Bangalore District Court
Prakash Jain vs Anupam Mishra on 24 January, 2026
1 SCH-7
SC.No.318/2024
KABC020191162024
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES
AND, ACJM, (SCCH-7), BENGALURU.
Before: Sri. SHYAM PRAKASH
B.A.L, LLB.,
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 24th day of January 2026
S.C. No.318/2024
Plaintiffs: Sri. Prakash Jain,
S/o Late Shantilal,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at No.4/2, First Floor,
Rajanna Lane, Nagarth Pet Cross,
Bangalore - 560 002.
(By Sri.R. Nagaraja Reddy,
Advocate)
-VERSUS-
Defendant: Smt. Anupam Mishra,
D/o Late Sri. S.M. Jha,
Proprietrix - "Pooja Computers"
No.20/3-1, Allaraju,
Muniswamappa Galli,
Bangalore - 560 002.
(By Sri.Jagadish B.M.,
Advocate)
2 SCH-7
SC.No.318/2024
Date of Institution of suit 23-04-2024
Nature of the suit Ejectment
Date of Commencement of
06-02-2025
evidence
Date of pronouncement of
24-01-2026
judgment
Year's Month/s Day/s
Total Duration
01 09 01
[Shyam Prakash]
IX ASCJ & ACJM,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff has filed this suit seeking the relief of eviction of the tenant/defendant from the suit property and to direct the defendant to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the schedule premises and such other reliefs.
2. The brief facts averred in the Plaint are as under:
It is the case of the plaintiff is that, he is the absolute owner of the property bearing shop No.20/3- 1, Allaraju Muniswamappa Galli, Bangalore - 560 002, measuring east to west 8.6 feet and North to south 13.6 feet, totally measuring 116.96 feet, bounded on east by shop No.3, West by Shop No.1 and stair case,
3 SCH-7 SC.No.318/2024 north by Third party's property and South by common passage, by virtue of Ex.P-8/Partition Deed dated 21.03.2021. It is alleged that the father of the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property by vertue of Ex.P-3/Sale Deed dated 16.02.2004 and he died on 11.08.2018 leaving behind his children as his legal heirs and thereafter the plaintiff and his brothers have inherited the suit property and they have entered into Ex.P-8/Partition Deed dated 21.03.2021 with respect to suit property and other family properties and accordingly the suit property allotted to the share of the plaintiff and thereafter he has mutated his name in the revenue records, as such he is the absolute owner of the suit property in question. Further it is alleged that during the life time of his father, the defendant is tenant under the father of the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs.8,500/- and the defendant has taken the possession of the suit property for commercial purpose to run business therein and he shall not sublet the part of the suit premises in favour of any third person and if the lessee became defaulter of payment of rents then lessor will be entitled to terminate the lease and the lease period for a period of eleven months and if both parties agrees then the tenancy can be extended on mutual consent and the rent will be increase 5% over existing rent for every 4 SCH-7 SC.No.318/2024 year and the terms and conditions of the said tenancy have been reduced in writing and accordingly the father of the plaintiff has executed Rent agreement dated 01.08.2007 in favour of the defendant in respect of the suit schedule property in question. The said tenancy between father of the plaintiff and defendant in respect of the suit schedule property was only for a period of eleven months commencing from 01.08.2007. That after the death of his father, on the strength of Ex.P-8/Partition Deed dated 29.03.2021 the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property and the defendant became the tenant of the suit property and the present rate of monthly rent is Rs.9,500/-. Further it is alleged that, the defendant is became defaulter and he is liable to pay the arrears and enhancement of rent, as such the defendant has violated the terms and conditions of the rent agreement. The suit schedule property is required for the plaintiff for his bonafide use and occupation and for the said reasons the plaintiff has requested the defendant to quit and hand over the possession of the suit premises in question and requested the defendant to pay the arrears and enhancement of rent and quit and hand over the possession of the suit property in question and inspite of several requests and demands the defendant postponed to quit, vacate and handing 5 SCH-7 SC.No.318/2024 over the suit schedule premises to the plaintiff. Under these circumstance the defendant has violated the conditions of the rent agreement and due to such intolerance, to terminate the tenancy of the defendant the plaintiff has issued Ex.P-5/Legal notice dated 02.01.2024 by terminating the tenancy by providing specific period to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property and also to pay the arrears and enhancement of rent/damages, the said notice has been duly served on the defendant and even after service of the notice the defendant has failed to comply the demands of the legal notice. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file the present suit for relief of eviction of the tenant/defendant from the suit property.
3. In pursuance of this suit, this Court has issued summons against the defendant and she has appeared before the Court through her counsel and filed written statement by admitting the tenancy and denying the plaint averments in part and contended that, she is a tenant under the father of the plaintiff by name Shanthilal with respect of the suit property and after his death, his children have inherited the suit property, as such all children of the deceased Shanthilal are having right over the suit property.
6 SCH-7 SC.No.318/2024 Further it is alleged that she is the tenant under the father of the plaintiff and at the time of the execution of the rent agreement she has paid in total Rs.6,00,000/- as refundable deposit amount. She is ready and willing to vacate the suit property on receiving sum of Rs.6,00,000/- towards refundable deposit amount and though the plaintiff is aware of the said facts and in order to escape from the liability of payment of such refundable deposit amount, he has constrained to file the present suit. Under these circumstance the plaintiff is not absolute owner of the schedule property and their exists other legal heirs to the said property and she never accepted him as a landlord and she ever tenant under the plaintiff and she has not aware that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and he alone has not having locus standi to file the present suit. Further it is alleged that the defendant is paying rent regularly and she never became defaulter of the payment of monthly rent and running business therein. The plaintiff is not required the suit property for his own use as alleged and in the intention to provide the suit property for higher rent and in order to harras her the plaintiff has issued such notice. Further she and her family are depend on the income of her business running in the suit property and if suit decreed then the defendant will put to great 7 SCH-7 SC.No.318/2024 hardship and jeopardized and the present suit is misconceived and there is no cause of action to file this suit and therefore the present suit is not maintainable in law and same is liable to dismiss in limine and by suppressing these facts, the plaintiff has constrained to file the present suit to harass the defendant. Hence prays to dismiss the suit.
4. Based on the above pleadings the points that arise for my consideration are as follows:
:: P O I N T S ::
1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant in between him and the defendant?
2. Whether the Plaintiff proves that tenancy of the defendant has been legally terminated?
3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for relief sought for?
4. What decree or order ?
5. In support of case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 and closed hisside. The defendant got examined 8 SCH-7 SC.No.318/2024 herself as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-4 and closed their side.
6. Heard the arguments of both side. Perused the materials available on record.
7. My findings to the above Points are as under;
Point No: 1 :- In the Affirmative
Point No: 2 :- In the Affirmative
Point No: 3 :- Partly in the Affirmative
Point No: 4 :- As per final order for
the following;
:: R E A S O N S ::
8. POINTS No.1 to 3: The above points has its
direct bearing on the discussion of another points. In order to avoid repetition of discussion and for the purpose of brevity and convenience, I would like to discuss them jointly.
9. The Plaintiff has filed this suit seeking the relief of eviction of the tenant/defendant from the suit property. It is the specific case of the plaintiff is that, he is the absolute owner of the suit property, by virtue of Ex.P-8/Partition Deed dated 21.03.2021. It is alleged that the father of the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property by vertue of Ex.P-3/Sale Deed dated 16.02.2004 and he died on 11.08.2018 9 SCH-7 SC.No.318/2024 leaving behind his children as his legal heirs and thereafter the plaintiff and his brothers have inherited the suit property and they have entered into Ex.P-8/Partition Deed dated 21.03.2021 with respect to suit property and other family properties and accordingly the suit property allotted to the share of the plaintiff and thereafter he has mutated his name in the revenue records, as such he is the absolute owner of the suit property in question. Further it is alleged that during the life time of his father, the defendant is tenant under the father of the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs.8,500/- and the defendant has taken the possession of the suit property for commercial purpose to run business therein and he shall not sublet the part of the suit premises in favour of any third person and if the lessee became defaulter of payment of rents then lessor will be entitled to terminate the lease and the lease period for a period of eleven months and if both parties agrees then the tenancy can be extended on mutual consent and the rent will be increase 5% over existing rent for every year and the terms and conditions of the said tenancy have been reduced in writing and accordingly the father of the plaintiff has executed Rent agreement dated 01.08.2007 in favour of the defendant in respect of the suit schedule property in question. The said 10 SCH-7 SC.No.318/2024 tenancy between father of the plaintiff and defendant in respect of the suit schedule property was only for a period of eleven months commencing from 01.08.2007.
That after the death of his father, on the strength of Ex.P-8/Partition Deed dated 29.03.2021 the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property and the defendant became the tenant of the suit property and the present rate of monthly rent is Rs.9,500/-. Further it is alleged that, the defendant is became defaulter and he is liable to pay the arrears and enhancement of rent, as such the defendant has violated the terms and conditions of the rent agreement. The suit schedule property is required for the plaintiff for his bonafide use and occupation and for the said reasons the plaintiff has requested the defendant to quit and hand over the possession of the suit premises in question and requested the defendant to pay the arrears and enhancement of rent and quit and hand over the possession of the suit property in question and inspite of several requests and demands the defendant postponed to quit, vacate and handing over the suit schedule premises to the plaintiff. Under these circumstance the defendant has violated the conditions of the rent agreement and due to such intolerance, to terminate the tenancy of the defendant the plaintiff has issued Ex.P-5/Legal notice dated 11 SCH-7 SC.No.318/2024 02.01.2024 by terminating the tenancy by providing specific period to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property and also to pay the arrears and enhancement of rent/damages, the said notice has been duly served on the defendant and even after service of the notice the defendant has failed to comply the demands of the legal notice. The defendant by admitting the tenancy and denying the plaint averments in part and her version is that, she is a tenant under the father of the plaintiff by name Shanthilal with respect of the suit property and after his death, his children have inherited the suit property, as such all children of the deceased Shanthilal are having right over the suit property. Further it is alleged that she is the tenant under the father of the plaintiff and at the time of the execution of the rent agreement she has paid in total Rs.6,00,000/- as refundable deposit amount. She is ready and willing to vacate the suit property on receiving sum of Rs.6,00,000/- towards refundable deposit amount and though the plaintiff is aware of the said facts and in order to escape from the liability of payment of such refundable deposit amount, he has constrained to file the present suit. Under these circumstance the plaintiff is not absolute owner of the schedule property and their exists other legal heirs to 12 SCH-7 SC.No.318/2024 the said property and she never accepted him as a landlord and she ever tenant under the plaintiff and she has not aware that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and he alone has not having locus standi to file the present suit. Further it is alleged that the defendant is paying rent regularly and she never became defaulter of the payment of monthly rent and running business therein. The plaintiff is not required the suit property for his own use as alleged and in the intention to provide the suit property for higher rent and in order to harras her the plaintiff has issued such notice. Further she and her family are depend on the income of her business running in the suit property and if suit decreed then the defendant will put to great hardship and jeopardized and the present suit is misconceived and there is no cause of action to file this suit and therefore the present suit is not maintainable in law and same is liable to dismiss in limine and by suppressing these facts, the plaintiff has constrained to file the present suit to harass the defendant. Hence prays to dismiss the suit.
10. The burden to prove the framed points is lies on the plaintiff. Hence, in order to prove his case, the Plaintiff has adduced oral evidence so that, the Plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 by filing affidavit 13 SCH-7 SC.No.318/2024 evidence and she has reiterated the entire plaint averments in her evidence before this Court and also produced as many as Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 documents. Therefore, there is no necessity to repeat those facts again. I have gone through the documents produced by the P.W.1. Ex.P1 is the Death Certificate of his father Sri. Shanthilal, on going through the same it is seen that the father of the plaintiff was died on 11.08.2018, Ex.P.2 is the Katha of Suit property standing in the name of plaintiff, Ex.P.3 is the Digital copy of Sale Deed dated 16.02.2024, on going through the same it is seen that the vendor has executed registered sale deed in favour of father of the plaintiff /Sri.Shanthilal for valuable consideration amount with respect to suit property. Ex.P.4 is the Tax paid receipt, Ex.P.5 is the Legal Notice dated 02.01.2024, Ex.P.6 is the Postal Receipt, Ex.P.7 is the postal acknowledgment and Ex.P.8 is the Digital copy of Partition deed dated 29.03.2021 on going through the same it is seen that after the death of Sri.Shanthilal, his children, i.e., plaintiff, Suresh Kumar, Uttam Kumar and Rajul Gulecha have entered into registered Partition Deed with respect to suit schedule and other family properties and accordingly the suit property allotted to the share of the plaintiff and accordingly the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property in question.
14 SCH-7 SC.No.318/2024
11. In the cross-examination of PW-1 he has deposed that the defendant is tenant under his father with respect to suit property. His father died leaving behind his four children. After the death of his father he was receiving the rent of the suit property from the defendant. Further he has denied that he is not an owner of the suit property. Further he has deposed that in pursuance of the rent agreement entered between defendant and his father, the defendant has not paid any refundable deposit amount, but he was paying monthly rent of Rs.8,500/-. Further he has denied that his father has received in total Rs.6,00,000/- refundable deposit from the defendant. Further he has deposed that the defendant has paid rent till 2023. Further he has deposed that during the pendency of the present suit the defendant has paid Rs.47,500/- by way of cheque to him towards arrears of rent and he return the said cheque to the defendant. After the death of his father, he and his siblings have inherited the suit properties along with other family properties and they have entered in to Ex.P-8/Partition deed dated 21.03.2021 and accordingly the suit property is allotted to his share. Further he has denied that the suit property is HUF property and the defendant has paid rent regularly and all legal heirs of 15 SCH-7 SC.No.318/2024 the deceased Shanthilal should file the suit for the alleged relief. Further he has denied that he has no right to constrained to file the present suit. During the cross examination Pw.1 has consistently deposed on the lines of the plaint averments and he has made those versions, which could not be shattered in cross examination.
12. In order to prove the version of the defendant, the defendant has adduced oral evidence so that, the the defendant got examined herself as D.W.1 by filing affidavit evidence and she has reiterated the entire written statement averments in her evidence before this Court and also produced as many as Ex.D1 to Ex.D4 documents. Therefore, there is no necessity to repeat those facts again. I have gone through the documents produced by the D.W.1. Ex.D1 is the Security Deposit Receipt, on going through the same it is seen that the defendant has deposited Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of father of the plaintiff by way of four cheques for an amount of Rs.25,000/- each towards security deposit with respect to lease of the suit property. Ex.D-2 is the Postal Receipt, Ex.D-3 is the ICICI Bank Statement of Accounts of M/s Pooja Computers and Ex.D-4 is the Bank of Baroda Statement of Accounts of M/s Pooja Computers.
16 SCH-7 SC.No.318/2024
13. In the cross-examination of Dw.1 by the counsel for plaintiff, she has deposed that she is the tenant under the father of the plaintiff since from 2002. Now she is paying Rent of Rs.9,500/- p.m., with respect to suit property. She has paid Rs.1,00,000/- towards refundable deposit amount and in addition she has paid Rs.5,00,000/- towards refundable deposit amount. There is no documents to show that she has paid Rs.5,00,000/- towards refundable deposit amount. She has taken 2 shops near by the suit shop property. She has not paid rent from January 2024. Further she has denied that she has not paid Rs.1,00,000/- towards refundable deposit amount but she has paid the same towards arrears of rent. Further she has denied that she will not put to jeopardized suppose she vacate the suit property. She do not know whether she is paying 5% enhanced rent.
14. The defendant contended that, defendant is the tenant under the father of the plaintiff with respect to suit property and till today she is running business therein as a tenant and after the death of father of the plaintiff and she has paid admitted rent regularly and she is having arrears of rent from January 2024 onwards and she is not aware that the plaintiff is the 17 SCH-7 SC.No.318/2024 owner of the suit property, therefore the plaintiff is alien to the said property and as such question of landlord and tenant relationship does not arise between herself and plaintiff. That suit property is joint and the plaintiff himself is not having right to file the present suit. Further the defendant contended that the plaintiff is illegally trying to disposes her from the suit property and a person in possession can be evicted only in due process of law and even the rightful owner cannot eject with force. Further the defendant contended that, the title of plaintiff is under a cloud and her possession is in dispute so, the plaintiff has to sued for declaration, possession and for the consequential relief of injunction. The counsel for plaintiff contended that, the father of the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property, by virtue of Ex.P-3/Sale deed dated 16.02.2004 and thereafter the father of the plaintiff, i.e., Sri.Shanthilal was died on 11.08.2018 leaving behind his children as his legal heirs and thereafter the said children of the deceased Sri.Shanthilal have entered into registered Ex.P- 8/Partition Deed dated 29.03.2021 with respect to suit property and other family properties and accordingly the suit property is allotted to the share of the plaintiff and thereafter the plaintiff has mutated his name in the revenue records, as such plaintiff is the absolute 18 SCH-7 SC.No.318/2024 owner of the suit property and he is paying tax regularly to the concerned authority and in this regard he has informed the defendant to pay the rent to him but she has became chronical defaulter and not paid monthly rent and she is due for payment of arrears of rent. The suit property is required for his bonafide use and therefore the plaintiff has requested the defendant to vacate the suit property and issued Ex.P-5/Legal Notice dated 02.01.2024 but the defendant has not headed the words and not complied the demands of the plaintiff and defendant has continued her possession in the suit property in her venture. Further the counsel for plaintiff contended that in view of the Section 109 of Transfer of Property Act the subsequent purchaser/owner/plaintiff is stepped into the shoe of the owner and in the absence of the contrary agreement the transferee possess all the rights that the lessor held concerning the leased property. Under this circumstance the plaintiff is landlord to the suit property and defendant is tenant and in this regard I have relied the landmark decision reported in ILR 2011 KAR 229 in the case of Abdul Wajid V/s A.S. Onkarappa.
15. On going through the evidence, documents and material available on record, it is admitted fact that 19 SCH-7 SC.No.318/2024 plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property and the defendant has admitted that she is the tenant and she is tenant under plaintiff's father and she is paying monthly admitted rent.
16. Sec.109 of Transfer of Property Act governs the rights and liabilities of a transferee of the leased property. Upon the lessors transfer of their interest in a leased property, the transferee acquires the lessor's rights and is subjected their liabilities related to the property and in the absence of the contrary agreement the transferee possess all the rights that the lessor held concerning the leased property. The transferee also becomes subjected to the liabilities of the original lessor concerning the property, as long as they are the current owner.
17. Sec.109 of Transfer of Property Act is reproduced as follows:
Sec.109-Rights of lessor's transferee.--If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof, or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights and, if the lessee so elects, be subject to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the 20 SCH-7 SC.No.318/2024 property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer, cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him:
Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.
The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium or rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part so transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any Court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased.
18. Grounds for eviction can vary depending on the specific terms and conditions outlined in the rental agreement and the laws of the jurisdiction. Here are some common grounds for eviction.
21 SCH-7 SC.No.318/2024 Non-payment of rent:
If the tenant fails to pay rent as agreed upon in the rental agreement, the landlord may have grounds for eviction. However, it is essential to follow the legal procedures for providing notice and allowing the tenant an opportunity to rectify the situation before pursuing eviction.
Breach of lease terms:
If the tenant violates any significant terms of the lease, such as subletting the property without permission or using the premises for illegal activities, the landlord may have grounds for eviction. This typically requires providing written notice of the violation and an opportunity for the tenant to remedy the situation.
Property damage:
If the tenant causes substantial damage to the property that affects its utility or value, the landlord may have grounds for eviction. The extent of the damage and the process for eviction may depend on local laws and the terms outlined in the rental agreement.
Nuisance or disturbance:
If the tenant's behavior or activities create a nuisance or disturbance to the neighborhood or other tenants, the landlord may have grounds for eviction. This may include excessive noise, illegal activities, or behaviors that significantly disrupt the peaceful enjoyment of others.
Owner's personal use:
In some cases, the landlord may require the property for their personal use, such as moving in themselves or accommodating a family member. Specific procedures and notice requirements for eviction based on personal use vary by
22 SCH-7 SC.No.318/2024 jurisdiction.
Major repairs or demolition:
If the property requires significant repairs or is scheduled for demolition, the landlord may have grounds for eviction. Again, following the proper legal procedures and providing sufficient notice is crucial in such situations.
Eviction process for tenants in India To evict a tenant in India while adhering to the necessary legal procedures and avoiding prohibited actions, the following steps should be followed:
Serve a notice to vacate:
A formal eviction notice must be drafted, specifying the grounds for eviction, along with the date and time by which the tenant must vacate the property. This notice is then sent to the tenant through a court of competent jurisdiction. The landlord should provide the tenant with a reasonable timeframe to move out. Often, upon receiving a legal notice from the court, tenants voluntarily vacate the premises in many cases.
Initiate an eviction lawsuit:
If the tenant refuses to vacate and challenges the eviction after receiving the court's notice, the landlord may choose to engage a rental property attorney to file an eviction lawsuit. The lawsuit is filed in the civil court that has jurisdiction over the rented property.
19. How does a Lease end? Determination of lease:
Section 111 states about the determination of the lease, which lays down the ways in which lease is terminated:
23 SCH-7 SC.No.318/2024
1.Lapse of time - When the prescribed time of the lease expires, the lease is terminated.
2.Specified event - When there is a condition on time of lease depending upon a happening of an event.
3.Interest - Lessor's interest to lease the property may cease, hence resulting in the termination of the lease.
4.Same owner - When the interest of both lessor and lessee are transferred or vested in the same person.
5.Express Surrender - This happens when the lessee ceases to have an interest in the property and comes into a mutual agreement with the lessor.
6.Implied Surrender - When the lessee enters into a contract with another for the lease of property, this is an implied surrender of the existing lease.
7.Forfeiture - There are three ways by which a lease can be terminated:
When there is a breach of an express condition by the lessee. The lessor may get the possession of the property back.
When lessee renounces his character or gives the title of the property to a third person. When the lessee is termed as insolvent by the banks, and if the conditions provide for it, the lease will stand terminated.
8. Expiry of Notice to Quit - When the notice to quit by the lessor to the lessee expires, the lease will also expire.
What is notice to quit and what happens after it?
Notice to quit is a formal written statement that is issued to the lessee if the lessor desires to end the 24 SCH-7 SC.No.318/2024 lease agreement, whether on the expiry of the duration as stated under Section 106 or on grounds specified in Section 111.
Any lease can be forfeited as mentioned in the sub-clause (g) of Section 111, by acceptance of the notice to quit.
But Section 112, states that if the lessor after initiating the process of termination of the lease on the grounds of forfeiture accepts any rent from the lessee, it will be understood that the lease will still exist and the termination and notice to quit has been waived.
Section 113 provides two ways in which the notice can be waived, that is expressly or impliedly.
1.Express Waiver of notice to quit - When a lessor accepts the rent from the lessee after the notice to quit has been served, this is called express waiver of notice to quit.
2.Implied Waiver of notice to quit - When a lessor issues notice to quit to the lessee, and upon expiry of that notice, lesser issues another notice to quit to the lessee. The first notice to quit is impliedly waived. Waiver of notice also shows the intention to continue the existing lease.
20. Now coming to matter on hand, this eviction suit filed by the plaintiff (Landlord) against the defendant (Tenant), the landlord and tenant are the only 25 SCH-7 SC.No.318/2024 necessary parties. In this matter the plaintiff contended that he is the absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of Ex.P-8/Partition deed dated 29.03.2021 and he has mutated his name in the revenue records and paying tax to the concerned authority and obviously he is the absolute owner of the suit property and the defendant is tenant under his father and after the death of his father by vertue of Ex.P-8/Partition Deed he acquires the lessor's rights and his subject to his liabilities related to the property and in the absence of the contrary agreement. But in this case at the time of acquiring the suit property he has informed the tenant regarding acquiring of the suit property. The transferee possess all the rights that the lessor held the concerning the leased property. Hence the plaintiff has stepped into the shoe of the lessor of the defendant. That after expiry of the lease period the plaintiff has requested the defendant to vacate the suit property as he intending to shift to the suit property and he requires the said property for his own bonafide use and though the defendant agreed to vacate but later she has not headed the words of the plaintiff and refused to vacate the suit property and continued in her venture. Since from the expiry of the lease period with respect to the suit property, the defendant has not paid rent to the plaintiff from January 2024 26 SCH-7 SC.No.318/2024 onwards and she has became chronic defaulter and violated the conditions of the lease agreement and therefore in the instance case landlord/plaintiff claimed a decree for eviction against her tenant/defendant from the tenanted suit property. The defendant in her written statement/written arguments she has admitted that she is a tenant and further the defendant admits that plaintiff is the subsequent owner of the suit property and it is the say of the defendant that though the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property but she is tenant under his father and accordingly they have such relationship of landlord and tenant. Sec.109 of Transfer of Property Act governs the rights and liabilities of a transferee of the leased property. Upon the lessors transfer of their interest in a leased property, the transferee acquires the lessor's rights and is subjected their liabilities related to the property and in the absence of the contrary agreement the transferee possess all the rights that the lessor held concerning the leased property. The transferee also becomes subjected to the liabilities of the original lessor concerning the property, as long as they are the current owner. Hence in view of the Section 109 of the TP Act the plaintiff has stepped into the shoe of his father. As such there exists a relationship of the landlord and tenant between the 27 SCH-7 SC.No.318/2024 plaintiff and the defendant and in relating to such relationship there is no dispute. In this matter the plaintiff alleged that the defendant/tenant is defaulter of payment of arrears of rent with respect suit property and also she has caused the damages to the suit property as alleged. As such the defendant/tenant has violated the conditions of the lease agreement and also the said lease period is expired. In the instant case for the violation of the lease agreement the plaintiff has issued Ex.P.5/Notice dated 02.01.2024 under Section 106 of T.P. Act determining the tenancy and the same indicates the termination of the suit lease agreement. Hence the determination of lease agreement is proper.
21. Under these circumstances, I hereby come to the conclusion that on the strength of the Ex.P-8/Partition deed the Plaintiff is clearly establishes his case through the evidence of P.W.1, as well as the documents produced by him that the plaintiff is the absolute owner/landlord of the suit property and defendant is the tenant and it is the admitted fact that the defendant is the tenant with respect to suit property and on the strength of that tenancy, she is running business therein as a tenant and now the suit property is required for the bonafide use of the plaintiff. Hence, in prima facie the plaintiff shows the 28 SCH-7 SC.No.318/2024 clear violation of the lease agreement. I do not find any reasons to disbelieve or discard the evidence of plaintiff/PW.1. In the light of the above discussions and on perusal of position of law and also going by the evidence, documents and materials available in the case, there is a breach of condition by the lessee/defendant and obviously lessor/plaintiff get the possession of the suit property back and accordingly the plaintiff succeeded in proving this case and thus, I conclude that, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of eviction. Accordingly, I answer points No.1 and 2 in the Affirmative and Point No.3 partly in the Affirmative.
22. POINT No.4: In view of my findings on Points No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER The Suit of the Plaintiff is partly decreed with costs.
The defendant is hereby directed to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within two months from the date of this order.
Further the defendant is directed to pay damages of Rs.10,000/- p.m., from the date of suit till the delivery of the 29 SCH-7 SC.No.318/2024 vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.
In the event of failure of the defendant to deliver the vacant possession of suit property and payment of damages of Rs.10,000/-
p.m., from the date of the suit to till delivery of the possession, the plaintiff is at liberty to get delivery of vacant possession of the schedule property and recover the damages by due process of law.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by him, corrected and signed by me and then pronounced in the Open Court on 24th day of January 2026) [Shyam Prakash] IX ADDL. JUDGE & ACJM, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
SCHEDULE PROPERTY All the peace and parcel of the property bearing shop No.20/3-1, Allaraju Muniswamappa Galli, Bangalore - 560 002, measuring east to west 8.6 feet and North to south 13.6 feet, totally measuring 116.96 feet, bounded on:
East by : Shop No.3
West by : Shop No.1 and stair case
30 SCH-7
SC.No.318/2024
North by : Third party's property
South by : common passage
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
PW.1 : Sri. Prakash Jain
2. List of documents exhibited for the plaintiff:
Ex.P1 : Death Certificate of his
father Sri. Shanthilal
Ex.P.2 : Katha of Suit property
Ex.P.3 : Digital copy of Sale Deed dated
16.02.2024
Ex.P.4 : Tax paid receipt
Ex.P.5 : Legal Notice dated 02.01.2024
Ex.P.6 : Postal Receipt
Ex.P.7 : Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P.8 : Digital copy of partition deed
dated 29.03.202
3. List of witnesses examined for the defendant:
DW.1 : Smt. Anupam Mishra
4. List of documents exhibited for the defendant:
Ex.D1 : Security Deposit Receipt
Ex.D-2 : Postal Receipt
31 SCH-7
SC.No.318/2024
Ex.D-3 : ICICI Bank Statement of Accounts of M/s Pooja Computers Ex.D-4 : Bank of Baroda Statement of Accounts of M/s Pooja Computers [Shyam Prakash] IX ADDL. JUDGE & ACJM, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
Digitally signed bySHYAMPRAKASH SHYAMPRAKASH Date: 2026.02.06 13:07:45 +0530