Karnataka High Court
Munipoojappa vs Sri Akash Zingade on 3 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:34582
RFA No. 2218 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2218 OF 2024 (EJE)
BETWEEN:
MUNIPOOJAPPA,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR.
SRI MANINANJAPPA,
AGED 64 YEARS,
S/O LATE MUNIPOOJAPPA,
RESIDENT OF KOWDENAHALLI VILLAGE,
K.R. PURAM HOBLI,
BANGALORE-560 016.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI HARSHA KUMAR GOWDA H.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI AKASH ZINGADE,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
Digitally signed by S/O Z.B. KASINATH,
MAHALAKSHMI B M R/AT OLD NO.40, NEW NO.68/C
Location: HIGH FLAT NO.207, 2ND FLOOR, G.R. MAITHRI,
COURT OF OPP. CORPORATION GROUND,
KARNATAKA
JOGUPALYA MAIN ROAD, HALASURU,
BANGALORE-560 008.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI M. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI N.R. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.06.2024 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.8382/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIV ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, PARTLY DECREEING
THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT, POSSESSION AND DAMAGES.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:34582
RFA No. 2218 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT
WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The present appeal is preferred by the defendant assailing the judgment and decree dated 28.06.2024 in O.S.No.8382/2015, on the file of the XLIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru ('trial Court' for short). By the judgment and decree, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff seeking ejectment, possession and damages.
Plaint averments:
2. The plaintiff asserted that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 21.05.2010 executed through his father, who had earlier acquired rights under an agreement of sale and GPA from late M. Narayanappa.
That after his purchase, Katha was mutated in his name and he has been paying taxes. The defendant was -3- NC: 2025:KHC:34582 RFA No. 2218 of 2024 HC-KAR inducted as a tenant in the suit schedule property on monthly rent of Rs.600/-, but after the termination of tenancy by a quit notice dated 19.06.2013, the defendant failed to vacate and continued in unauthorised occupation. Further that the defendant has even sublet the portions of the property and is collecting rents. The lease agreement relied upon by the defendant with the heirs of Narayanappa are collusive and fraudulent to defeat the plaintiff's right. The plaintiff is entitled for vacant possession and damages for the use and occupation and a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from causing any third party rights.
Written statement averments:
3. The defendant denied the plaintiff's ownership and the jural relationship of landlord and tenant, contending that he was never a tenant under the plaintiff but has been lawfully inducted into the schedule property by the sons of M. Narayanappa under the registered lease agreement dated 01.09.1996 on a monthly rent of -4- NC: 2025:KHC:34582 RFA No. 2218 of 2024 HC-KAR Rs.600/- with the security deposit of Rs.50,000/-. It is stated that the plaintiff's alleged sale deeds are concocted and have no binding force as Narayanappa's legal heirs were in possession and exercise rights of ownership by leasing the property. It is urged that in OS.No.6333/1997, the Civil Court had already recognized his tenancy and granted an injunction against the interference, which showed that the plaintiff's father was aware of and did not dispute this tenancy. The suit is not maintainable for ejectment but plaintiff ought to have sought for declaration and possession against Narayanappa's heirs and that the quit notice relied upon was not validly served, having been returned with a shara "insufficient address", and therefore no tenancy stood terminated and that, in the absence of valid landlord-tenant relationship and proper termination of tenancy, the suit for ejectment is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.
4. The trial Court held that the plaintiff proved the ownership through registered sale deed and supporting -5- NC: 2025:KHC:34582 RFA No. 2218 of 2024 HC-KAR documents at Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. That under Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ("TP Act" for short), transferee (plaintiff) steps into the shoes of the lessor and the tenant cannot deny the landlord's title as envisaged under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. That the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant is established. The lease was originally for 11 months and stood determined by efflux of time. The quit notice under Ex.P18 is deemed served under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, even though returned. Hence, tenancy stood terminated.
4.1. The Court held that the admitted rent of Rs.600/- per month from the date of suit until delivery of possession and the Court had jurisdiction as the property exceeded 14 square meters and by the judgment and decree, decreed the suit in part with costs and held that the plaintiff is entitled for vacant possession of the suit property and directed the defendant to hand over possession within 3 months, failing which the plaintiff may -6- NC: 2025:KHC:34582 RFA No. 2218 of 2024 HC-KAR recover through law. It also directed the defendant to pay damages at Rs.600/- per month from the date of suit till the delivery of the possession. A permanent injunction was granted restraining the defendant from inducting third parties or creating charge.
Contention of the appellant:
5. The appellant's counsel contends that the trial Court erred in decreeing the suit without properly appreciating that the defendant was a tenant under the sons of late M. Narayanappa, as established in O.S.No.6333/1997, which the plaintiff's father did not dispute and failed to contest, that despite such knowledge, the plaintiff procured concocted sale deed dated 21.05.2010 and falsely projected the appellant as his tenant. Instead of seeking declaration and possession against Narayanappa's heirs, that the Small Causes Court had already held there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiff and defendant and directed that plaintiff proved his title, which finding was not disturbed in -7- NC: 2025:KHC:34582 RFA No. 2218 of 2024 HC-KAR CRP.No.150/2015. That the trial Court wrongly applied Section 111 of the TP Act though lease deed Ex.D2 was not with the plaintiff, and the plaintiff himself issued Ex.P18 under Section 106 of the TP Act, treating the tenancy as subsisting. It is further submitted that the notice was never served, having been returned for insufficient address, so the presumption under Section 27 of the General Causes Act, 1897 was not available, therefore rendering the ejectment suit not maintainable and the decree perverse.
Contention of the respondent:
6. In response, the respondent-plaintiff argues that he is the absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 21.05.2010 executed through his father, who had earlier acquired rights under an agreement of sale and GPA from the original owner, late M. Narayanappa, that upon such purchase, under Section 109 of the TP Act, the plaintiff stepped into the shoes of the lessor and all the rights of the landlord stood -8- NC: 2025:KHC:34582 RFA No. 2218 of 2024 HC-KAR transferred to him, and by the operation of law, the defendant continued only as a tenant under him. It is submitted that under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the defendant is estopped from disputing the title of the landlord or from setting up ownership in others.
Further the lease was of the year 1996 only for 11 months and stood determined long ago by efflux of time and under Section 111 of the TP Act, the defendant's continued occupation renders to be unauthorized. It is further argued that the quit notice dated 19.06.2013 was properly addressed and posted, and therefore service is presumed under Section 12 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and the contention of insufficiency of address is a device to avoid service. The questions of title or disputes with Narayanappa's heirs cannot be raised by the tenant, since no such heirs have challenged the plaintiff's title. The plaintiff further contends that the suit is rightly framed for ejectment, and the Civil Court has jurisdiction as the property exceeds 14 square meters, and that the decree -9- NC: 2025:KHC:34582 RFA No. 2218 of 2024 HC-KAR for possession and mesne profits is proper and the defendant has no right to remain in occupation after determination of the lease.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether the trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit and whether the appellant- defendant has made out any grounds to interfere with the judgment and decree?"
8. The plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property under the registered sale deed dated 21.05.2010. Section 109 of the TP Act reads as under:
"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 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
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34582 RFA No. 2218 of 2024 HC-KAR 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."
9. As envisaged from the above provision, the leased property in favour of the transferee (plaintiff) automatically steps into the shoes of the lessor and the tenant is estopped under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 from denying the landlord title, which reads as under:
"116. Estoppel of tenant; and of licensee of person in possession.--No tenant of
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34582 RFA No. 2218 of 2024 HC-KAR immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property and no person who came upon any immovable property by the licence of the person in possession thereof, shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such licence was given."
10. Thus the appellant-defendant continued as a tenant under the plaintiff by operation of law regardless of earlier tenancy with Narayanappa's heirs. The lease was of the year 1996 for 11 months and stood terminated by efflux of time under Section 111 of the TP Act. Even otherwise, the plaintiff issued a termination notice Ex.P18, the notice was returned with shara "insufficient address".
11. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act reads as under:
"27. Meaning of service by post.--Where any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or requires
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34582 RFA No. 2218 of 2024 HC-KAR any document to be served by post, whether the expression "serve" or either of the expressions "give" or "send" or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."
12. In view of the above provision, the notice issued is deemed served under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. Hence, the tenancy stood validly determined and the defendant's continued possession was unauthorised. The plea of the defendant that the plaintiff ought to have filed a declaration and possession suit was rejected because the defendant was only a tenant and could not dispute the landlord's title. The argument that the notice was invalid also fails since the lease itself had already expired. The findings in OS.No. 6333/1997 do not override the plaintiff's valid title as in CRP.No.150/2015.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34582 RFA No. 2218 of 2024 HC-KAR
13. This Court in CRP No.150/2015 held that the observation made by the Small Causes Court in S.C.No.869/2013, doubting the title of the plaintiff only because the father had executed the sale deed in favour of his son, would have no bearing on the merits of the matter. The relevant portion of the finding is as under:
"8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the pleadings and the impugned order, I find that the small causes suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable as the subject mater of the property was a vacant land measuring more than 14 Sq. Mtrs. without having a premises constructed thereof. Therefore, the Court below was right and justified in returning a finding to present the suit before the Competent Court. However, as regards the observations made doubting the title of the plaintiff over the suit property, only because the father had effected the sale in favour of his son-plaintiff as a general power of attorney holder of the original owner, it has to be clarified that those observations will have no bearing on the merits of the matter which has to be dealt with by the Civil Court."
(emphasis supplied)
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34582 RFA No. 2218 of 2024 HC-KAR
14. The trial Court on appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence held that the findings in OS.No.6333/1997 do not override the plaintiff's valid title and right to seek possession.
15. The trial Court also observed that the property measured more than 14 square meters and jurisdiction lay with the Civil Court and not the Small Cases Court and directed damages to be paid at Rs.600/- per month, being the admitted rent and not the higher sum claimed by the plaintiff showing their appreciation of evidence, the decree of possession and damages and injunction was therefore proper and well founded. The appellant has failed to show any perversity or miscarriage of justice, and the point framed for consideration is answered accordingly and this Court pass the following:
ORDER i. The Regular First Appeal is hereby dismissed. ii. The judgment and decree dated 28.06.2024 in O.S.No.8382/2015, on the file of the XLIV
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34582 RFA No. 2218 of 2024 HC-KAR Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is hereby confirmed.
Sd/-
____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19