Bangalore District Court
M S Hajee Ebrahim Sait Wakf vs Ms Indian Wood And Industries on 5 February, 2025
KABC010036592016
IN THE COURT OF XXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 5th day of February 2025
Present : SRI.VEDAMOORTHY B.S., B.A.(L)., LL.B.,
XXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-14)
O.S.No.1281/2016
PLAINTIFF : M/s Hajee Ebrahim Sait Wakf,
A Private Wakf, having office at No.47,
2nd Floor, Greams Road,
Thousand Lights, Chennai - 600 006,
Represented by its Muthavalli,
Mr.N.Fuaad Musvee,
S/o Late Ebrahim Musvee
(By Sri.Varun Patil, Advocate)
V/s
DEFENDANTS : 1. M/s Indian Wood & Industries,
Registered Partnership Firm,
Having its Registered Office at
Wood House, No.526, 2nd Floor,
5th Block, Ranka Apartment,
Lalbadh Road, Bangalore - 560 027.
Represented by its Partner
Mr.Kurian Thomas
2. Mr.Divakar Rao, S/o S.N.Rao,
Aged about 40 years,
Proprietor of Arilines Hotels,
2
O.S.No.1281/2016
No.4, Madras Bank Road,
Civil Station, Bangalore.
(By Sri.Ajesh Kumar S., Advocate for
the 1st defendant, Sri.S.Rajendra,
Advocate for the 2nd defendant)
Date of institution of the suit. 11.02.2016
Ejectment and
Nature of the suit
Damages/mesne profits
Date of the commencement of 28.10.2024
recording evidence
Date on which the Judgment 05.02.2025
was pronounced
Years Months Days
Total duration
08 11 24
(VEDAMOORTHY B.S.)
XXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for ejectment directing the defendants to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property, to direct the defendants to pay damages/mesne profits of Rs.32,50,000/- and to continue to pay damages at the rate 3 O.S.No.1281/2016 of Rs.2,50,000/- per month during the pendency of the suit and costs of the suit.
2. The suit schedule property is the land ad-measuring 48,986.6 square feet forming eastern portion of the total land ad-measuring 78,986.6 square feet together with buildings and structures thereon situated at No.4, Madras, Bank Road, Civil Station, Bangalore the land falling between St.Mark's Road and Lavelle Road and bounded on East by Madras Bank Road, West by Private Property, North by Private Property and South by Schedule 'B' property.
3. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property. The 1 st defendant is the lessee under the plaintiff. The father of Kurian Thomas entered into a lease with the plaintiff from 1964 and continued the lease for various period from time to time. The plaintiff, the 1st defendant and the father of the 2nd defendant held a meeting of settlement. A minutes of meeting was signed by them on 12.03.1995. Thereafter, a Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.08.1995 was 4 O.S.No.1281/2016 executed between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant is the sub-lessee under the 1 st defendant. Even at that time of entering into the Memorandum of Understanding, the 2nd defendant was in possession of the suit schedule property. Subsequently, the plaintiff and K.Thomas agreed to have a new terms and conditions for continuing the lease. Accordingly, the plaintiff obtained the permission from the Principal City Civil Judge, Bengaluru in Miscellaneous No.11/1996 to lease the suit schedule property to the 1st defendant on fresh and terms conditions. Vide order dated 11.10.1996, the petition was allowed. Thereafter, an Agreement of Lease dated 25.03.1998 was entered into between the plaintiff and 1 st defendant. According to the terms and conditions of the said agreement, the plaintiff agreed to lease the suit schedule property on fresh terms and conditions for a period of 60 years and and the 1st defendant agreed to give up an area of 30,000 square feet vacant land to the plaintiff for development. Accordingly, the plaintiff took possession of 30,000 square feet vacant land and developed it by 5 O.S.No.1281/2016 constructing a commercial building viz., "Prestige Emerald". The Agreement of Lease was subsequently extended in an Supplemental Agreements dated 17.10.1998 and 30.03.1999. In pursuant to the said documents, on 01.07.1999, a Lease Deed was entered into between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant which contain the fresh and terms conditions. As per Clause-IX of the Agreement to Lease dated 25.03.1998, the time for completion of the registration of the Lease Deed was 90 days and the plaintiff and the 1st defendant should obtain all statutory clearance. The 1st defendant should pay stamp duty and Registration Fee. The 1st defendant has paid the agreed premium to the plaintiff in two installments.
4. What made the plaintiff to issue Notice of termination of lease to the defendants under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is that as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement to Lease dated 25.03.1998 and 01.07.1999, the 1st defendant did not acted upon as agreed. The 1 st defendant sub-let the suit schedule property to the 2 nd defendant without developing it as agreed with an intention 6 O.S.No.1281/2016 to make unlawful gain. The plaintiff was advised to take action against the 1st defendant for violation of the terms and conditions of the Agreement to Lease dated 25.03.1998 and 01.07.1999. It appeared to the plaintiff that the defendants have entered to an agreement between each other and Memorandum of Understanding permitting the 2nd defendant to run Airlines Hotel in the suit schedule property which was being run by his late father S.N.S.Rao. When the plaintiff reminded the 1 st defendant to comply with the terms and conditions of the Agreement to Lease and to develop the property as agreed, the 1 st defendant has not taken any action. In mean time, the father of Kurien Thomas died and Thomas became the Managing Partner of the 1st defendant. Since the Agreements to Lease dated 25.03.1998 and 01.07.1999 are unregistered and unstamped documents, the lease becomes a monthly lease as per law. Therefore, the plaintiff in accordance with law as terminated the lease of the 1 st defendant by issuing the notice dated 24.11.2014.
7
O.S.No.1281/2016
5. It is further averred that after receiving the notice of termination of the lease, the 1st defendant has filed the suit in O.S.No.9403/2014 against the plaintiff before this Court for specific performance of Agreements to Lease dated 25.03.1998 and 01.07.1999 and to comply with the judgment and decree dated 11.10.1996 passed in Miscellaneous No.11/1996. After termination of lease, the defendants are in unlawful occupation of the suit schedule property. Therefore, the 1st defendant is liable to pay damages/mesne profits at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per month commencing from 01.01.2015. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit.
6. After due service of summons to the defendants, they have appeared before this Court through their learned Counsels. Among them, the 1st defendant filed his written statement and the 2nd defendant has not filed the written statement.
7. The 1st defendant in his written statement has admitted all the facts averred in the plaint except the 8 O.S.No.1281/2016 construction on the commercial building by the plaintiff in 30,000 square fee area; the 1 st defendant let out the suit schedule property to the 2nd defendant to run a Hotel; the 1st defendant has not developed the suit schedule property as per Memorandum of Understanding; the 1st defendant has violated the terms and conditions of the Agreement to Lease dated 25.03.1998 and the Lease Deed dated 01.07.1999; the said documents being unstamped, the lease became a monthly lease and the liability of the 1 st defendant to evict from the suit schedule property and also pay damages as claimed by the plaintiff.
8. The defences of the 1st defendant made in the written statement are that aggrieved by the Notice dated 24.11.2014, on 04.12.2014, the 1 st defendant filed the suit in O.S.No.9403/2014 on the same cause of action against the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property. Since 03.08.1964, the 1 st defendant was a tenant in the property measuring 78,986 square feet. As per the orders in Miscellaneous Petition No.275/1964 passed by the Court of District Judge, Bengaluru, the plaintiff was 9 O.S.No.1281/2016 permitted under Section 34 of the Indian Trust Act to enter into a long term lease with the 1st defendant represented by its Managing Partner K.Thomas. H.R.C.No.308/ACC/1964 was filed in the Court of House Rent Controller, Civil Station Bengaluru in respect of the said property. The 1 st defendant under a registered Agreement to Lease dated 11.11.1965, took the said property on lease from the plaintiff for a period of 10 years at the first instance with option to continue the lease for a further period of 20 years. Thereafter, the 1st defendant obtained necessary plan sanction, etc., from the concerned authorities and constructed the buildings and structures thereon comprising of halls, rooms, cottage etc., for the purpose of running boarding, lodging and restaurant in the name and style of 'Airlines Hotel'. In the year 1968, the 1 st defendant obtained license in the name of K.Thomas, the Managing Partner of the 1st defendant. In order to manage the said hotel, the 1st defendant appointed S.N.Subramanay Rao, the father of the 2nd defendant in the year 1968 on a monthly salary of Rs.500/-. He agreed to be bound by the 10 O.S.No.1281/2016 rules and regulations of Airlines Hotel as stipulated during his appointment. The lease of 11.11.1965 was renewed through a registered Agreement of Lease dated 09.04.1976. During the subsistence of the said lease, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.10373/1985 before the 10 th Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru seeking possession of the said property. The plaintiff withdrawn the said suit and filed H.R.C.No.1082/1992 before the Additional Small Cause Judge, Bengaluru seeking eviction of the 1 st defendant from the said property. During the pendency of the said petition, the plaintiff and the 1 st defendant have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.08.1995. As per the terms and conditions of the said Memorandum of Understanding, the land measuring 30,000 square feet of the land out of the larger property on its western side was agreed to be surrendered to the plaintiff along with structure thereon and the remaining property i.e., the suit schedule property was agreed to be leased out to the 1st defendant. As per the said Memorandum of Understanding, the suit schedule property 11 O.S.No.1281/2016 was to be always under the control of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant is not entitled to let out or sub-let the suit schedule property to any person. The parties to the Memorandum of Understanding agreed to revise the tenure of the lease for an initial period of 60 years and thereafter, could be renewed for a further period as agreed. The said option for renewal is solely at the option of the 1 st defendant. As per the judgment and decree dated 11.10.1996 passed in Miscellaneous No.11/1996, the plaintiff was permitted to lease out the suit schedule property to the 1st defendant in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.08.1995 for an initial period of 60 years. In compliance and execution of the said order, the plaintiff has entered into an Agreement of Lease dated 25.03.1998 agreeing to execute a Lease Deed in favour of the 1st defendant as per the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding for an initial period of 60 years commencing from 01.04.1995 to 01.04.2054 with option for renewal of the lease for further period on such terms and conditions as mutually agreed upon. In the light of the said agreement, 12 O.S.No.1281/2016 the plaintiff and the 1st defendant have applied and obtained permission from the competent authorities under Section 269 UL(1) of the Income Tax Act to get a No- objection Certificate for transfer of the suit schedule property in terms of the agreement. In view of the delay not attributable to the 1st defendant, there was a delay in full filling the objective of the Memorandum of Understanding and obtaining statutory permission to execute a Lease Deed. Consequently, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant have entered into a Supplementary Agreement dated 17.10.1998 extended the time for performance of the obligations and execution of the Lease Deed. It was followed by a Supplementary Agreement dated 30.03.1999 extending the time for execution of the Lease Deed. On 01.07.1999, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant have executed the Lease Deed. The plaintiff vide its Letter dated 04.09.1999 admitted the receipt of the premium from the 1 st defendant and confirmed that the 1st defendant has fulfilled all the obligations as contain in the Memorandum of Understanding. The plaintiff has also admitted to execute 13 O.S.No.1281/2016 the Lease Deed printed on a stamp paper of Rs.100/-. Thereafter, the time for execution of the Lease Deed was extended by the parties from time to time. Thereafter, the plaintiff has been raised invoices and the 1 st defendant was promptly making payments of rent to the plaintiff as per the said invoices without any delay or default. In spite of it, the 1st defendant called upon the plaintiff to come forward and admit the execution of the Lease Deed before the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar. The plaintiff for the reasons best to known it was delaying the same on the ground of personal inconvenience. Thereafter, it was agreed that the 1st defendant shall get the Lease Deed adjudicated and thereafter, the 1st defendant shall admit by execution before the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar. On 30.01.2014, the authority adjudicated the stamp duty of Rs.77,07,665/- and fine of Rs.3,85,330/- on the Lease Deed. The 1 st defendant paid the said amount. In the mean while, the 2 nd defendant filed the suit in O.S.No.25633/2014 against the 1st defendant for permanent injunction restraining the 1 st defendant from interfering with his possession of the suit 14 O.S.No.1281/2016 schedule property. The defendants have settled the said dispute by filing Compromise Petition on 11.11.2016. The 1st defendant is diligent is discharging its obligations as per the Lease Deed. He has been awaiting the plaintiff to come forward and to register the Lease Deed by admitting its execution. Instead of it, the plaintiff issued the Legal Notice dated 24.11.2014 to the 1st defendant by taking various untenable grounds with mischievous intention and ulterior motive to legitimize the claim of the 2 nd defendant and trying to give legality to his stay in the suit schedule property. It is contrary to the terms and conditions of the lease. The plaintiff has committed the breach of the terms and conditions of the Lease Deed. Therefore, the 1 st defendant filed the suit in O.S.No.9403/2014 against the plaintiff herein for specific performance of contract. It is pending before this Court. The plaintiff herein is contesting the said suit by filing the written statement. In the said suit, this Court directed the plaintiff herein to execute the Lease Deed dated 01.07.1999. The plaintiff herein has challenged the said order before the Hon'ble High Court of 15 O.S.No.1281/2016 Karnataka. The 1st defendant was/is ready and willing of his part of obligations under the Lease Deed. He has incurred substantial expenses since 03.08.1964 to develop the suit schedule property. He is entitled to a long term tenancy of the suit schedule property. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
9. Based on the above pleadings of the parties, the following Issues are framed.
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant No.1 has violated the terms and conditions of the agreement to lease dated 25.03.1998 and 01.07.1999 ?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the tenancy of defendant No.1 is legally terminated ?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are in illegal occupation of the suit schedule premises ?
4. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that he is regularly making payment towards rent ?
16
O.S.No.1281/2016
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs claimed in the suit ?
6. What order or decree?
10. To prove the above issues, the plaintiff has produced the oral evidences of its Muthavalli by name M.Fuaad Musvee as PW1. He has produced the documentary evidences Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. During cross-examination of PW1, Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 are got marked on confrontation on behalf of the 1 st defendant. On behalf of the 1 st defendant, its Managing Partner Kurien Thomas is examined as DW1. He has produced the documentary evidences Ex.D3 to Ex.D64.
11. Heard the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff and the learned Counsel for the 1 st defendant. The learned Counsels for the plaintiff and the 1 st defendant have filed their written submissions. The learned Counsel for the 2nd defendant has not come forward to argue the case.
12. The arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff are that the 1st defendant has paid the stamp duty on Ex.D30 after laps of nearly 15 years and the 1 st defendant 17 O.S.No.1281/2016 remained silent till then. The payment of stamp duty and registration of the Lease Deed were the condition president to continue the right of lease of the 1 st defendant. The 1st defendant has not called upon the plaintiff for registration or seeking any Power of Attorney till date. Admittedly, there was no communication from the 1st defendant to the plaintiff in that regard. The 1st defendant slept over his rights till the time specified under Sections 23 and 25 of the Registration Act was lapsed. The 1 st defendant has also not intimated the plaintiff that the 1st defendant has paid the stamp duty. He did not presented the Lease Deed for its registration. The 1 st defendant has not developed the property as agreed in Agreement to Lease dated 25.03.1998. Thereby, the 1 st defendant has committed default in performing his part of contract as agreed in the said Agreement to Lease dated 25.03.1998. The 1st defendant violating the terms and conditions of the said Agreement to Lease as sub-let the suit schedule property to the 2nd defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for termination of lease of the 1 st defendant and to get back the possession of the suit schedule 18 O.S.No.1281/2016 property from the defendants. As the Agreement to Lease dated 25.03.1998 and the Lease Deed dated 01.07.1999 are unregistered documents, the tenancy in question shall be construed as monthly in nature and the plaintiff has lawfully terminated the tenancy of the 1st defendant under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
13. In support of the above arguments, the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff has relied the following judgments :-
i. The Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between Jiwan Dass V/s Life Insurance Corporation of India and another [1994 Supp (3) SCC 694].
ii. The judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka in the case between
Smt.G.Kusuma Devi V/s Smt.Gowramma and others [(2006) SCC OnLine Kar 456].
iii. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between Anthony V/s K.C.Ittop and Sons and others [(2000) 6 SCC 394].
iv. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between Park Street Properties Private Limited V/s Dipak Kumar Singh and another [(2016) 9 SCC 268].19
O.S.No.1281/2016 v. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between K.M.Manjunath V/s Erappa G. Dead through LRs [(2022) SCC OnLine SC 2316].
vii. The judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case between Nexgen Edusolutions Pvt. Ltd., V/s Aspire Investments Pvt. Ltd., [(2015 SCC OnLine Del 12431).
14. The arguments of the learned Counsel for the 1st defendant are that the 1st defendant has performed his part of contract as agreed under the Agreement to Lease dated 25.03.1998 and the Lease Deed dated 01.07.1999. The 1 st defendant never inducted the 2 nd defendant as sub-tenant. On the other hand, the 2nd defendant is the Manager of Hotel Airlines which is running by the 1 st defendant. Before the death of the father of the 2nd defendant by name S.N.S.Rao, he was looking after the affairs of the said hotel. The 1 st defendant has not violated any of the terms and conditions of the Agreement to Lease dated 25.03.1998 and the Lease Deed dated 01.07.1999. On the other hand, the plaintiff never come forward for the registration of the Lease Deed dated 20 O.S.No.1281/2016 01.07.1999. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for termination of the tenancy of the 1st defendant. On the other hand, the possession of the 1 st defendant is protected under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Though, the Agreement to Lease dated 25.03.1998 and the Lease Deed dated 01.07.1999 are not registered in accordance with law, they can be relied by the 1 st defendant as an evidence for part performance by handing over the possession of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff to the defendant and to protect the possession of the 1 st defendant on the suit schedule property under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The 1st defendant has paid the rent to the plaintiff till December 2014 and after the 1 st defendant filed the suit in O.S.No.9403/2014, the plaintiff has refused to receive the rent from the 1 st defendant. The 1st defendant filed application in O.S.No.9403/2014 seeking permission of this Court to deposit the rent during the pendency of the suit which is pending for consideration in O.S.No.9403/2014.
15. In support of the above arguments, the learned Counsel for the 1st defendant has relied the following judgments :- 21
O.S.No.1281/2016 i. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between S.Kaladevi V/s V.R.Somasundaram and others [(2010) 5 SCC 401].
ii. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between K.B.Saha and Sons Private Limited and Development Consultant Limited [(2008) 8 SCC 564].
iii. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between R.Hemalatha V/s Kashthuri [(2023) 10 SCC 725].
iv. The judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka in the case between
S.V.Narayanaswamy V/s Smt.Savithramma, since deceased by her LR's and others (ILR 2014 KAR 4185).
v. The judgment of the Hon'ble Kerala Court in the case between Jacobs Private Limited V/s Thomas Jacob (AIR 1995 Ker 249).
vi. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between Sardar Govindrao Mahadik and another V/s Devi Sahai and others [(1982) 1 SCC 237].
vii. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between Union of India and 22 O.S.No.1281/2016 another V/s K.C.Sharma and Company and others [(2020) 15 SCC 209].
viii. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between Bichitrananda Behera V/s State of Orissa and others [(2023 SCC OnLine SC 1307].
ix. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between Union of India and others V/s N.Murugesan and others [(2022) 2 SCC 25].
x. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between Chairman, State Bank of India and another V/s M.J.James [(2022) 2 SCC 301].
xi. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case between Ghanshyam V/s
Yogendra Rathi [(2023) 7 SCC 361].
xii. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Limited V/s Mubai Mahalaxmi Construction Private Limited [(2022) 4 SCC 103].
xiii. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between Laxmi Pat Surana V/s Union Bank of India and another [(2021) 8 23 O.S.No.1281/2016 SCC 481].
xiv. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between Kalavakurti Venkata Subbaiah V/s Bala Gurappagiri Guruvi Reddy [(1999) 7 SCC 114].
xv. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between Ameer Minhaj V/s Dierdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar and others [(2018) 7 SCC 639].
xvi. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between R.Kandasamy (Since Dead) and others V/s T.R.K. Sarawathy and another [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3377].
xvii. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case between Boramma V/s Krishna Gowda and others [(2009) 9 SCC 214].
xviii. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case between Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. V/s Katta Sujatha Reddy and others [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3214].
xix The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case between Bachhaj Nahar V/s Nilima Mandal and others [(2008) 17 SCC 491].
24
O.S.No.1281/2016
16. Perused the materials available on record.
17. Upon considering the pleadings of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, evidences both oral and documentary produced by the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, the arguments both oral and written submissions and the judgments relied by the learned Counsels for the plaintiff and the 1 st defendant which are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case on hand, my answers to the above issues are as follows;
Issue No.1 : In the Negative,
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.3 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.4 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.5 : Partly in the Affirmative,
Issue No.6 : As per final order for the
following;
REASONS
18. ISSUE No.1 :- It is admitted fact that the Agreement to Lease dated 25.03.1998 and 01.07.1999 were executed between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. Ex.P2 and Ex.D24 are the certified copies of the Agreement to Lease dated 25.03.1998. Ex.D30 is the certified copy of the Lease Deed dated 01.07.1999. In the plaint, the plaintiff has alleged 25 O.S.No.1281/2016 against the defendant that the 1 st defendant has violated the terms and conditions of the said Agreement to Lease dated 25.03.1998 and the Lease Deed 01.07.1999. As per the plaintiff, the following are the said violations :-
i) The 1st defendant let out the suit schedule property to the 2nd defendant on terms.
ii) The defendants have entered into an
Agreement and Memorandum of
Understanding dated 04.08.1995 to permit the 2nd defendant to run Airlines Hotel which was being run by his late father S.N.S.Rao.
iii) The 1st defendant did not develop the property as agreed. The 1st defendant was only interested and making unlawful gain by subletting the property to the 2 nd defendant.
19. To prove the above allegations of the violations of the terms and conditions of the Agreement to Lease dated 25.03.1998 and the Lease Deed dated 01.07.1999, on behalf of the plaintiff, the Muthavalli of the plaintiff by name M.Fuaad Musvee is examined as PW1. He has filed his 26 O.S.No.1281/2016 affidavit by way of examination-in-chief wherein, he has deposed that the 2nd defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property as sub-lessee and he has entered into an independent Memorandum of Understanding with the 1 st defendant on 04.08.1995. As the Lease Deed dated 01.07.1999 entered into between the plaintiff and the 1 st defendant in an unregistered document, none of terms and conditions of the said document came into existence. The 1 st defendant did not come forward to registration of Lease Deed despite various remainders. The 1 st defendant did not develop the suit schedule property as agreed upon. The 1 st defendant sub-let the suit schedule property to the 2 nd defendant and the 1st defendant was only interested in making unlawful gain by subletting the property by the 2nd defendant.
20. To prove the allegation that the 1 st defendant has sub-let the suit schedule property to the 2 nd defendant, the plaintiff has not produced any documentary evidences. Therefore, the plaintiff has not proved the first allegation made by the plaintiff against the 1st defendant.
27
O.S.No.1281/2016
21. To prove the allegations that the defendants have entered into an Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding dated 04.08.1995 to permit the 2 nd defendant to run Airlines Hotel which was being run by his late father S.N.S.Rao, the plaintiff has not produced any documentary evidences. Ex.P5 is the certified copy of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 04.08.1995. It appears from the contents of the said document that it was executed between K.Thomas, the Managing Partner of the 1 st defendant and S.N.S.Rao. It was not executed between the defendants as averred by the plaintiff in the plaint and deposed by PW1 in his affidavit filed by way examination-in-chief. Therefore, the plaintiff has not proved the second allegation made by the plaintiff against the 1st defendant. On the other hand, it appears from the contents of Ex.D18 i.e., the certified copy of the Letter dated 18.08.1968 written by K.Thomas to S.N.Subramanya Rao that K.Thomas appointed the father of the 2nd defendant S.N.Subramanya Rao as Manager for the management of the suit schedule property. 28
O.S.No.1281/2016
22. The 1st defendant has produced the certified copies of the Certificate of Registration of Trade Mark of Airlines Hotel as Ex.D37 and Ex.D57 and Trade License Certificate as Ex.D58. They are standing in the name of the 1 st defendant. These documents shows that the 1st defendant has not sub- let the suit schedule property to the 2 nd defendant to run Airlines Hotel.
23. To prove that the 1st defendant has not developed the suit schedule property as agreed, the plaintiff has not produced any documentary evidences. It appears from the contents of the certified copy of the Agreement to Lease dated 25.03.1998 produced at Ex.P2 and Ex.D24 that the 1 st defendant shall upon registration of the Lease Deed is at liberty to put a commercial/hotel complex on the suit schedule property after obtaining the necessary approvals, clearances, sanctions, permits and licenses from the competent authorities. Under the Lease Deed dated 01.07.1999, the very same liberty has been given to the 1 st defendant to put up hotel/commercial complex on the suit schedule property. The 1st defendant has not got registered 29 O.S.No.1281/2016 the Lease Deed dated 01.07.1999. Therefore, the plaintiff has not proved the third allegation made by the plaintiff against the 1st defendant.
24. PW1 has deposed in his affidavit filed by way of examination-in-chief that the plaintiff learn that the 1 st defendant has entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 10.02.2001 with P.Dayananda Pai agreeing to sell 50% of the super built up area of the proposed development; the execution of the said document is also contrary to the terms and conditions of Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.08.1995 and Agreement of Lease dated 25.03.1998 entered into between the plaintiff and the 1 st defendant; the 1st defendant has no right, title or interest to enter into such Agreement of Sale; therefore, the 1 st defendant is not entitled for the relief of specific performance of contract. P.Dayananda Pai has assigned all his right and interest acquired under the Agreement of Sale dated 10.02.2001 in favour of M/s Dynasty Developers Pvt. Ltd., now known as M/s Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd., by an Agreement of Assignment dated 12.11.2007; it is also not permissible as 30 O.S.No.1281/2016 the 1st defendant is not the owner of the suit schedule property; the 1st defendant has no right to execute any agreements of sale to third party and thus, the 1 st defendant has played fraud on the plaintiff.
25. The above oral evidences of PW1 cannot be considered for the reason that the plaintiff by filing I.A.No.III has sought for amendment of the plaint by permitting the plaintiff to include the above facts deposed by PW1 in his affidavit filed by way of examination-in-chief. Vide order dated 17.09.2024, this Court dismissed I.A.No.III. Challenging the said order, the plaintiff filed W.P.No.26375/2024. It was also dismissed confirming the order of this Court passed on I.A.No.III. Therefore, there is no pleadings of the plaintiff with regard to the above facts deposed by PW1 in his examination-in-chief. When there are no pleadings by the plaintiff with regard to the above oral evidences deposed by PW1 in his examination- in-chief, the said evidence deposed by PW1 cannot be considered. It is settled principles of law that no evidence can be led on a plea not raised in the pleadings. This proposition of law is laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its 31 O.S.No.1281/2016 judgment in the case between Ravinder Singh V/s Janmeja Singh & Others [(2000) 8 SCC 191]. For the above reasons, the plaintiff has not proved that the 1st defendant has violated the terms and conditions of the agreement to lease dated 25.03.1998 and 01.07.1999. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in the Negative.
26. ISSUE No.2 :- It is admitted fact that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property and the 1 st defendant is the tenant under the plaintiff. The brief history under which, the 1st defendant was inducted to the suit schedule property by the plaintiff as a tenant is that the plaintiff filed Misc. Case No.275/1964 before the District Judge, Bengaluru under Section 34 of the Indian Trust Act praying for permission to enter into a long term lease with Thomas in respect of a property measuring 78,986 square feet in Premises No.4, Madras Bank Road, Civil Station, Bengaluru. Vide order dated 03.08.1964, the District Judge, Bengaluru directed the plaintiff herein to enter into the proposed term lease with K.Thomas. Ex.D16 is the certified copy of the said Order. Ex.D17 is the certified copy of the Order of the House 32 O.S.No.1281/2016 Rent Controller dated 17.12.1964 directing the plaintiff herein to deliver the possession of the allotted premises to K.Thomas. Thereafter, the plaintiff inducted the 1 st defendant as a tenant in the said property through a registered Agreement of Lease dated 11.11.1965 for a period of 20 years commencing from December 1964 with an option for the 1 st defendant to renew the lease after the expiry of the first 10 years. Ex.D26 is the certified copy of the said registered Agreement of Lease dated 11.11.1965. Ex.D19 is the certified copy of the another registered Agreement of Lease dated 09.04.1976 to continue the lease of the 1 st defendant for further period of 10 years commencing from 01.12.1975. The period of lease of 30 years was expired on 01.12.1994.
27. Thereafter, the plaintiff and the 1 st defendant have entered in to a Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.08.1995 mutually agreeing to continue the tenancy of the suit schedule property by the 1 st defendant under the plaintiff on fresh terms and conditions mentioned therein and the plaintiff shall execute a Lease Deed in favour of the 1 st defendant for a period of 60 years commencing from 33 O.S.No.1281/2016 01.04.1995. Ex.P1 and Ex.D4 are the certified copies of the said Memorandum of Understanding. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed Misc. No.11/1996 under Sections 34 and 36 of the Indian Trust Act before the XVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru for permission to the plaintiff to lease the suit schedule property for a period of 60 years in favour of the 1 st defendant in terms of Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.08.1995. The Court vide order dated 11.10.1996 allowed the said petition permitting the plaintiff to lease the suit schedule property herein in favour of the 1 st defendant for a period of 60 years in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.08.1995. Ex.D3 is the certified copy of the said Order. In furtherance to the said order passed in Misc. No.11/1996, on 25.03.1998, the Agreement to Lease was executed between the plaintiff and the 1 st defendant. Ex.P2 and Ex.D24 are the certified copies of the said Agreement to Lease dated 25.03.1998. Under the said Agreement to Lease, the 1st defendant and the plaintiff have agreed to execute and registered the Lease Deed in respect of the suit schedule property within 90 days from the date of 34 O.S.No.1281/2016 the receipt of all statutory clearance including the receipt of the necessary No-objection Certificate under Section 269 UL of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from the Appropriate Authority i.e., Income Tax Department respect of the said agreement and the Stamp Duty, Registration Fees, Legal Fees and all incidental charges and expenses for the registration of the Lease Deed shall be borne exclusively by the 1 st defendant. Thereafter, through Supplemental Agreement dated 17.10.1998, the said period was extended till 30.03.1999 at the request of the 1st defendant for registration of the Lease Deed. Ex.P3 and Ex.D27 are the certified copies of the said Supplemental Agreement dated 17.10.1998. By executing another Supplemental Agreement dated 30.03.1999, again the said period was extended till 30.06.1999 at the request of the 1st defendant for registration of the Lease Deed as the 1 st defendant was unable handover the vacant possession of 30,000 square feet of the property to the plaintiff. Ex.P4 and Ex.D28 are the certified copies of the said Supplemental Agreement dated 30.03.1999. Ultimately, on 01.07.1999, the Lease Deed was executed by the plaintiff in favour of the 1 st 35 O.S.No.1281/2016 defendant in respect of the suit schedule property. Ex.D30 is the certified copy of the said document. Ex.D47 is two Sketch of the Building relating to the hotel of the 1 st defendant.
28. It is admitted fact that on 24.11.2014, the plaintiff has issued Notice of termination of tenancy of the 1 st defendant under Section 106 of the Transfer Property Act and it was served on the defendants. Ex.P6 is the certified copy of the said Notice of termination of tenancy issued by the plaintiff to the defendants, Ex.P7 is the certified copy of the Postal Receipts and Ex.P8 is the certified copy of the Postal Acknowledgments. The 1st defendant has also produced the certified copy of the Notice of termination of tenancy issued by the plaintiff to the defendants as Ex.D21.
29. The lease has to be determined under Section 106 of the Transfer of property Act. Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act reads as follows :-
106. Duration of certain leases in absence of written contract or local usage :- (1) In the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary, a lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be 36 O.S.No.1281/2016 deemed to be a lease from year to year, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by six months notice; and a lease of immovable property for any other purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by fifteen days notice.
(2) Not withstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the period mentioned in sub-section (1) shall commence from the date of receipt of notice. (3) A notice under sub-section (1) shall not be deemed to be invalid merely because the period mentioned therein falls short of the period specified under that sub-section, where a suit or proceedings is filed after the expiry of the period mentioned in that sub-section.
(4) Every notice under sub-section (1) must be in writing, signed by or on behalf of the person giving it, and either be sent by post to the party who is intended to be bound by it or be tendered or delivered personally to such party, or to one of his family or servants at his residence, or (if such tender or delivery is not practicable) affixed to a conspicuous part of the property.
30. In the judgment relied by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff in the case between K.M.Manjunath V/s Erappa G. 37 O.S.No.1281/2016 Dead through Lrs [(2022) SCC OnLine SC 2316], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "9. In the decision in Smt.Shanti Devi V/s Amal Kumar Banerjee [(1981) 2 SCC 199 : AIR 1981 SC 1550] this Court held that before deciding the validity of notice under Section 106 of the TP Act the Court should first decide whether Section 106 is applicable or not."
31. In the light of the above principles of law, before deciding the validity of the notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendants under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, this Court shall first decide whether Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is applicable or not to this case on hand. For the said purpose, I perused the contents of the certified copies of the Agreement to Lease dated 25.03.1998 produced Ex.P2 and Ex.D24 and the Lease Deed dated 01.07.1999 produced at Ex.D30. It appears from the contents of the said documents that the period of lease agreed between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant is for 60 years. The rent payable under by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff is monthly rent. The said Agreement to Lease dated 25.03.1998 and the Lease Deed dated 01.07.1999 are unregistered documents. 38
O.S.No.1281/2016 Ex.D30 i.e., the certified copy of the Lease Deed dated 01.07.1999 was marked as exhibit only for collateral purpose. Under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, the lease of immovable property for any term exceeding one year can be made only by a registered instrument. Under Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act also, the registration of the document of lease of immovable property for any term exceeding one year is compulsory. Therefore, the registration of the Agreement to Lease dated 25.03.1998 and the Lease Deed dated 01.07.1999 are compulsory. But, they are not registered.
32. The Agreement to Lease dated 25.03.1998 and the Lease Deed dated 01.07.1999 are the documents executed before The Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 was come into force. Therefore, they are admissible in evidence in this suit for collateral purpose i.e., for the purpose of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and to consider the tenancy of the 1 st defendant as month to month tenancy. The reasons for the above findings are based on the following provisions of law and the judgments. 39
O.S.No.1281/2016
33. In Section 49 of the Registration Act before The Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 was come into force, the effect of non-registration of the document required to be registered is stated as follows :-
"49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered.- No document required by Section 17 or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered shall -
(a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or
(b) confer any power to adopt, or
(c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered:
Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (3 of 1877) or as evidence of part performance of a contract for the purpose of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.40
O.S.No.1281/2016
34. Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act before The Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 was come into force reads as follows :-
53A. PART PERFORMANCE :- Where any person contract to transfer for consideration any immovable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty.
and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or the transferee, being already in possession, continues in possession in part performance of the contract and has done some act in furtherance of the contract. and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract, then, not withstanding that the contract, though required to be registered, has not been registered, or, where there is an instrument of transfer, that the transfer has not been completed in the manner prescribed thereof by the law for the time being in force, the transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession, other than a right 41 O.S.No.1281/2016 expressly provided by the terms of the contract:
Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the rights of a transferee for consideration who has no notice of the contract or of the part performance thereof.
35. Section 17(1A) of the of the Registration Act after The Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 was come into force reads as follows :-
(1-A) The documents containing contracts to transfer for consideration, any immovable property for the purpose of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, shall be registered if they have been executed on or after the commencement of the Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001, and if such documents are not registered on or after such commencement then, they shall have no effect for the purposes of the said section 53-A.
36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in the case between Som Dev & others V/s Rati Ram & Another [2006 (10) SCC 788] held that "... the introduction of sub-section (1A) of Section 17 of the Registration Act made prospective from the date of coming into force of the The Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) 42 O.S.No.1281/2016 Act, 2001 insisting that documents containing contracts to transfer for consideration any immovable property for the purpose of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, shall be registered if they have been created after the commencement of sub-section (1A) of Section 17 of the Transfer of Property Act.
37. In the judgment relied by the learned Counsel for the 1 st defendant in the case between Ameer Minhaj V/s Dierdre Elizabeth (Wright) Iassar and others [(2018) 7 SCC 639], the facts and circumstances are that three documents were produced by the plaintiff before the trial Court. One is an Agreement of Sale dated 12.11.1995. Another is Power of Attorney dated 02.05.1996. One more document is Agreement of Sale dated 09.07.2003. They were unregistered documents. Whether the said documents could be received in evidence was the question before the trial Court. The trial Court after considering the amendments made through The Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 held that the agreement to sell dated 12.11.1995 having been executed prior to cut of date, was admissible and could be marked as an exhibit and the agreement to sell dated 43 O.S.No.1281/2016 09.07.2003 was executed after coming into force of Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act, it was required to be registered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after interpreting Sections 17(1A) and of the Registration Act held that the trial Court was right in overturning the objection regarding the marking and exhibiting the documents.
38. In the judgment relied by the learned Counsel for the 1 st defendant in the case between S.Kaladevi V/s V.R.Somasundram and others [(2010) 5 SCC 401] the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that :-
"12. The main provision in Section 49 provides that any document which is required to be registered, if not registered, shall not affect any immovable property comprised therein nor such document shall be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property. The proviso, however, would show that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by the 1908 Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered may be received as an evidence to the contract in a suit for specific performance or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. By virtue of the proviso, 44 O.S.No.1281/2016 therefore, an unregistered sale deed of an immovable property of the value of Rs.100 and more could be admitted in evidence as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance of the contract. Such an unregistered sale deed can also be admitted in evidence as an evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered document. When an unregistered sale deed is tendered in evidence, not as evidence of a completed sale, but as proof of an oral agreement of sale, the deed can be received in evidence making an endorsement that it is received only as evidence of an oral agreement of sale under the proviso to Section 49 of the 1908 Act."
39. In another judgment relied by the learned Counsel for the 1st defendant in the case between K.B.Saha and Sons Private Limited V/s Development Consultant Limited [(2008) 8 SCC 654] the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that :-
"34. From the principles laid down in the various decisions of this Court and the High Courts, as referred to herein above, it is evident that :
1. A document required to be registered, if unregistered is not admissible into evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act.
2. Such unregistered document can however be used as an evidence of collateral purpose as 45 O.S.No.1281/2016 provided in the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act.
3. A collateral transaction must be independent of, or divisible from, the transaction of effect which the law required registration.
4. A collateral transaction must be a transaction not itself required to be effected by a registered document, that is, a transaction creating, etc., any right, title or interest in immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards.
5. If a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, none of its terms can be admitted in evidence and that to use a document for the purpose of proving an important clause would not be using it as a collateral purpose."
40. In one more judgment relied by the learned Counsel for the 1st defendant in the case between R.Hemalatha V/s Kashthuri [(2023) 10 SCC 725].
"23. Thus, as per the proviso to Section 49, an unregistered document affecting the immovable property and required by the Registration Act to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered document.
24. .............46
O.S.No.1281/2016
25. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the proviso to Section 49 came to be inserted vide Act No.21 of 1929 and thereafter, Section 17(1A) came to be inserted by Act No. 48 of 2001 with effect from 24.09.2001 by which the documents containing contracts to transfer or consideration any immovable property for the purpose of Section 53 of the Transfer of Properties Act is made compulsorily to be registered if they have been executed on or after 2001 and if such documents are not registered on or after such commencement, then there shall have no effect for the purposes of said Section 53A. So, the exception to the proviso to Section 49 is provided under Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act. Otherwise, the proviso to Section 49 with respect to the documents other than referred to in Section 17(1A) shall be applicable."
41. In the judgment relied by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff in the case between Smt.G.Kusuma Devi V/s Smt.Gowramma and others (2006 SCC OnLine Kar 456], the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that :-
"39. Thus, it is clear from the aforesaid dictums laid down by the Apex Court that non- registration of the lease deed cannot create lease for a period exceeding one year. Thus, in view of non-registration of the document, no lease 47 O.S.No.1281/2016 exceeding one year is said to have been created. However, the presumption is that the lease not exceeding one year stood created by conduct of parties. In this matter also, though the lease deed specifies the period of lease as thirty (30) years, in view of non-registration of the lease deed (Ex.D3) no lease exceeding one year is said to have been created. Thus, the tenancy in question would be only month to month tenancy and not the tenancy beyond one year."
42. In the judgment relied by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff in the case between Nexgen Edusolutions Pvt. Ltd., V/s Aspire Investments Pvt. Ltd., [(2015 SCC OnLine Del 12431), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that :-
"23. The effects of non-registration of a lease- deed are automatic and applicable irrespective of the nature of tenancy or the purpose for which the same has been let. The educational institution cannot be treated any differently. The consequences of non-registration are the mandate of law and not dependent on the conduct of parties. If the lease deed is nor registered, the consequences would follow irrespective of the nature of lease or conduct of parties."
43. In another judgment relied by the learned Counsel for the 1st defendant in the case between Sardar Govindrao 48 O.S.No.1281/2016 Mahadik and another V/s Devi Sahai and others [(1982) 1 SCC 237], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that :-
"41. Section 53-A requires that the person claiming the benefit of part performance must always be shown to be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. And if it is shown that he was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract he will not qualify for the protection of the doctrine of part performance."
44. It appears from the contents of Ex.P2, Ex.D24 and Ex.D30 that there are no contract between the plaintiff and the defendant with regard to the manner in which, the lease of the 1st defendant on the suit schedule property is to be terminated. As stated above, since Ex.P2, Ex.D24 and Ex.D30 are not registered documents, the tenancy in question can be considered as only month to month tenancy and not the tenancy beyond one year. Therefore, Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is applicable to this case on hand. In the judgment relied by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff in the case between Park Street Properties Private Limited V/s Dipak Kumar Singh and another [(2016) 9 SCC 268] the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that 49 O.S.No.1281/2016 "17. A perusal of Section 106 of the Act makes it clear that it creates a deemed monthly tenancy in those cases where there is no express contract to the contrary, which is terminable at a notice period of 15 days. The section also lays down the requirements of a valid notice to terminate the tenancy, such as that it must be in writing, signed by the person sending it and be duly delivered."
45. In the judgment relied by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff in the case between Anthony V/s K.C.Ittoop & Sons and others [(2000) 6 SCC 394] the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "13. When lease is a transfer of a right to enjoy the property and such transfer can be made expressly or by implication, the mere fact that an unregistered instrument came into existence would not stand in the way or the Court to determine whether there was in fact a lease otherwise than through such deed."
46. In the order relied by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff in the case between Jiwan Dass V/s Life Insurance Corporation of India and another (1994 Supp (3) SCC 694), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that 50 O.S.No.1281/2016 "4. Section 106 of the T.P. Act does indicate that the landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy by given 15 days' notice, if it is a premises occupied on monthly tenancy and by giving 6 months' notice if the premises are occupied for agricultural or manufacturing purposes, and on expiry thereof proceedings could be initiated. Section 106 of the T.P. Act does not contemplate of giving any reason for terminating the tenancy. Equally the definition of the public premises 'unauthorized occupation' under Section 2(g) of the Act postulates that the tenancy "has been determined for any reason whatsoever". When the statute has advisedly given wide powers to the public authorities under the Act to determine the tenancy, it is not permissible to cut down the width of the powers by reading into it the reasonable and justifiable grounds for initiating action for terminating the tenancy under Section 106 of the T.P. Act. If it is so read Section 106 of T.P. Act and Section 2(g) of the Act would become ultra vires. The statute advisedly empowered the authority to act in the public interest and determine the tenancy or leave or licence before taking action under Section 5 of the Act. If the contention of the appellant is given acceptance he would be put on a higher pedestal than a statutory tenant under the Rent Act. Take for example that a premises is let out at a low rent 51 O.S.No.1281/2016 years back like the present one. The rent is unrealistic. With a view to revise adequate market rent, tenant became liable to ejectment. The contention then is, action is violative of Article 21 offending right to livelihood. This contention too is devoid of any substance. An owner is entitled to deal with his property in his own way profitable in its use and occupation. A public authority is equally entitled to use the public property to the best advantage as a commercial venture. As an integral incidence of ejectment of a tenant/licensee is inevitable. So the doctrine of livelihood cannot indiscriminately be extended to the are of commercial operation."
47. In view of the principles of law laid down in the above judgments, the tenancy of the 1st defendant is duly terminated. Hence, I answer Issue No.2 in the Affirmative.
48. ISSUE No.3 :- The pleadings of the plaintiff are that after termination of lease, the defendants are in illegal occupation of the suit schedule property. PW1 who is examined as PW1 has deposed this fact in his examination- in-chief. Per contra, the defences of the 1 st defendant is that his possession is protected under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. DW1 has deposed in his examination-in-chief 52 O.S.No.1281/2016 that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as a tenant since 03.08.1964. The 1 st defendant has not violated any terms and conditions of the the Agreement to Lease dated 25.03.1998 and the Lease Deed dated 01.07.1999. Upon considering the application of the parties, the appropriate authority of Income Tax Department by its order dated 22.07.1998 issued No-objection Certificate to the plaintiff to lease the suit schedule property to the 1 st defendant and to carryout objects contained in the Agreement Lease dated 25.03.1998. Supplementary Agreements were executed on 17.10.1998 and 30.03.1999 between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. Lease Deed dated 01.07.1999 was also executed by the plaintiff in favour of the 1 st defendant. The plaintiff has admitted and acknowledged it vide its Letter dated 04.09.1999. On 31.05.2014, the 1 st defendant has paid the stamp duty of Rs.80,93,000/- towards adjudication of the stamp duty on the Lease Deed before the jurisdictional Sub- Registrar by way of Demand Draft. On 04.09.1999, the plaintiff issued the Letter to the 1st defendant confirming the possession of the leased land is retained with the 1 st 53 O.S.No.1281/2016 defendant and acknowledging the receipt of the payment made by the 1st defendant. On 21.02.2006, the plaintiff issued a letter to the 1st defendant informing that the lease rent payable by the 1st defendant as per the lease shall be increased from 01.04.2006. On 02.01.2013, the plaintiff issued a letter to the 1st defendant requesting to reconcile the accounts on the property leased to the 1 st defendant as per Lease Agreement dated 01.07.1999. The plaintiff has issued the receipts of rent since 24.08.1995 and raised the invoices since 2011 for payment of the rent to the 1 st defendant. The Tax Deducted at Source Exemption Certificate issued by the Income Tax Authority shows that the 1 st defendant was directed not to deduct TDS on the lease rent. After the plaintiff issued the Notice dated 24.11.2014 to the 1 st defendant, the plaintiff has stopped the receiving of the rent since January 2015. Before issuance of Notice dated 24.11.2014, the plaintiff never issued notice for breach to the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant made several request to the plaintiff to come forward and admit the execution of the Lease Deed before the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar for its 54 O.S.No.1281/2016 registration. The 1st defendant is ready to spend the registration charges. The 1st defendant is having sufficient money in his account. The 1st defendant is also ready and willing to register the Lease Deed and fulfill his part of contract as per the terms of the Lease Deed. But, the plaintiff has failed and neglected to fulfill his part of contract and thereby, the plaintiff has breached the terms of the lease. The plaintiff was claiming personal inconvenience and caused the delay in registration of the Lease Deed. The 1 st defendant and his Manager Mr.Boven Thomas have continuously and over a long period of time met the plaintiff and its Manager seeking registration of the Lease Deed. Because, it was agreed to get the Lease Deed register, the 1st defendant got the stamp duty on Lease Deed adjudicated and paid to avoid the technicalities or disputes. The plaintiff has never refused to registered the Lease Deed. But, the plaintiff was postponed it from time to time. The first refusal of the plaintiff was on 24.11.2014 when he issued the Notice to the 1 st defendant. DW1 has also reiterated the facts of the case of the 1 st defendant averred in the written statement. 55
O.S.No.1281/2016
49. The documentary evidences produced by the 1 st defendant in support of the above oral evidences deposed by DW1 are the certified copies of the Letters dated 04.09.1999, 21.02.2006, 02.04.2013 written by the plaintiff to the 1 st defendant as Ex.D9 to Ex.D11 respectively, the certified copies of 131 Rent Receipts as Ex.D12, the certified copies of 238 Letters written by the 1 st defendant to the plaintiff along with the Demand Drafts for payment of the monthly rent as Ex.D13, the certified copies of the Postal Acknowledgments as Ex.D14, the certified copy of Order of the Appropriate Authority under Income Tax Act passed under Section 269- UL(1) of the Income Tax Act as Ex.D23, the certified copies of 33 Invoices for payment of rent to the plaintiff as Ex.D29, the certified copy of the Memorandum Acknowledging Receipt of Documents dated 03.02.2018 as Ex.D34, the certified copy of the Statement of Account of the 1st defendant as Ex.D35, The certified copy of the the Details of the Lease Rent paid by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff as Ex.D36, Certified copy of the Certificates of Registration of Trade Mark as Ex.D37 and the certified copy of the deposition of DW1 herein in 56 O.S.No.1281/2016 O.S.No.9403/2014 as Ex.D64.
50. The 1st defendant has taken protection of his possession on the suit schedule property under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The doctrine of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act is an equitable doctrine. The object of the said provision is to prevent the transferor or his successor-in-interest from taking possession than an account of non-registration of the document provided the transferee has performed his part of contract. If the transferee fails to perform his part of contract, the protection to him or benefit of part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act is not available. Whether the defendant was ready and willing to perform his part of contract is a pure question of fact and no straight jacket formula can be framed in the all aspects. Once the suit schedule property was delivered by the transferor to the transferee as part performance of the agreement and the transferor has expressed his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract, it is the duty of the Court to consider the plea of part performance of the transferor. A party who approaches 57 O.S.No.1281/2016 the Court should come with clean hands and should have perform all the obligations required under the agreement for seeking the requitable relief of specific performance. If there is delay in enforcing the contract, the benefit of Section 53A is not available and transferor who has obtained possession of property in part performance of the contract cannot resist the suit for possession if his right to obtain specific performance is barred by limitation.
51. The learned Counsel for the 1 st defendant has relied the judgment of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case between Jacobs Private Limited V/s Thomas Jacob [(1994) SCC OnLine Ker 228] in which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "Willingness to perform the roles ascribed to a party in a contract is primarily a mental disposition. However, such willingness in the context of Sec.53-A of the T. P. Act must be absolute and unconditional. If willingness is studded with a condition, it is in fact no more than an offer and cannot be termed as willingness. As a right is created by the statute in favour of a transferee through Sec.53-A, the transferee has to fulfill all the conditions for acquiring the right. In 58 O.S.No.1281/2016 other words, what is contemplated is the complete performance or complete willingness and not performance in part or conditional willingness or even willingness in part."
52. With the above back ground, I have perused the above oral and documentary evidences produced by the 1 st defendant including the oral evidences deposed by him in his cross-examination. It appears from the above oral evidences of DW1 and the documentary evidences produced by the 1 st defendant that the 1st defendant has proved that following terms and conditions specified in the Agreement to Lease dated 25.03.1998 and the Lease Deed dated 01.07.1999:-
i. Payment of the non-refundable premium amount of Rs.30.00 Lakhs by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff.
ii. No-objection Certificate from the
Appropriate Authority, Income Tax
Department under Section 269-UL of the
Income Tax Act.
iii. The 1st defendant has surrendered the vacant possession of 30,000 square feet of the land out of 78,977 Square Feet to the plaintiff by demolishing all or any of 59 O.S.No.1281/2016 the existing building and structure thereon before registration of the Lease Deed completed.
iv. The 1st defendant aid monthly rent as agreed in Agreement of Lease dated 25.03.1998.
53. As per the terms of the Agreement to Lease dated 25.03.1998, the time stipulated to execute and register the Lease Deed was within 90 days from the date of receipt of all statutory clearances including the receipt of the necessary "No objection Certificate" under Section 269 UL of the Income Tax Act from the Appropriate Authority, Income Tax Department in respect of the said agreement. It appears from the contents of Ex.D23 that on 22.07.1998, the Order under Section 269-UL(1) of the Income Tax Act was passed by the Appropriate Authority, Income Tax Department. It appears from the contents of Ex.D27 that before its execution itself, the above No-objection Certificate was received from the Income Tax Department. It further appears from the said document that at the request of the 1 st defendant, the plaintiff has extended the time for execution and registration 60 O.S.No.1281/2016 of the Lease Deed and to hand over the vacant possession of 30,000 square feet property by the 1 st defendant to the plaintiff till 31.03.1999. It appears from the contents of Ex.D28 that by executing Supplemental Agreement dated 30.03.1999, at the request of the 1st defendant, the plaintiff has extended the time for execution and registration of the Lease Deed and to hand over the vacant possession of 30,000 square feet property by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff till 30.06.1999. Thereafter, the Lease deed was executed on 01.07.1999. It was executed in furtherance of the terms and conditions agreed between the parties. In the said document, no time is specified for registration of the said document. It appears from the contents of the said document that as on the date of its execution, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant have deemed it fit to execute the said document in pursuance of Agreement to Lease dated 25.03.1998. Therefore, it is clear from the said contents of the Lease deed that before its execution, all the pre-requisites to execute the Lease Deed are performed by both parties to the said document. At the time of execution of Lease Deed dated 01.07.1999, the stamp 61 O.S.No.1281/2016 duty paid on the said document was Rs.100/-. The only part of the obligation to be performed by the plaintiff as on the execution of the said document was payment of stamp duty and to present the document before the jurisdictional Sub- Registrar for its registration. On 04.07.1999, the plaintiff issued the Letter to the 1st defendant as per Ex.D9 requesting the 1st defendant for early payment of necessary stamp duty and registration of the Lease Deed signed by them. It shows that the plaintiff was ever ready to perform its part contract i.e., to admit the execution of the Lease deed dated 01.07.1999 before the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar.
54. As per the terms and conditions agreed between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant under Agreement to Sell dated 25.03.1998 and the Lease Deed dated 01.07.1999, the stamp duty, Registration Fees, Legal Fees and all incidental charges and expenses of the registration of the Lease Deed shall be borne by the 1st defendant. Though, the 1st defendant has performed all the above terms and conditions of its part of the contract, the 1st defendant has not performed this part of contract. It appears from the contents of the Lease Deed 62 O.S.No.1281/2016 dated 01.07.1999 that on 29.05.2014, the said document was impounded by the District Registrar and the Deputy Commissioner of Stamps, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru under Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act. It further appears from the contents of the said document that after adjudication of the said document, on 31.05.2014, the 1 st defendant has paid the stamp duty and penalty on the said document. Till then, the 1st defendant has neither paid the stamp duty on the said document nor presented it before the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar's Office for registration. Even after payment of the stamp duty, the 1 st defendant has not informed in writing to the plaintiff that he has paid the stamp duty on Lease Deed dated 01.07.1999 and presenting the said document for its registration process. The 1 st defendant has not produced any documentary evidences to show that the 1st defendant has called upon the plaintiff to come forward and admit the execution of the Lease Deed dated 01.07.1999 before the Sub-Registrar and it was agreed that the 1st defendant shall get the Lease Deed adjudicated and thereafter, the plaintiff shall admit execution before the 63 O.S.No.1281/2016 jurisdictional Sub-Registrar. Due to the said breach, the object and the purpose of the execution of the Agreement to Lease dated 25.03.1998 and the Lease Deed dated 01.07.1999 are frustrated. But, the oral evidences of DW1 deposed in his examination-in-chief are that he made several requests to the plaintiff to come forward and admit the execution of the Lease Deed before the jurisdictional Sub- Registrar by registering the same and he is ready to spend the registration charges and having sufficient money in his account and also he is ready and willing to register the same and fulfilling his part of contract as per the terms and conditions of the Lease Deed. But, the plaintiff failed and neglected to fulfill his part of contract and thereby, the plaintiff has breached the terms of the lease. These evidences of DW1 are in consistence with the pleadings of the 1 st defendant.
55. Though, the provisions of Karnataka Stamp Act does not stipulate the specified time within which, the proper stamp duty shall be paid on the document, under Section 23 of the Registration Act, the time specified for presenting the 64 O.S.No.1281/2016 document for registration is four months from the date of execution. Admittedly, after execution of the Lease Deed dated 01.07.1999 till the plaintiff issued Notice of termination of the lease of the 1 st defendant, the 1st defendant has neither issued any written communication nor any notice to the plaintiff that he is ready with money to pay the stamp duty on the Lease Deed and to spend the registration charges as agreed therein and to come and admit the execution of the Lease Deed before the office of the jurisdictional Sub- Registrar. It is not the case of the 1 st defendant that within the said stipulated period of four months from the date of the execution of the Lease Deed, he has presented it for its registration or thereafter as contemplated under Section 25 of the Registration Act.
56. To prove the oral evidences of DW1 that the 1 st defendant had sufficient money in his account to pay the stamp duty on the Lease Deed dated 01.07.1999 and to spend the registration charges, the 1 st defendant has also not produced any documentary evidences. The above series of conducts of the 1st defendant clearly shows that the the 1 st 65 O.S.No.1281/2016 defendant from the date of execution of the Lease Deed dated 01.07.1999 till the issuance of Notice of termination of tenancy by the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract as contended by him and he was never diligent in performing his part of contract. For the above reasons, the 1st defendant is not entitled to get protection of his possession on the suit schedule property under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.
57. For the reasons stated in Issue No.2, the plaintiff has proved that the tenancy of the 1st defendant is lawfully terminated. Under Ex.P6, the date of termination of the tenancy of the 1st defendant is 01.01.2015. Thereafter, the possession of the defendants on the suit schedule property is illegal possession. Therefore, the plaintiff has proved that the defendants are in illegal possession of the suit schedule property. Hence, I answer Issue No.3 in the Affirmative.
58. ISSUE No.4 :- One of the defences of the 1 st defendant is that the 1st defendant was regularly making payment of the monthly rents to the plaintiff. To prove this fact the 1 st 66 O.S.No.1281/2016 defendant has produced the oral evidences of DW1 deposing the said facts in the affidavit filed by way of examination-in- chief. In support of the said oral evidences of DW1, the 1 st defendant has produced the certified copies of 131 Rent Receipts as Ex.D12, 238 Letters as Ex.D13, Postal Acknowledgments as Ex.D14 and 33 Invoices as Ex.D29. During cross-examination of DW1, the plaintiff has neither denied nor disputed the said documents. On the other hand, PW1 during his cross-examination has admitted the certified copy of his Deposition in O.S.No.9403/2014. It was marked as Ex.D2. On perusal of the contents of Ex.D2, it appears that PW1 herein before this Court in O.S.No.9403/2014 has admitted that he has received all the rents from the plaintiff as per Ex.D12 and Ex.D13 and as per the invoices raised by him at Ex.D29, the plaintiff has received all the amounts from the 1st defendant. He has admitted that prior to November 2014, he has not issued any notice to the 1 st defendant herein for non payment of rent. These evidences clearly proved the fact in issue that the 1 st defendant was regularly making payment of the rent to the plaintiff till 67 O.S.No.1281/2016 December 2014. Therefore, the 1 st defendant has proved that he is regularly making payment towards rent. Hence, I answer Issue No.4 in the Affirmative.
59. ISSUE No.5 :- One of the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff against the defendants for ejectment directing the defendants to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. For the reasons stated in Issue No.2, the plaintiff has proved that the tenancy of the 1 st defendant is legally terminated. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of ejectment of the defendants from the suit schedule property directing them to hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff.
60. Another relief claimed by the plaintiff against the defendants is that to direct the defendants to pay damages/mesne profits of Rs.32,50,000/- and to continue to pay damages at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per month during the pendency of the suit. There are no pleadings and the evidences either oral or documentary to quantify the said claim of the plaintiff. However, for the reasons stated in Issue 68 O.S.No.1281/2016 No.3, the plaintiff has proved that after termination of Lease, the defendants are in illegal possession of the suit schedule property. Admittedly, from January 2015, the 1 st defendant has not paid the rent of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for arrears of rent from the 1st defendant at the rate which is the agreed rate of rent in Agreement of Lease dated 25.03.1998 and the Lease Deed dated 01.07.1999 from 01.01.2015 till handing over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff as damages. Based on it, the arrears of rent from 01.01.2015 till 31.01.2025 is quantified as Rs.1,12,60,800/-. The arrears of rent as damages from 01.02.2025 till handing over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff shall be calculated at the rate of the monthly rent agreed in the Agreement of Lease dated 25.03.1998. Hence, I answer Issue No.5 partly in Affirmative.
61. ISSUE No.6 :- In view of the findings on Issue No.5, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be partly decreed with cost. Hence, I proceed to pass the following;
69
O.S.No.1281/2016 ORDERS The suit of the plaintiff is hereby partly decreed with cost.
The defendants are hereby directed to quit and handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within three months from the date of this order.
The plaintiff is entitled for arrears of rent from the 1st defendant at the rate which is the agreed rate of rent in Agreement of Lease dated 25.03.1998 and the Lease Deed dated 01.07.1999 from 01.01.2015 till handing over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff as damages.
As per the above order, the arrears of rent from 01.01.2015 till 31.01.2025 is quantified as Rs.1,12,60,800/- (Rupees One Crore Twelve Lakhs Sixty Thousand Eight Hundred only).
The 1st defendant shall pay the aforesaid adjudged amount to the plaintiff within three months from the date of this 70 O.S.No.1281/2016 order failing which, the 1st defendant is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of decree till the date of its payment.
The arrears of rent as damages from 01.02.2025 till handing over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff shall be calculated at the rate of the monthly rent agreed in the Agreement of Lease dated 25.03.1998.
Draw the decree accordingly.
(Typed by the stenographer in the Court Computer on my direct dictation, printout taken, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court today on this the 5th day of February 2025).
(VEDAMOORTHY.B.S) XXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for Plaintiff :-
PW1 : M.Fuaad Musvee List of documents exhibited for Plaintiff :-
Ex.P1 : Certified copy of Memorandum of
Understanding,
71
O.S.No.1281/2016
Ex.P2 : Certified copy of Agreement of Lease,
Ex.P3 : Certified copy of Supplemental Agreement,
Ex.P4 : Certified copy of Supplemental Agreement,
Ex.P5 : Certified copy of Memorandum of
Understanding,
Ex.P6 : Certified copy of Notice,
Ex.P7 : Certified copy of Postal Receipt,
Ex.P8 : Certified copies of Postal Acknowledgments,
Ex.P9 : Certified copy of the orders.
List of witnesses examined for the Defendants :-
DW1 : Kurien Thomas.
List of documents exhibited for the Defendants :-
Ex.D1 : Copy of Written Statement,
Ex.D2 : Certified copy of Deposition,
Ex.D3 : Certified copy of Orders,
Ex.D4 : Certified copy of Memorandum of
Understanding,
Ex.D5 : Certified copy of Partnership Deed,
Ex.D6 : Certified copy of Reconstituted Partnership
Deed,
Ex.D7 : Certified copy of acknowledgment of
Registration of Firms,
Ex.D8 : Certified copy of Death Certificate,
Ex.D9 : Certified copy of Letter,
Ex.D10 : Certified copy of Letter,
Ex.D11 : Certified copy of Letter,
72
O.S.No.1281/2016
Ex.D12 : Certified copies of 131 Rent Receipts, Ex.D13 : Certified copies of 238 Letters, Ex.D14 : Certified copy of Postal Acknowledgment, Ex.D15 : Certified copies of 4 Letters, Ex.D16 : Certified copy of Orders, Ex.D17 : Certified copy of Orders, Ex.D18 : Certified copy of Letter, EX.D19 : Certified copy of Agreement of Lease, Ex.D20 : Certified copy of Orders, Ex.D21 : Certified copy of Legal Notice, Ex.D22 : Certified copy of Order Sheet, Ex.D23 : Certified copy of Orders, Ex.D24 : Certified copy of Agreement to Lease, Ex.D25 : Certified copy of Partnership Deed, Ex.D26 : Certified copy of Agreement of Lease, Ex.D27 : Certified copy of Supplemental Agreement, Ex.D29 : Certified copy of 33 Invoices, Ex.D30 : Certified copy of Lease Deed, Ex.D31 : Certified copy of General Power of Attorney, Ex.D32 : Certified copy of Reconstituted Partnership Deed, Ex.D33 : Certified copy of Reconstituted Partnership Deed, Ex.D34 : Certified copy of Memorandum Acknowledging Receipt of documents, Ex.D35 : Certified copy of Statement of Account, Ex.D36 : Certified copy of details of the rent paid, 73 O.S.No.1281/2016 Ex.D37 : Certified copy of Certificate of Registration of Trade Mark, Ex.D38 : Certified copy of Certificate, Ex.D39 : Certified copy of Plaint, Ex.D40 : Certified copy of Order Sheet, Ex.D41 : Certified copy of Compromise Petition, Ex.D42 : Certified copy of Decree, Ex.D43 : Certified copy of I.A.No.I, EX.D44 : Certified copy of I.A.No.II, Ex.D45 : Certified copy of I.A.No.III, Ex.D46 : Certified copy of Written Statement to the Counter Claim, Ex.D47 : Certified copy of Plan Sanction and Blue Print, Ex.D48 : Certified copy of Proforma and Annexures, Ex.D49 : Certified copy of Lease Deed, Ex.D50 : Certified copy of Lease Deed, Ex.D51 : Certified copy of Affidavit, Ex.D52 : Certified copy of Status, Ex.D53 : Certified copy of Certificate 65B, Ex.D54 : Certified copies of Order Sheet, Ex.D55 : Certified copies of Order, Ex.D56 : Certified copies of Orders, Ex.D57 : Certified copy of Certificate of Registration of Trade Mark, Ex.D58 : Certified copy of Trade License Certificate, Ex.D59 : Certified copy of Legal Notice, Ex.D60 : Certified copy of Amended Written Statement, Ex.D61 : Certified copy of Deposition, 74 O.S.No.1281/2016 Ex.D62 : Certified copy of Plaint, Ex.D63 : Certified copy of Written Statement, Ex.D64 : Certified copy of Deposition.
(VEDAMOORTHY.B.S) XXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Digitally signed by VEDAMOORTHY VEDAMOORTHY B S BS Date:
2025.02.05 17:04:00 +0530