Karnataka High Court
H S Ranganath vs Mrs Sheela Ramadas on 6 July, 2022
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
R.F.A.No.69 OF 2007(RES)
BETWEEN
H.S.RANGANATH
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O LATE H.K. SATHYANARAYANA RAO
R/O.NO. 41/50, 11TH CROSS
BASAPPA LAYOUT, HANUMANTHANAGAR
BENGALURU - 19.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.N. ANANTHA NARAYANA AND
SRI. D.G. CHINNAPPA GOWDA., ADVOCATE)
AND
MRS. SHEELA RAMADAS
MAJOR
W/O RAMADAS
NO. 592, MUNCIPAL NO.9
9TH CROSS, MUTHYALANAGAR
MES ROAD., GOKUL JALAHALLI POST
BENGALURU - 54.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M. SHIVAPRAKASH., ADVOCATE)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 30.09.2006 PASSED IN
O.S.NO. 6457/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, (CCH-NO3), DISMISSING THE SUIT
FOR EJECTMENT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.6457/2002 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.09.2006 passed by the XV Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, whereby the said suit for ejectment and other reliefs filed by the appellant - plaintiff against the respondent - defendant in respect of the suit schedule immovable property was dismissed by the trial court.
2. Heard the learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
3. The material on record discloses that the appellant -
plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit inter alia contending that the respondent - defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs.800/- excluding water and electricity charges. It was contended that the suit schedule property earlier belonged to one K.Gangadhar, from whom the plaintiff purchased the 3 property vide registered sale deed dated 11.09.1998, pursuant to which, the defendant despite having been informed to attorn her tenancy and pay rents to the plaintiff, did not do so and was due in a sum of Rs.28,800/- payable to the plaintiff as on the date of the suit. Further, though the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 05.07.2002 to the defendant calling upon her to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff, the defendant did not comply with the same and instead, got issued a false and untenable reply dated 24.09.2002 and as such, plaintiff was constrained to institute the aforesaid suit against the defendant.
4. The defendant contested the suit by filing her written statement disputing and denying the claims and contentions of the plaintiff. It is contended that the suit premises belonged to one H.S.Anil Kumar, husband of the defendant and they had started a school under the name and style M/s.Hemant Education Society. It was also contended that the suit premises was purchased by the said Anil Kumar in the name of defendant's brother-in-law, K.Gangadharan, alleged vendor 4 of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff colluded with the jurisdictional police and forced Gangadharan to execute the said sale deed dated 11.09.1998 relied upon by the plaintiff within a period of 22 days from the date of demise of Anil Kumar, who committed suicide. It is also contended that the said Anil Kumar had executed a will on 21.12.1997 in favour of the defendant's minor son to the knowledge of the plaintiff and his mother. It was further contended that there was no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant and various claims and contentions put forth by the plaintiff were denied by the defendant. It was therefore contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief in the suit and that the same was liable to be dismissed.
5. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:-
" 1. Whether the plaintiff is the landlord of the premises wherein defendant is in possession?5
2. Whether the defendant is a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.800/- apart from electricity and water charges?
3. Whether the defendant is in arrears of rent from 1/9/1999 till 31/8/2002.
4. Whether the termination of tenancy is in accordance with law?
5. Whether plaintiff is entitled to possession?
6. To what order and relief the parties are entitled? "
6. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and Exs.P1 to P23 were marked on his behalf. The defendant examined herself as DW-1 and Exs.D1 to D11 were marked.
7. After hearing the parties, the trial court answered the aforesaid issue No.1 in favour of the appellant - plaintiff, thereby coming to the conclusion that the appellant was the owner and landlord of the suit schedule premises. However, the trial court answered issue Nos. 2 to 6 against the appellant
- plaintiff and came to the conclusion that the appellant had not proved the jural relationship of the landlord and tenant 6 between the plaintiff and defendant and consequently, proceeded to dismiss the suit, aggrieved by which, the plaintiff is before this Court by way of the present appeal.
8. The following points arise for consideration in the present appeal:-
(i) Whether the trial court was justified in coming to the conclusion that there was no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellant and respondent?
(ii) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court warrants interference in the present appeal?
Re-Point Nos.1 and 2:-
9. The material on record discloses that though the defendant took up the specific contention that the plaintiff was not the owner / landlord of the suit premises, the trial court answered issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff by holding that he was the owner and landlord of the suit premises by holding as under:-
7"The plaintiff has filed this suit under Or. 7 R.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking the ejectment of the defendant from the suit schedule premises and also for arrears of rent of a sum of Rs. 28,800/- from the defendant.
2. In his plaint, the plaintiff has stated that, the defendant is a tenant under his with respect to the premises i.e., 1st floor land a small portion a small portion of the 2nd floor of property bearing No.592, Municipal No.9, 9th Cross, Muthyalanagar, MES Road, Gokul, Jalahalli Post, Bengaluru - 54, more fully described in the schedule to the plaint, which is a residential tenement. According to plaintiff, the monthly rent payable is Rs.800/- per month. The plaintiff purchased the suit property from its vendor Sri.K.Gangadharan, under a registered sale deed dated: 11/9/1998 and the defendant who was a tenant under said K.Gangadharan, was informed to attorn the tenancy in favour of the plaintiff. It is further the plaintiff averment that, the defendant is a defaulter in the matter of payment of rent and she is in arrears of rent of a sum of Rs. 38160/- from 11/9/1998 onwards up to 31/8/2002. He has further stated that, he got issued a notice dated: 9/7/2002, demanding the arrears of rent and also terminating the tenenacy of the defendant on the expiry of 31/8/2002. The defendant failed to comply with the demand made in the notice. Stating 8 that he is confirming the arrears of rent for a period of three years, to Rs. 28,800/-, he has prayed for a judgment and decree for the ejectment of the defendant from the suit schedule premises and also for arrears of rent of a sum of Rs. 28,800/- from her.
3. In response to the summons served upon her, the defendant appeared through her counsel and filed her written statement. In the said written statement, she has specifically denied that she is tenant under the plaintiff with respect to the suit schedule premises, on a rent of Rs. 800/- per month. She has even denied the ownership of the plaintiff on the suit schedule premises. On the other hand, she has contended that on Sri.H.S.Anilkumar was her husband and that he was the absolute owner of the suit schedule premises. Said Anil Kumar died on 17/8/1998 and he had executed a will dated 21/12/1997, she has further stated that, the plaintiff in collusion with the jurisdictional police, took custody of the will and forced Gangadharan to execute the sale deed on 11/9/1998, showing that the suit property was sold to the plaintiff. She has also stated that the said property was purchased by said Anil Kumar in the name of said K.Gangadharan.This defendant has admitted the receipt of legal notice dated: 1/7/2002, but stated that she has sent reply notice dated: 24/9/2002.9
With this, she has prayed to dismiss the suit with cost.
4. Based on the above pleadings, following issues wre framed.
" 1. Whether the plaintiff is the landlord of the premises wherein defendant is in possession?
2. Whether the defendant is a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.800/- apart from electricity and water charges?
3. Whether the defendant is in arrears of rent from 1/9/1999 till 31/8/2002.
4. Whether the termination of tenancy is in accordance with law?
5. Whether plaintiff is entitled to possession?
6. To what order and relief the parties are entitled? "
5. Plaintiff Sri. H.S. Ranganath got hismself examined as PW.1 and got Produced and marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.p.23 and closed his side. Defendant Smt. Sheela got herself examined as DW 1 and got produced and marked documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D.11 and closed her side.
6. Heard arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff. Despite several and sufficient opportunities given, no argument was addressed on defendant's side. Hence, defendant's side argument was taken as nil. Perused the materials placed before this Court.
7. In the light of the materials placed before this Court, evidence led and arguments 10 addressed, my findings to the above issues are as below:-
Issue No.1 : In affirmative.
Issue No.2 : In negative Issue No.3 : In negative Issue No.4 : In negative Issue No.5 : In negative Issue No.6 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.1 :- It is in the plaint a well as in the evidence of PW.1 Sri. H.S.Ranganath, plaintiff, that the defendant is plaintiffs tenant in the residential tenement which is the 1 st floor and a small portion in the 2nd floor of the property bearing No.592, Municipal No.9, 9th Cross, Muthyalanagar, Gokul, Bengaluru, more fully described in the schedule to the plaint. It is further the say of the plaintiff as well his evidence by way of examination
-in-chief that, he has purchased the said property from one Sri.K.G.Gangadharan, under a registered sale deed dated 119/9/1998. At the time of purchase, the defendant was in possession of the suit schedule premises under Gangadharan, as a tenant. In support of his evidence, the plaintiff has got produced and marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.23 in his support. On the other hand, it is the contention of the defendant that, plaintiff has got 11 nothing to do with the suit schedule premises and that the said property belonged originally to one Sri. H.S.Anil Kumar, with whom she was residing as his wife since the year 1995 and said Anil Kumar is the owner of the property in the name of Sri.Gangadharan. It is from said Gangadharan, plaintiff herein forcibly got the sale deed dated:
11/9/1998 executed in his favour. The defendant Smt. Sheela, as DW-1 has reiterated her pleading in the written statement, even in her affidavit evidence also. She also stated that, her husband H.S.Anil Kumar has left a will behind him dated: 21/12/1997 and Anil Kumar put an end of his life on 17/8/1998. She has also stated that, even though H.S.Anil Kumar has purchased the property in the name of K.Gangadharan, the brother-in-law of this defendant, but said Gangadharan has no exclusive right to transfer the right in favour of the plaintiff. However, she has admitted that she is in possession of the suit schedule a premises. In her support, she has got produced and marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D.11.
9. It was the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that, plaintiff has produced the sale deed at Ex.P.1 and a katha certificate at Ex.P.2 and tax paid receipt at Ex.P.3. All this clearly goes to show that plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule 12 property. The defendant's said, no argument was addressed.
In the cross examination, PW.1 has not admitted a suggestion that Anil Kumar was the owner of the suit schedule property and that it was his self acquired property. He has also denied that said Anil Kumar was living as husband of defendant since 1995. Several suggestions was put to this witness to show that defendant is the wife of said Anil Kumar and that a child by name Hemanth was born to the defendant through Anil Kumar and also that Anil Kumar had executed a will in favour of Hemanth. All these suggestions were not admitted as true by this witness. However, by making a suggestion to this witness that Gangadharan had executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 11/9/1998, the defendant has admitted the execution of the sale deed at Ex.P.1 in favour of the plaintiff by Sri.Gangadharan. Thus, the entire cross examination of PW.1 was mainly concentrated on the effort of establishing the relationship between the deceased Anil kumar with the defendant, as husband and wife rather than denying that the plantiff is the purchase of the property or that the owner of the property. DW.1 in her cross examination admitted that one Sri.Jerome was the original owner of the suit schedule property. Though 13 this witness has not denied that said Jerome sold the property in favour of Sri.Gangadharan, but she has specifically stated that her husband purchased it in the name of Gangadharan. However, she admitted a suggestion that the katha and other records stand in the name of said Gangadharan. In rest of all her cross examination, an effort was made to show that defendant is not the wife of Sri.Anil kumar and that she is the wife of one Sri.Ramdas and also that she is falsely taking a contention that she is the wife of said Anil kumar. All those suggestions were not admitted as true by this witness and she too has vehemently stated that, she is the wife of one Sri.Anil kumar and that said Anil kumar has left a will behind him, bequeathing the property including the suit schedule property, in favour of their alleged son Hemanth. All those aspects of evidence and materials are not required to be looked into in this suit, for the simple reason that the present suit is a suit for ejectment, not for the declaration of title of the property. As such issues framed do not require giving any finding on the alleged relationship of defendant with deceased Anil kumar. Therefore, larger part of the cross examination of DW.1 does not required to be analysed for the purpose of this suit. It is also for the reason that, what the plaintiff is required to establish is his landlordship over the suit schedule 14 premises and not necessarily his title. Therefore, the relationship of the parties between themselves and the execution of the will by deceased Anil kumar will be of no importance in this suit.
10. To establish that he is the landlord of the suit schedule premises, the first and important document requires consideration is the certified copy of the registration sale deed dated 11/9/1998, which is at Ex.P.1. In the said document, the vendor is Sri.K.Gangadharan and the purchaser is the plaintiff herein and the document shows that the said vendor has said the property bearing House List No.28/4(old No.23), Muncipal No.9(New No.592), situated at 9th Cross, Muthyalanagar, Jalahalli, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore, in favour of the plaintiff. The execution of this document is admitted by the defendant, who herself both in her written statement as well as in her evidence, has stated that there is a sale deed from said Gangadharan in favour of the plaintiff dated 11/9/1998. Even after admitting the said sale deed, the defendant has taken a contention that the said sale deed was got executed in favour of the plaintiff forcibly by the plaintiff, in collusion with the police. Except her pleading and self serving testimony, no other document this witness has produced to show that the sale deed was executed forcibly, in favour 15 of the plaintiff. She has not even examined the said vendor Gangadharan, who happens to be her brother-in-law, in this regard. Therefore, the contention of the defendant that the said sale deed Ex.P.1 was got executed in favour of the plaintiff forcibly will not hold water.
11. The defendant has taken a contention that, the suit schedule premises belongs to Sri.Anil kumar, with whom she was residing as his wife and said Anil kumar has bequeathed the said property in favour of her son Hemanth, under a will dated 21/12/1997. She has got produced a certified copy of the said will and got it marked as Ex.D.1. In the said will which is shown as executed by one Sri.H.S.Anil kumar, he has stated that the ground, 1st and 2nd floor of the property bearing No.28/4, Municipal No.9(New No.592), 9th cross, Muthayalanagar, Bangalore, along with other properties belong to him and that he is bequeathing the same in favour of Master Hemanth kumar son of R.Sheela, the defendant herein. But except stating that he is the owner of the said property, he has not stated how he has become the owner of the same or what documents are there to show that he is owner of the property. Merely because a person declares that a particular property belongs to him in his will, it cannot be taken for granted that the 16 testator is the owner of the said property. Therefore, based on the alleged will of deceased Anil kumar, the admitted transaction of sale of the suit schedule property from its previous owner Jerome in favour of Sri.Gangadharan under a registered sale deed and the genuineness and authenticity of the subsequent sale from said Gangadharan in favour of the plaintiff herein cannot be suspected or disputed. It is also for the reason that it is not the case of the defendant that the said sale deed in favour of Gangadharan from Sri.Jerome was null and void or that she had filed any other litigations seeking a declaration that deceased Anil kumar, the testator, was the owner of the property and either Gangadharan nor plaintiff has got any right, title or interest in that property. Therefore, in the absence of any such pleading or proof, merely banking upon the alleged will at Ex.D.1, the genuineness and authenticity of earlier transaction and also the document at Ex.P.1 cannot be suspected. The defendant has produced a certified copy of the legal notice dated 26/3/2001 issued to her on behalf of one Sri.H.R.Seethalakshmamma, said to be the mother of deceased Anill kumar, at Ex.D.2. The said notice pertains to a totally different property bearing No.5 and 7, situated at 4th A Main Road. Further it also does not throw any light with respect to the suit schedule property herein and also the ownership of 17 the schedule property. Same is the case with respect to Ex.D.3, which is a reply notice to the petition filed by the plaintiff herein against the defendant in HRC.740/2001 under S.21(1)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. Even the property in the said proceeding is also not the present suit schedule property and the said property is what was mentioned in the notice at Ex.D.2.As such, the said petition is of no help to the defendant. Ex.D.5 to Ex.D7 are the legal notices and the reply to them exchanged between the parties herein wherein also the subject matter is the property bearing No.5 and 7, 4th A main, Muthyalanagara, which is not the suit schedules property. Therefore, those documents also will be of no help to the defendant to deny that plaintiff is the landlord of the suit schedule property. Ex. D.8 is the certified copy of an order passed in Sessions Case No.738/2001 dated: 16/8/2002, discharging the accused who is the defendant herein and one more person by name Y.Ramdas, from the charges for an offence punishable under S.306, of the Indian Penal Code. The said document also will be of no help to decide this issue as to the landlordship of the building Ex.D9 is the reply notice dated: 24/9/2002 issued on behalf of the defendant to the counsel for the plaintiff. It is the said notice, the defendant has denied that plaintiff is the landlord of the suit schedule premises. Ex.D.10 is the postal 18 acknowledgment card and Ex.D.11 is the postal receipt to show that the said reply notice was served on the addressee. Since this is a reply notice sent by the defendant herself, that cannot be a document to show that plaintiff is not the landlord of the suit schedule property or that the defendant herself has got some right or interest to continue to be in possession of that property. On the other hand, as observed above, the genuineness and authenticity of the document at Ex.P.1, which is a registered sale deed, cannot be denied or disputed. Ex.P.2 is the Khatha Certificate which also shows that plaintiff is the Khata holder of the property bearing No.9, 9th Cross, Muthyalanagar, in which the suit schedule premises is a portion. Ex.P.3 is a portion. Ex.P.3 is the tax paid receipt standing in the name of the plaintiff. Thus, all these three documents go t o show that the plaintiff is able to establish that he is the landlord of the premises, wherein the defendant is in possession. Though the plaintiff was also produced a certified copy of the affidavit evidence of the defendant in HRC 740/2001 AT Ex.P-4 and a certified copy of the order passed in O.S.No. 7052/1998 at Ex.p.5 and a certified copy of the plaint in OS.5513/1998 at Ex.P.6 and a receipt at Ex. P7 but none of those documents are with respect to the suit schedule property. Ex.P7 was admitted as with respect to property bearing No.5 19 and 7 by DW.1 in her cross-examination. Thus, none of these documents are behalf to ascertain the landlordship of the suit schedule property.
12. Ex.P.8 is the certified copy of the order sheet in crime No.127/1998 of Jalahalli Police, pending before ACMM Court at Bangalore. Ex.P.9 is the certified copy of the surety affidavit in the same case. Ex.P.10 is the certified copy of the birth certificate said to be of the son of the defendant and Ex.P.1 is the certified copy of the application under S.451 of C.P.C., filed in the same case. Ex.P.12 is the certified copy of the affidavit of the defendant in the same case. Ex.p.13 is the certified copy of the statement of objections filed by the defendant herein in the same crime No.150/1998. None of these documents could throw any light on this issue that whether the plaintiff is the landlord of the suit premises. On the other hand, all these documents are produced by the plaintiff herein only to establish that defendant Smt.Sheela is not the wife of one Sri. H.S.Anil kumar, but she is the wife of one Sri.H.S.Anilkumar, but she is the wife of one Sri. Ramdas. As observed above, since the point as to the marital relationship of the defendant with said Sri.Anil Kumar is not under consideration in this issue, no finding in is being given on that aspect As such, these documents have no relation to the issue 20 under consideration. Similarly, the certified copy of the interlocutory application filed by the defendant herein as a respondent in HRC 740/2001 which is at Ex.P.20 and her two more interlocutory applications in the same case which are at Ex.P21 and Ex.P 22 and the certified copy of the order passed in said HRC 710/2001 which is at Ex.P.23, also have got nothing to do with the subject matter of the present suit for the reason that as already observed above, the said HRC.740/2001 was with respect to the ground floor portion of the premises bearing No.592/, Muthyalanagar, whereas the present suit schedule premises is the 1st floor portion and a small portion int he second floor of the very same premises bearing No.592. As such, the premises under litigation in these two proceedings are totally different, as such also, none of these document would be of any help to the plaintiff. However, as already observed above, the documents, particularly the certified copy of the sale deed at Ex.P.1, the Khata at Ex.P.2 , tax paid receipt at Ex.P.3 and added to this, the sanctioned plan of the building on the suit schedule site which is at Ex.P.14 and the sanctioned license at Ex.P.15, all these clearly go to show that said Sri. Gangadharan was the owner of the property to the plaintiff herein. It is thereafter the plaintiff has got the katha of the property transferred in his name and has been paying the tax. As such, 21 undoubtedly, it can be held that plaintiff is the landlord of the premises, wherein the defendant is in possession. Accordingly, I answer this issue in affirmative.
10. The aforesaid finding passed by the trial court have attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the defendant. Under these circumstances, though the respondent
- defendant contended in the present appeal that the plaintiff was not the owner and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, having regard to the aforesaid finding recorded by the trial court on issue No.1 which has attained finality and remained unchallenged by the respondent, coupled with the fact that the defence put forth by the respondent had not been substantiated by her, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court was fully justified in answering issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff and the said finding based on relevant pleadings and material evidence does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the present appeal.
2211. The trial court, however, came to the conclusion that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellant and the respondent. This finding recorded by the trial court on the remaining issues is clearly perverse and contrary to the material on record, in as much as, the trial court has failed to consider and appreciate the categorical, unequivocal, unambiguous, clear, definite and certain admission made by the respondent - defendant in the criminal proceedings, Exs.P8 to P13, in her deposition in HRC No.740/2001 marked as Exs.P4 and P19 and other records pertaining to the said proceedings produced as Exs.P20 to P.23, as well as the order passed by this Court in HRRP No.136/2004 (arising out of HRC No.740/2001) dated 09.03.2006 and rent receipts at Ex.P7 and other documents, all of which cumulatively established that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. Apart from the fact that the aforesaid evidence has not been correctly and properly considered, evaluated and appreciated by the trial court, the said evidence has been 23 misconstrued and misinterpreted by the trial court while answering issue Nos. 2 to 5 against the appellant and this has resulted in erroneous conclusion.
12. Upon re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the entire evidence on record, in particular, the documents referred to supra, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court were clearly fell in error in coming to the conclusion that there does not exist relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. Under these circumstances, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court being wholly illegal, perverse and opposed to the material on record as well as the facts and probabilities of the case, the same deserves to be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff insofar as it relates to the prayer for ejectment / eviction deserves to be decreed in his favour. However, it is relevant to state that having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case and especially since the respondent - defendant is a widow, in my considered opinion, 24 the prayer for arrears of rent, mesne profits, future mesne profits etc., sought for by the plaintiff is liable to be rejected.
Accordingly, point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the appellant and against the respondent.
13. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) The appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 30.09.2006 passed in O.S.No.6457/2002 by the XV Addl.
City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is hereby set aside and the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in part in favour of the appellant - plaintiff against the respondent -
defendant only insofar as the relief / prayer for ejectment / eviction of the respondent from the suit schedule premises is concerned.
(iii) The respondent is directed to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the appellant on or before 31.10.2022.
25(iv) However, as stated supra, the prayer of the appellant - plaintiff for arrears of rent, mesne profits, furture mesne profits etc., is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE BMC/SRL