Bangalore District Court
Sri. T. Lakshminarayana Chetty vs Shri Vasantha Joshi on 10 December, 2015
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGEMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE SMALL CAUSES SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU (SCCH-22)
Dated this the 10th day of December 2015.
Present: Sri.N.Subramanya, M.Com., LLB.,
XX ASCJ & Member, MACT, Bangalore.
S.C.No.922/2015
Plaintiff : Sri. T. Lakshminarayana Chetty,
S/o Late T. Sriramaiah Chetty,
Aged about 66 years,
R/at: Nimmanapalli,
Nimmanapalli Post,
Madanapalle Taluk,
Chittor District, Andhra Pradesh.
Presently residing at:
No.20, Srirama Nilaya,
4th Cross, SVG Nagara,
Bengaluru - 560 070.
(By V.B. Shivakumar, Advocate)
-Versus-
Defendants: Shri Vasantha Joshi,
Father name not known to plaintiff,
Major,
Tenant in occupation of
Shop No.2,
No.65/1, Old No.44,
Gundopanth Street,
Bengaluru - 560 002.
(Exparte )
2 S.C.No.922/2015
SCCH-22
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed the suit for the relief of ejectment directing the defendant to quit and hand over the vacant portion of the suit property. The brief plaint averments are that:-
2. Defendant is a tenant in respect of the Shop bearing No.2, measuring 124 sq. ft., in the third floor of property bearing No.65/1, Old No.44, Gundopanth Street, Bengaluru, and the rate of rent paid by defendant is Rs.8,000/- p.m. Commercial complex was constructed by the plaintiff on the ground that his children were young and he being a resident of Nimmanapalli was planning for his children to settle in Bangalore, therefore, a portion of the premises of the complex was let out to different tenants to augment his income. Plaintiff submits that his son Srinivas is without any avocation and plaintiff himself is not able to do any business in village and hence he want to settle in Bangalore with his son by establishing a composite business that is intended to be done by utilizing the entire 3 S.C.No.922/2015 SCCH-22 commercial complex in the business of home and kitchen products. Plaintiff has consulted Architects and other construction engineers who have opined that that the plaintiff has to put forward action to vacate the tenants occupying different shops in the entire commercial complex in order to carry out the modifications required for the business and he has issued notice for vacating and handing over the vacant possession of the entire commercial complex to various tenants. He further submits that is the relief as sought for is not granted, his plan of doing business and settling in life along with his family will be defeated and young life of his son also will be jeopardized beyond retrieval. Hence, there is an urgent need to initiate the eviction proceedings against the defendant. He further submits that, he is the owner of the property and in order to establish his ownership, he has produced copy of tax paid receipts and sale deeds etc. He submits that, he has issued notice to the defendant on 13.05.2015 by RPAD to vacate and hand over the premises 4 S.C.No.922/2015 SCCH-22 and also affixed the notice on the conspicuous wall of the defendant's shop but defendant failed to comply with the demand of the plaintiff inspite of service of notice. He further submits that the schedule premises fetches rent of Rs.20,000/- as per the present market value and hence, defendant is liable to pay occupation of charges of Rs.20,000/- to him and prays to decree the suit.
3. In pursuance of the notice through RPAD, defendant remained absent. Hence, he has been as placed exparte.
4. Plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.9 and closed his side. Inspite of opportunities given, defendant has not examined and has not produced any documents from his side and hence his side evidence is taken as nil and side closed.
5. Heard the arguments.
6. The points that would arise for due consideration of this case are:-5 S.C.No.922/2015
SCCH-22
1. Whether plaintiff proves that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and defendant is the tenant?
2. Whether Plaintiff proves that he has terminated the tenancy of the defendant?
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs?
4. What Order and Decree?
7. My answer to the above points are:-
1. Point No.1: Affirmative.
2. Point No.2: Affirmative.
3. Point No.3: Affirmative.
3. Point No.4: As per final order for the Following:-
REASONS
8. Point No.1:-
In order to prove the ownership, plaintiff has adduced oral evidence and produced documents at Ex.P.1 and P.2 Khatha extract of the suit property issued by the BBMP, these documents clearly proves that plaintiff is the owner of the suit property as on the date of filing the suit.
Plaintiff has also produced Ex.P.3 - copy of the Legal notice issued by the plaintiff and Ex.P.4 and 5 - Postal 6 S.C.No.922/2015 SCCH-22 receipt and acknowledgement returned duly served. He has also produced rent receipts at Ex.P.7 and P.8 issued for the defendant, all these documents proves that defendant is the tenant under the plaintiff. Defendant has also remained absent after duly serving the court summons and remained exparte. The evidence of plaintiff remained unchallenged, plaintiff clearly proved by adducing oral and documentary evidence about ownership and tenant relationship. Hence, I answer this point in the Affirmative.
9. Point No.2:-
Plaintiff issued notice as provided under section 106 of the TP Act and granting 15 days clear notice to vacate the schedule premises, the notice dated 13.05.2015 was served on the defendant on 16.05.2015. After lapse of 15 days the suit is filed on 31.07.2015. Hence, he has complied the mandatory provisions under section 106 of TP Act and clearly terminated the tenancy. Hence, I answer this point in the Affirmative.7 S.C.No.922/2015
SCCH-22
10. Point No.3:-
As discussed at above point No.2, plaintiff has clearly proved his case. The schedule premises is non residential premises measuring 432 sq. ft., the rent is at Rs.8,000/- p.m. He has produced Ex.P.7 and P.8 - rent receipts for June 2015 and July 2015 for Rs.8,000/- each. Hence, if the plaintiff satisfied his any one of the conditions of the Karnataka Rent Act under section 2 (3) (e) or (g), it is sufficient. In this regard, plaintiff relied upon decision reported in:-
ILR 2013 KAR 4696 between Anupama Ramesh vs. Shri Veerchand -
"To give one more instance, if a premises is excluded from the applicability of the Rent Act under clause (e), it can't be defeated by relying on the exception provided in clause (g) on the ground that the premises is used for commercial purpose and its plinth area does not exceed fourteen square meters".8 S.C.No.922/2015
SCCH-22 It has been clearly held in the said decision to the above effect. Hence, plaintiff is entitled to the relief's act. Plaintiff also entitled to the damages of Rs.15,000/- p.m. from the date of filing the suit till vacating and handing over the suit property. Hence, I answer this point in the Affirmative.
11. Point No.4:- In view of discussion of Point Nos. 1 to 3, I pass the following:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs. The defendant is directed to quit and vacate and hand over the vacant portion of the suit premises to the plaintiff within two months. Defendant is directed to pay the damages of Rs.15,000/- p.m. from the date of decree till vacating and hand over the suit property. Draw the decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced in the Open court by me on this the day 10th of December, 2015) (N.SUBRAMANYA) Member MACT & XX ASCJ., Bangalore.9 S.C.No.922/2015
SCCH-22 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for plaintiff:-
PW1 : T. Lakshminarayana Chetty List of exhibits marked on behalf of plaintiff:-
Ex.P1 : Khatha certificate Ex.P2 : Khatha extract Ex.P3 : Copy of legal notice Ex.P4 : Postal receipt Ex.P5 : Acknowledgements Ex.P6 : Photographs Ex.P7 & 8 : Two rental receipts Ex.P9 : CD with cash receipt \
List of witnesses examined for defendant:-
-None-
List of exhibits marked on behalf of defendant:-
-Nil-
Member MACT & XX ASCJ., Bangalore.10 S.C.No.922/2015
SCCH-22 SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of non-residential shop premises, privately numbered as Shop No.2, measuring in all 124 Sq. ft., in the Third Floor of property, bearing No.65/1, Old No.44, Gundopanth Street, Bengaluru - 560 002, and bound on the: East by: Property bearing No.66, belonging to Marimuthu Pillai West by: Property No.64, belonging to Anand Rama Setty North by: Patnoolpet road South by: Gundopanth Street.
(N.SUBRAMANYA) Member MACT & XX ASCJ., Bangalore.