Bangalore District Court
Swetha N.R vs Ramachandra K.V on 1 August, 2024
KABC020372152022
IN THE COURT OF XXI ADDL.SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE. (SCCH-23)
DATED THIS 1st DAY OF AUGUST - 2024
PRESENT: Sri.AALOK. A. N.
B.B.A. LL.B
XXI ASC Judge and Member,
MACT, Bengaluru.
S.C.No.1227/2022
Between:
1) Smt. Swetha. N.R,
W/o. Mr. N.R. Chandhakula,
Aged about 43 years.
2) Mr. N.R. Chandhakula,
S/o G. Narayana Murthy,
Aged about 47 years.
3) Mr. N.R. Gagan,
S/o Mr. N.R. Chandhakula,
Aged about 19 years.
All are R/at : No.1,
(Old No.43/1) Second floor,
Susheela Main road,
Chikkamavalli,
Bengaluru-560004.
Plaintiff No.2 & 3 represented by
Plaintiff No.1 GPA Holder. ... Plaintiffs
(By Advocate: D.K. Sandarshini)
-And-
Sri. K.V. Ramachandra,
S/o K.R. Venkatesh Murthy,
SCCH-23 2
S.C. NO.1227/2022
Aged about 59 years,
Residing at No.145/21,
Second Main road,
Third Cross, Chamarajpet,
Bengaluru- 560 018. .....
Defendant
(By Adv. Sri. Ramesha Chandra)
*****
Date of Institution of the suit : 16.12.2022
Nature of the suit : Suit for the relief of
Possession, arrears of rent &
damages
Date of commencement of
Recording the evidence : 19.07.2023
Date on which the judgment
was pronounced : 01.08.2024
Total Duration : Year/s Month/s Day/s
01 07 16
(Aalok A.N.)
XXI ASCJ & ACJM
Bengaluru
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendant for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property, for arrears of rent, for permanent injunction not to transfer the suit schedule property to third parties and to grant damages of Rs.500/- per day from 30.10.2022 till date of handing over of vacant possession of the schedule property to the plaintiff and cost of the suit.
SCCH-23 3S.C. NO.1227/2022
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case as follows:
It is the case of the plaintiffs that, they are the absolute owners of the schedule premises and defendant was the monthly tenant in respect of the schedule premises. The schedule premises was obtained by the defendant from the plaintiff as per the terms of lease agreement dated 18.04.2016 and the monthly rent was Rs.6,500/- which is payable by 5th of every month. The period of lease fixed for 11 months. It is further averred that, after completion of 11 months of agreement period, the defendant has not got renewed the agreement and thereby the defendant has become tenant at sufferance. The plaintiff was forced to receive a rent of Rs.10,000/- per month in respect of the schedule property. It is further urged the defendant had paid rent only till August 2022 and due of payment of rent from September 2022. The plaintiffs requires their property for their own use and even the agreement also got expired.
Though the said factum is informed to the defendant but the defendant did not bothered to vacate the schedule property. As per Sl.No.9 of the agreement one month notice is mandatory as such the plaintiff had issued legal notice dated 30.09.2022 requesting the defendant to quit and surrender the vacant possession of the schedule property. Though the said notice was served on the defendant, but he has not complied the demands made in the notice. Further averred that defendant is also liable to pay damages of Rs.500/- per day apart from the rent paid till handing over the vacant possession. Hence, plaintiff has filed the suit SCCH-23 4 S.C. NO.1227/2022 against the defendant for possession, arrears of rent and mesne profits.
3. In answer to the suit summons the defendant spurred in rush to the court by filing written statement stating that, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable either on law of on facts. It is specifically contended that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. It is submitted that rate of rent was less than Rs.3,500/- as on the date of commencement of Rent Act. The defendant was entitled for protection under Sec.2(3) (e) (i) of Karnataka Rent Act. It is further urged that the suit is barred by Sec.8 of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act 1964. It is submitted that, the plaintiffs themselves have refused to accept rent and the defendant is ready to pay the rent before the court. Further, defendant pleads his ignorance about ownership of the plaintiffs over suit schedule property. Further denied all the allegations made in the plaint with regard to rate of rent and such other contentions taken up by the plaintiff. It is submitted that the business carried at schedule property is only source of income for the livelihood of the defendant and in the event of evicting defendant from the suit schedule property, the defendant will be on the street. For the plaintiffs it is a matter of luxury. It is further urged that the defendant is aged and he suffered loss due to Covid-19. It is submitted that the defendant will be put into great hardship in the event of suit is allowed. On the other hand, no hardship will be caused to the plaintiff, if suit is SCCH-23 5 S.C. NO.1227/2022 dismissed. It is also contended that the plaint does not disclose the cause of action. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
4. On the basis of the pleadings, the following points arise for my consideration is that :
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, there is a landlord and tenant relationship between the plaintiff and defendant?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he has terminated the tenancy of the defendant?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is due of 4 months rent to the tune of Rs.40,000/-?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the damages? If so, at what rate?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of ejectment?
6. What order or decree?
5. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff No.1 examined herself as PW1 and got marked 13 documents as Exs.P1 to P13 and closed their side. The defendant himself stepped into the witness box and filed affidavit-in-lieu of oral examination-in-chief as DW1 and he did not choose to mark any documents.
SCCH-23 6S.C. NO.1227/2022
6. This Court heard the arguments of the erudite counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and defendant. Perused the pleadings and documents.
7. On the basis of the material available on records, my answer to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1:- In the Affirmative Point No.2:- In the Affirmative Point No.3:- In the Affirmative Point No.4:- Partly in the Affirmative Point No.5:- In the Affirmative Point No.6:- As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1: The plaintiffs have knocked the doors of justice with a prayer to direct the defendant to quit and surrender the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property, arrears of rent, for damages and such other reliefs.
9.The case of the plaintiffs lies in a narrow compass as to the landlord is evicting the tenant who is in a possession of the schedule property even after the efflux of time, arrears of rent and for damages. Before dwelling into analyzing the disputed facts in issue it relevant to have a birds eye view in the case of the plaintiff. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that, plaintiffs are absolute owners and the defendant was SCCH-23 7 S.C. NO.1227/2022 inducted as a tenant in respect of the suit schedule property on 01.04.2016 on monthly rent of Rs.6,500/- which has to be paid within 5th of every month. It is specific case of the plaintiffs that, after completion of the 11 months from the date agreement the defendant did not renewed the agreement and thereby defendant is tenant at sufferance. It is positively urged that, the defendant has not paid rent from September-2002. It is specifically submitted that the plaintiff is in need of the suit property, as such, the plaintiff got issued quit notice as contemplated U/S.106 of Transfer of Property and the same was served on the defendant. Even after the service of the said notice, the defendant has failed to vacate the plaint schedule premises and without having any efficacious remedy plaintiff has filed the suit.
10. In order to substantiate the above said contentions the plaintiff No.1 herself stepped into the witness box and filed affidavit-in-lieu of oral examination-in-chief as PW1 by reiterating the plaint averments and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. In order to falsify the contentions of the plaintiff and to substantiate the case of the defendant, the defendant counsel has cross-examined PW1 at length.
11. Repelling to the contentions urged by the plaintiff, the defendant had attacked the case of the plaintiff on various prisms known to fact and law. The first and foremost contention urged by the defendant is that suit of the plaintiff is hit by provisions of Karnataka Rent Act and the said Act SCCH-23 8 S.C. NO.1227/2022 prohibits the jurisdiction of this court. Further even Sec.8 of the Karnataka Small Causes Act also prohibits the jurisdiction of this court. It is positively asserted that the suit schedule property is only ray of hope to the defendant for his livelihood and if the plaintiff succeeds in this case, the defendant will be put into great hardship and injury. On the other hand, no hardship will be caused to the plaintiff, if suit is dismissed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
12. In order to substantiate the contentions the defendant himself stepped into the witness box and filed his affidavit-in-lieu of oral examination-in-chief examined as DW.1 by reiterating the written statement and he did not choose to mark any documents. In order to demolish the defence of the defendant, and to substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff counsel has cross examined the DW.1 at length.
13. The plaintiffs being the 'Dominus Litis' to their case as per S.101 to 103 of Indian Evidence Act the plaintiffs are bestowed with a burden to prove their case. As per legal maxim "Actori Incumbit Onus Probandi" the plaintiffs are burdened to prove the plaint allegations with oral and documentary evidence. With this prelude in the backdrop let me analyze the rival contentions in the light of oral and documentary evidence.
14. After marshaling of facts, dissection of evidence placed on record and after hearing erudite counsel SCCH-23 9 S.C. NO.1227/2022 appearing for combating parties, this court opines that this is pregmented with inner factual intricacies as hereunder :
1) Whether the plaintiffs demonstrates as to their absolute ownership over the suit schedule property?
2) Whether the defendant demonstrates that the suit of the plaintiff is hit by Sec.2(3)(e)(i) of Karnataka Rent Act?
3) Whether the grounds urged by the defendant that he is in need of the suit schedule property is tenable in the eye of law having regard to the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act?
15. This issue revolves round the sphere and ambit as to the existence of jural relationships between the plaintiffs and defendant herein. Before analyzing the rival pleadings pertaining to jural relationship, at the first instance let me discuss some of the aspects pertaining to ownership of the plaintiffs over plaint schedule property. Incidentally in a suit for ejectment the factum of ownership has to considered so as to trace the genesis of title in order to give effect to the decree. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that, they have acquired the suit schedule property by Gift deed dated 06.10.2005. In order to substantiate the above said factum, the plaintiffs have produced Ex.P.2 -Registered Gift Deed dated 06.10.2005. This court gave anxious consideration to SCCH-23 10 S.C. NO.1227/2022 the terms ingrained in the Gift Deed which reveals that, the then absolute owner of the suit schedule property i.e., one Narayanmurthy and G.N. Gayathridevi had gifted suit schedule property to the plaintiffs herein. Added more even by virtue of the gift deed the revenue records also got mutated in the name of the plaintiffs herein and that is vibrantly evidenced from Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4. On perusal of paragraph No.1 of the cross-examination of PW. 1, the defendant counsel has tried to attack collaterally with respect to the plaintiffs ownership over the suit schedule property. At the same time this court will not loose sight of the fact that, tenancy of the defendant is categorically admitted by the defendant herein during the course of cross- examination. Added more the defendant has also admitted the tenancy even during the course of written statement. When such being the case, the defendant absolutely does not have any voice as against questioning the ownership of plaintiff over plaint schedule premises. With regard to the tenant questioning of the ownership of the landlord, it is pertinent to refer Section 110 of Indian Evidence Act.
"Burden of proof as to ownership.--When the question is whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner".
This section gives effect to the principle that the person who denies ownership of the lawful owner he will be bestowed with the burden to show that he is not a lawful owner. In SCCH-23 11 S.C. NO.1227/2022 the instant case on hand, the defendant has contended that plaintiff is not the owner of the plaint schedule property during the course of cross-examination of PW.1. But to substantiate the same, the defendant has not produced any string of evidence. Mere bald contention during the course of cross-examination without any documentary proof, cannot be trusted as a gospel truth.
16. Furthermore, it is also relevant to refer Section 116 of Indian evidence Act. Sec.116 of Indian Evidence Act reads as hereunder:
"Estoppel of tenant; and of licensee of person in possession.--No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came upon any immovable property by the licence of the person in possession thereof, shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such licence was given".
On condign understanding of the above said provision, the principle which emerges is that when once tenant admits the relationship of landlord and tenant, then he is estoped from denying the title deeds of the landlord over the plaint schedule premises. In the instant case on hand also the defendant has admitted the ownership of the plaintiffs. When such is the case, the above said contention is not tenable in the eye of law.
SCCH-23 12S.C. NO.1227/2022
17. The next seminal question is to be considered is with regard to the contention urged by the defendant that the suit of the plaintiffs is hit by principles enumerated Sec.2(3) (e)(i) of Karnataka Rent Act. The said provision envisages as hereunder:
(e) to any premises, deemed rent on the date of commencement of this Act or the Standard Rent of which exceeds:-
(i) three Thousand Five Hundred Rupees per month in any area referred to in part A of the first schedule; and
(ii) two thousand rupees per month in any other area.
Explanation: "Deemed rent on the date of commencement of this Act" shall be the rent calculated in the manner provided in Section 7, together with revision, if any, as provided in Section 9 and decreased in the case of premises constructed after the commencement of this Act at the same rate as the rate of enhancement stipulated in the third Schedule to reflect the position on the date of commencement of this Act;
18. On condign understanding of the above said provision, the said Sec.2 of Karnataka Rent Act starts with non-obstante clause. The legislature in their wisdom have enacted the said provision stating that the Karnataka Rent Act will be applicable in case of the rent is Rs.3,500/- per SCCH-23 13 S.C. NO.1227/2022 month, but in case of Corporation area and in other areas the rent is Rs.2,000/- per month. The whole fulcrum of the defence of the defendant is that defendant was paying rent at inception of only Rs.500/- as such the plaintiff ought to have filed suit under Karnataka Rent Act. In order to substantiate above said contention apart from self serving, self proclaimed and vociferous arguments by the defendant counsel there is absolutely no iota of documents produced by the defendant. It is also strenuously argued by the learned counsel for the defendant pointing out that, the said Act starts with an opening note that Deemed rent on the date of commencement of this Act. By interpreting the said Section it is argued in vehemence as on the date of commencement of Act, which date backs to 1999, the rate of rent is less than Rs.2,000/-. As such it is canvassed that the plaintiff ought to have file suit under Karnataka Rent Act. In order to controvert the said contention on the other hand, the plaintiff has relied on the admitted document which is marked as Ex.P.13 being the rent agreement between plaintiffs herein and defendant herein dated 26.04.2016. On close perusal of the rent agreement it reveals that the rate of rent agreed by the parties is Rs.6,500/- per month. Added more, the terms ingrained in the said agreement reveals that the lease starts from 01.04.2016 for a period of 11 months. The said rent agreement is blatantly and blissfully silent as to previous rates of rent and such other details. Added more, it is not out of the context to mention that, even the said document is admitted during the course of cross-
SCCH-23 14S.C. NO.1227/2022 examination of DW.1 by the defendant herein. When such is the case, beyond any stretch of imagination it can be conceded that the suit will come under purview of Sec.2 (3)
(e) (i) of Karnataka Rent Act. Furthermore, the defendant has also not made any endeavor to demonstrate that at the time of commencement of Act the rate of rent was less than Rs.3,500/-. Furthermore, Ex.P.2 the Gift Deed reveals that the plaint schedule property was gifted to plaintiff on 06.10.2005. In pursuance of gift deed the plaintiffs are owners over the suit property only after 06.10.2005. Hypothetically having regard to the admissions of PW.1 that the defendant was staying in the plaint schedule property from past many years, if that were to be considered, then also by virtue of the gift deed plaintiffs have became absolute owners over the suit property on 06.10.2005. Thereafter, after execution of Ex.P.2 Gift Deed the plaintiffs have entered into fresh agreement with the tenant. It is relevant to note that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property by virtue of Ex.P.2 Gift deed. Thereafter, by virtue of their ownership as per Ex.P.2 Gift Deed, they have entered into Ex.P.13-Agreement with the defendant. When such is the case, the said agreement is tenable in the eye of law.
19. The next seminal question is to be considered is with regard to the contention urged by the defendant that he is running eatery in the suit property and it is a sole means to eke his livelihood and on the other hand, the plaintiffs are not in need of suit property. It is relevant to note that, the SCCH-23 15 S.C. NO.1227/2022 suit is not filed under Karnataka Rent Act to prove the bonafide need. But it is filed invoking the Sec.106 of Transfer of Property Act. When such is the case, the above contention does not holds any water in the eye of law. One of the prerequisites in order to file the suit for eviction under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act is to send quit notice. The plaintiff has sent the quit notice as per law and the above said fact will be discussed in Point No.2 and hence on this ground also the contention of the defendant does not hold any water in the eye of law. Further the plaintiff with the help of Ex.P.13 being the rent agreement have categorically demonstrated as to the landlord and tenant relationship between plaintiff and defendant herein.
20. Added more, the defendant during the course of cross-examination has also admitted that he has entered into an agreement with plaintiffs. The relevant portion is hereunder:
The signature found in Ex.P.2 is mine. As the witness had admitted his signature, the same is marked as Ex.P.2(a).
All these aspects clearly reveals that there is landlord and tenant relationship between the plaintiffs and defendant herein. On assessing entire evidence in the light of oral and documentary evidence and in the beacon of light of principles of law, the preponderance of probability tilts more in favour of plaintiff herein. Hence, this court answers Point No.1 in the Affirmative.SCCH-23 16
S.C. NO.1227/2022
21. Point No.2:- After answering point No.1 in affirmative, this issue does not call for much discussion. It is borne out from Ex.P7 quit notice that tenancy of the defendant has been duly terminated. The said notice has been served on defendant as per Ex.P9 and 10 acknowledgment due card. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer Section 27 of General Clauses Act and Section 16 of Indian Evidence Act. Sec.27 of General Clauses Act which reads as hereunder:
Sec.27. Meaning of service by post - Where any (Central Act) or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression "serve" or either of the expressions "give" or "send" or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, prepaying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."
which means to say that when the post was sent to be given address, the service shall be deemed to be effected. The presumption can be drawn to the effect that the mandatory notice which is sent as per Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act has been duly served to the defendants.
Sec.16 ; When there is a question whether a particular act was done, the existence of any course of business, according to which it naturally would have been done, is a relevant fact."SCCH-23 17
S.C. NO.1227/2022 When post is dispatched to particular address it is deemed to have been served to that address. The factum of sending Ex.P11 reply to Ex.P7 notice itself pre-supposes the service of notice to the defendant. Added more, during the course of written statement, the defendant has admitted that Ex.P7 notice was served on him. The admission in the pleadings is the best piece of evidence. In this regard, the plaintiff during the course of arguments relied on a decision reported in AIR 1971 SC 474 between Nagindas vs. Dalpathram Icharam. As per the above said decision, judicial admission i.e., admission in the pleadings has to be given a higher pedestrial than that of evidentiary admission. Further more it could be culled out from the course of cross-examination that the defendant had received Ex.P7 notice. All these documentary evidence coupled with oral admission establishes that tenancy of the defendant has been terminated. On assessing entire evidence in the light of oral and documentary evidence and in the beacon of light of principles of law, the preponderance of probability tilts more in favour of plaintiff herein. Hence, this court answers Point No.2 in the Affirmative.
22. Point No.3: This Point revolves round the sphere and ambit as to the claim of the plaintiff with regard to the arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.40,000/- for the 4 months rent. It is specific case of the plaintiff that, the defendant has not at all paid 4 months rent from September-2022 to December-2022. On the other hand, the said contention is SCCH-23 18 S.C. NO.1227/2022 resisted by the defendant stating that the defendant has paid all the rents to the plaintiff. In order to substantiate the said contention of the defendant, the defendant has not produced any string of evidence to show that he has paid rent. It could be also culled out from the cross-examination that the defendant did not insisted the plaintiff to give receipts for receiving the rent. Though PW.1 was cross- examined at length, but nothing worth was elicited. It could be borne out from the cross-examination of DW.1 that he has not paid any rent after filing of the suit. The defendant has not prduced any documents to show that he had paid the rent for the month of September-2022 to December- 2022. It is needless to state that even the defendant has not produced any of the rent receipts. When such being the case, mere self serving and self proclaimed statement of defendant cannot be trusted as a gospel truth. The plaintiff had demonstrated that the defendant is due of rent of Rs.40,000/-. On assessing entire oral evidence and documentary evidence and in the beacon of light of principles of law, the preponderance of probability tilts in favour of plaintiff herein. Hence, this court answers Point No.3 in the Affirmative.
23. Point No.4: This point touches the aspect of damages for unlawful use and enjoyment of suit property after termination of tenancy. The record discloses that the Ex.P7 quit notice dated 30.09.2022 served on the defendant on 03.10.2022 and the same is evident from Ex.P.9 and SCCH-23 19 S.C. NO.1227/2022 Ex.P.10 being the acknowledgment due card. The defendant ought to have vacated the schedule premises within 15 days from the time given in the notice. The record reveals that the defendant has not vacated the schedule premises even after the lapse of 15 days from the date of issuance of the notice. It is a trite law that if a tenant did not vacate the premises, even after the issuance of the quit notice which is held to be sufficient, the possession of the tenant will become unlawful possession in the eye of law. With regard to the payment of rent after filing of this suit it is a specific contention of the defendant though he has tendered rent to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff refused to receive the rent. The DW.1 who is the defendant himself voluntaries and submits during the litmus test of cross-examination that he do not had any impediment to deposit the arrears of rent. The defendant has not made any endevor to make payment of arrears of rent before the court. Added more per contra it was elicited during the course of cross-examination of PW.1 that, after filing of the suit she had stopped receiving the rent from the defendant. PW.1 has also admitted that the defendant is ready to pay the rent, but she did not receive the rent as she is in need of suit schedule property. The relevant portion of cross-examination which gains more importance in the eye of law:
"As I have filed the case I have stopped receiving rent from the defendant. The defendant was ready to give rent, but I did not SCCH-23 20 S.C. NO.1227/2022 receive the rent as I am need of schedule property."
This part of cross-examination goes to show that the defendant was very well ready to pay the rent. For the reasons best known to the defendant himself that he did not made any endeavor to make payment of arrears of rent before the court. Though the defendant has contended that he has paid rent to the plaintiff but absolutely no string of evidence produced before this court. Further the defendant has not made any endevour to deposit the rent before this court. The plaintiff has sought for damages at the rate of Rs.500/- per day. In order to substantiate the above said fact except the pleadings, the plaintiff has not produced any documents. The plaintiff has also not produced any documents to prove the prevailing rate of rent within the locality of the suit schedule premises, which fetches a monthly rent of Rs.15,000/- per month. There is no string of evidence produced by the plaintiff with regard to prevailing rate of rent in that locality. The last paid rent was Rs.10,000/- per month. Since the said schedule premises is within the Bengaluru City Corporation, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that awarding damages of Rs.11,000/- from the date of suit till its realization would meed the ends of justice. Hence, this court answers Point No.4 partly in the Affirmative.
24. Point No.5: As discussed in point No.1 and 2, the plaintiff has succeeded in proving the landlord and tenant SCCH-23 21 S.C. NO.1227/2022 relationship between plaintiff and defendant and also plaintiff succeeded in proving the termination of tenancy by the defendants in accordance with law. Hence, in such an event, this Court find any reason to brush aside the legitimate claim of the plaintiff herein. The plaintiff has successfully proved his pleadings with the help of documentary and oral evidence. n assessing entire evidence in the light of oral and documentary evidence and in the beacon of light of principles of law, the preponderance of probability tilts more in favour of plaintiff herein. Hence, this court answers point No.5 in the Affirmative.
25. Point No.6:- In view of my findings on above Issues 1 to 4, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby partly decreed with proportionate costs.
The defendant is hereby liable to vacate and surrender the vacant possession of suit schedule premises to the possession of plaintiff within 3 months from the date of this order, failing which the plaintiff is entitled to execute the same by filing separate application.
Hence defendant is liable to pay arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 40,000/-.
The defendant is also liable to pay damages of Rs.11,000/- p.m., from the date of suit till its realization.SCCH-23 22
S.C. NO.1227/2022 Office to draw the decree accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her and then transcript revised and corrected by me and pronounced in the open Court, on the 1st day of August, 2024) (AALOK. A. N) XXI ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE BENGALURU ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff/s:
PW-1 : Smt. Swetha List of documents exhibited on behalf of plaintiff/s:
Ex.P.1 Lease Agreement Ex.P.2 Certified copy of Gift deed Ex.P.3 Encumbrance certificate Ex.P.4 Endorsement Ex.P.5 GPA Ex.P.6 Tax Paid Receipt Ex.P.7 Legal Notice Ex.P.8 Postal Receipt Ex.P9 & 10 Postal Acknowledgment Ex.P.11 Reply Ex.P.12 Certificate under Sec.65B of Evidence Act Ex.P.13 Lease Deed dated 18.04.2016
List of witnesses examined on behalf of defendant/s:
DW.1 : Sri. K.V. Ramachandra List of documents exhibited on behalf of defendant/s:
- None -
(AALOK. A. N) XXI ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE BENGALURU