.1 Raja B Shetty LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT Ex.D.1 Online copy of invoice dtd.12.01.2017 Ex.D.2 Online copy of invoice dtd.27.06.2017 Ex.D.3 Online copy of invoice dtd.30.06.2017 Ex.D.4 Tax invoice dtd.29.05.2019 Ex.D.5 Cash bill dtd.25.05.2019 Ex.D.6 Tax invoice dtd.16.11.2019 Ex.D.7 C/C of Rental agreement Ex.D.8 Certificate U/Sec.63 of BSA Ex.D.9 Statement of account Ex.D.10 Printout of Electricity bill payment receipts (pg no.26 to 33) Ex.D.11 Photocopy of notice dtd.28.09.2024 (counsel for Plaintiff have no objections to mark) Ex.D.12 02 postal receipts Ex.D.13 Postal acknowledgment (VIDYADHAR SHIRAHATTI), LXXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.