Bangalore District Court
Mr.T.Neerajakshulu vs M/S.Banashankari Super on 19 December, 2015
IN THE COURT OF XL ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-41)
AT BENGALURU.
Dated this the 19th day of December 2015.
PRESENT
SRI.JINARALAKAR. B.L.,
B.A., LL.B. (Spl.)
XL Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
O.S.NO.1979 / 2013
PLAINTIFF : MR.T.NEERAJAKSHULU,
Aged about 51 years,
S/o. T.Doreswamy Naidu,
R/o. No.679, 1st 'C' Main,
III Cross, K.G.Layout, BSK III Stage,
Bengaluru-560 085.
(By Sri.G.V.Sudhakar, Advocate.)
AND:
DEFENDANTS: M/S.BANASHANKARI SUPER
BAZAAR,
A Registered Partnership firm,
Represented by its Partners:
1. D.R.SHIVARAM,
Aged about 54 years,
S/o. D.S.Rama Shetty,
2. SMT.D.S.SUJATHA,
Aged about 52 years,
W/o. D.R.Shivaram,
Both r/at No.2476, 17th Main, 25th
Cross, Banashankari II Stage,
Bengaluru-560 070.
(By Sri.M.S.Ashwin Kumar, Adv.)
2 O.S.1979/2013
i) Date of Institution of the 12.03.2013
suit.
ii) Nature of the suit. Ejectment & Damages.
iii) Date of the 21.10.2013
commencement of
recording of evidence.
iv) Date on which the 19.12.2015
judgment was pronounced.
v) Total Duration Year/s Month/s Days
02 09 07
***
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants for Ejectment evicting the defendants from suit schedule property - All that piece and parcel of the ground and first floor premises in the property bearing No.41, situated at 22nd Main, Banashankari II Stage, Bengaluru, measuring East to West 27½ feet and North to South 20 feet in each floor, having carpet area of 494 sq. ft., in the ground floor and 494 sq. ft. in the first floor and bounded on East by: Property No.22, West by:
Road, North by: Property No.40 and South by: Property 3 O.S.1979/2013 No.42, delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property and directing them to pay a sum of Rs.81,333/-
and damages at the rate of Rs.70,000/- per month from the date of suit till delivery of possession and costs, etc. .2. The averments of the plaint in brief are that:
The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the ground and first floor premises No.41, situated at 22nd Main, Banashankari II Stage, Bengaluru. The defendant was tenant for the ground floor of the said property from 09.11.2000 and thereafter, has occupied first and second floor premises in addition to the ground floor from 16.09.2006. Thereafter, the defendant has vacated the second floor portion on 31.10.2009 and restricted the lease for the schedule property and is tenant under the plaintiff from 01.11.2009 on monthly tenancy commencing from 1st of each English calendar month on monthly rent of Rs.45,000/-. The defendant has agreed to pay 15% of enhanced rent at the end of every 2 4 O.S.1979/2013 years at the time of inception of lease. After expiry of 2 years, the defendant has paid a sum of Rs.5,000/-
towards enhanced rent instead of Rs.6,750/-.
The defendant has agreed to vacate and handover the schedule property on or before 31.10.2012, but has failed to vacate the same as agreed and requested for 3 months period, but again, the defendant failed to vacate the schedule property as agreed even after extension of three months without any justifiable cause and went on postponing the same. The plaintiff got issued Legal Notice to the defendant on 15.02.2013 calling upon to vacate the schedule property within 15 days, but has issued untenable reply.
The tenancy with respect to the schedule property is terminated by said Legal Notice giving 15 days period from the date of receipt of notice to vacate and handover the possession, which was sent through Speed 5 O.S.1979/2013 Post Acknowledgement on 15.02.2013, which was served on the defendant on 16.02.2013. The defendant has issued untenable reply claiming that he has vacated the first floor premises of the schedule property, however, the keys are remaining with them. The plaintiff always insisted upon to vacate the entire premises and never agreed to take possession of portion of the schedule property. The reply is an afterthought with an ulterior motive to harass the plaintiff for monetary gains. Along with reply, the defendant has paid a cheque for Rs.31,500/- after deducting TDS of Rs.3,500/- for the month of January 2013 instead of paying rent of Rs.50,000/-. The cheque would be realized by the plaintiff without prejudice to evict the defendant from the schedule property and the said amount is adjusted towards the part payment of rent due for the month of January 2013.
6 O.S.1979/2013
The defendants are due a sum of Rs.65,000/- i.e., Rs.15,000/- for the month of January 2013 and Rs.50,000/- for the month of February 2013. The defendants have not vacated the schedule property in compliance of the notice and they continued in occupation of the same and are liable to pay damages for unauthorized use and occupation at the rate of Rs.70,000/- per month till delivery of vacant possession of the schedule property. The defendants are also liable to pay a sum of Rs.16,333/- towards damages on 10.03.2013 subsequent to the termination of tenancy. The plaintiff is not interested in continuing the tenancy in favour of the defendants and he would be put to great hardship if the defendants do not vacate the schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit.
.3. In pursuance of suit summons, the defendants appeared through counsel and filed written statement 7 O.S.1979/2013 denying the material averments / allegations of the plaint regarding arrears of rent, agreeing to vacate the premises on or before 31.10.2012, etc. However, the defendants have admitted tenants under the plaintiff from 09.11.2000 and further tenants under the plaintiff on lease in respect of the schedule property from 01.11.2009 on monthly rent of Rs.45,000/-. Further the defendants contended that initially, they were tenants in respect of premises bearing No.41, 22nd Main, BSK II Stage, Bengaluru, both the ground and first floors from 01.11.2009. They were tenants under the plaintiff in respect of the ground floor portion from 01.11.2000 on monthly rent of Rs.9,500/- and subsequently, rent was enhanced periodically. The said Lease Deed was for a period 9 years and at the time of inception of tenancy, they paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the plaintiff as refundable Security Deposit. In the meantime, on 16.09.2006, even before expiry of the said Lease Deed, another Lease Deed was entered into between the 8 O.S.1979/2013 parties, wherein, the first and second floors and one room in the third floor of the said property was let-out on monthly rent of Rs.13,500/- and at that time, the defendant paid additional sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintiff as refundable Security Deposit. The defendant has in all paid total sum of Rs.4,50,000/- towards refundable Security Deposit. This being the case, on 01.11.2009, another Agreement was entered into between the parties, wherein, the defendant vacated and handed over the second floor and a room on the third floor and confined the tenancy only to the ground and first floors i.e., the schedule property on monthly rent of Rs.45,000/-. Prior to execution of Lease Deed dated 01.11.2009, the refundable Security Deposit of Rs.4,50,000/- paid earlier was adjusted towards ground and first floors.
Ever since the inception of tenancy, the defendant has been paying rents regularly and there has been no 9 O.S.1979/2013 default whatsoever. Under these circumstances, the question of the defendant being due a sum of Rs.65,000/- is not true. The defendant at the time of issuance of reply had enclosed a cheque for Rs.31,500/- (after TDS), which was the monthly rent mutually agreed between the parties and the said cheque was towards rent for the month of January 2013. Therefore, the question of arrears of rent does not arise. For the subsequent months, the defendant offered and tendered a cheque before the Court on 22.04.2013, which was not accepted by the plaintiff and the defendant is prepared to pay the mutually agreed rent of Rs.31,500/- to the plaintiff. The defendant has already vacated the first floor portion and intimated the plaintiff to collect the keys of the first floor as far back as on 31.01.2013, but the plaintiff has failed to do so, with oblique motives. The defendant is even now ready to handover the keys of the first floor to the plaintiff, which is not being used by the defendant since 31.01.2013. The plaintiff had at 10 O.S.1979/2013 that point of time promised to return a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- being the Security Deposit paid under Lease Deed dated 16.09.2006, by retaining a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, which was originally paid for the occupation of the ground floor premises, but the plaintiff has yet again failed to do so.
The plaintiff has put up To-Let Boards indicating that the first and second floors of the building are available for rent, which clearly go to show that the defendant has already vacated the first floor portion. Inspite of this, the plaintiff has been demanding rents for the first floor, which shows his malafide intention.
The defendant had also taken premises No.22, 21st Main, BSK II Stage, Bengaluru from the plaintiff's wife Smt.T.N.Shobarani on a monthly rent of Rs.40,000/- as per Lease Deed dated 01.11.2009, which is adjacent to the property No.41. As per the Lease Deed dated 11 O.S.1979/2013 01.11.2009, an enhancement of 15% was due under the Agreement after a period of 2 years from the date of Agreement. By mutual consent of both parties, it was agreed that a total sum of Rs.90,000/- would be paid collectively for both premises No.41 and 22. Accordingly, after 2 years from the date of the lease dated 01.11.2009, the defendant has been paying a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month to the plaintiff in respect of the premises No.41 and Rs.40,000/- per month to the plaintiff's wife in respect of the premises No.22 amounting to Rs.90,000/- per month.
Since the defendant has vacated the first floor portion of the schedule property is liable to pay only a sum of Rs.35,000/- per month in respect of the ground floor as per the mutual understanding arrived at between the parties. This being the case, when the parties had mutually agreed to extend the lease of the ground floor premises on monthly rent of Rs.35,000/-, 12 O.S.1979/2013 they were surprised to receive the notice seeking eviction from the premises in question. Under these circumstances, the question of paying enhanced rent does not arise. The Notice of termination got issued by the plaintiff has been suitably replied. The premise in occupation of the defendant is being used for running a commercial business in Departmental Stores / Super Bazaar and this is the only source of income. The defendant has no other avocation except the business. The partners representing the defendant firm have a big family to maintain and if an order of eviction is passed, their family would be put to irreparable loss and hardship. The premises in question is not required by the plaintiff for his bonafide purpose and his intention is to evict the defendant and to let out the same for higher rents and advances. The plaintiff has filed this suit with an ulterior motive and his need is not genuine and bonafide.
13 O.S.1979/2013
The Legal Notice issued is not in accordance with law and there is no proper termination of tenancy. Since, the defendant has not defaulted in any manner, the question of paying damages does not arise. The amount claimed as damages is highly exorbitant and illegal. The suit is not maintainable. The defendant is not liable to vacate and handover ground floor premises and already vacated the first floor portion of the premises and has offered to return the keys of the first floor to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is liable to refund the additional Security Deposit of Rs.2,00,000/-. There is no cause of action for the suit and the one mentioned is not correct and prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
.4. On the basis of above pleadings, the following Issues framed:
1. Whether the termination of the tenancy of the defendants is legal?14 O.S.1979/2013
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are liable to pay Rs.81,333/-?
3. Whether the defendant proves that they had kept Rs.4,50,000/- as Security Deposit with the plaintiff?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of suit property and Rs.81,333/- from the defendant?
5. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are liable to pay damages?
6. What Order / Decree?
.5. In support of the case, the plaintiff examined as PW.1, got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 and closed the side. The defendant No.1 himself examined as DW.1, got marked documents at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.7 and closed the side.
.6. Heard arguments on both side.
.7. My answers to the above Issues are:
Issue No.1 - in the affirmative.15 O.S.1979/2013
Issue No.2 - in the affirmative Issue No.3- in the affirmative. Issue No.4 - in the affirmative. Issue No.5 - in the affirmative. Issue No.6- As per final order for the following:
REASONS .8. ISSUE No.1: The plaintiff contended that the defendant has agreed to vacate and handover the schedule premises on or before 31.10.2012, but failed to vacate the schedule property and issued Legal Notice dated 15.02.2013 terminating the tenancy by giving 15 days time to vacate and handover possession, etc. Per contra, the defendant contended that the notice issued is not in accordance with law and there is no proper termination of tenancy, etc. In support of the respective contentions of the parties, the plaintiff examined as PW.1 who in his affidavit evidence stated regarding defendant tenant under him from 09.01.2000, thereafter, tenant from 16 O.S.1979/2013 01.11.2009 in respect of the schedule property on monthly rent of Rs.45,000/-, the defendant agreeing to vacate and handover schedule property on or before 31.10.2012, failure to do so, issuance of Legal Notice dated 15.02.2013 calling upon to vacate the schedule property giving 15days period from the date of receipt and handover possession, terminating the tenancy, etc., by reiterating the averments of the plaint and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. Per contra, the 1st defendant who examined as DW.1 in his affidavit evidence stated that the notice issued is not in accordance with law and there is no proper termination of tenancy and also denied agreeing to handover on or before 31.10.2012, further stated that already vacated the first floor portion intimating to the plaintiff to collect the keys as on 31.01.2013 and the plaintiff has failed to do so, etc., by reiterating the averments of the written statement. It is not in dispute that the defendant is a tenant in respect of the schedule property on monthly 17 O.S.1979/2013 rent of Rs.45,000/- under Lease from 01.11.2009 for a period of 2 years and thereafter, enhancement of rent at 15% p.a. after said 2 years and agreeing to pay Rs.50,000/- per month.
.9. The learned counsel for the defendant during the course of arguments submitted that after issuance of notice, the plaintiff has received the rent and waived notice to quit and the lease is subsisting, under such notice, the plaintiff cannot seek the relief of Ejectment, etc., and also relied upon the judgment dated 16.02.2005 in a case between M/s.Auto World - Vs- Smt.K.V.Sathyavathi, wherein their Lordships held that:
"Where rent was accepted by the landlord after the expiration of the tenancy by efflux of time, Section 116 applied even though the landlord accepted the amount remitted to him as "part deposit" towards his claim for compensation for illegal use and 18 O.S.1979/2013 occupation, and without prejudice to his rights".
The facts and circumstances of the present case are not applicable to the above cited decision. The learned counsel for the plaintiff also submitted that the said judgment is challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and also produced Xerox copy of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Record of proceedings, which shows that appeal preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
.10. Further the learned counsel for the plaintiff during the course of arguments submitted that the defendant has not pleaded in the written statement regarding waiver of the notice to quit and he cannot take such contention at this stage, the defendant cannot occupy the portion of the premises and vacate portion of the premises there being single Lease in respect of tenancy, receipt of amount itself is not sufficient to conclude that 19 O.S.1979/2013 the notice was waived there being no intention to waive the notice, there must be intention to waiver, etc., and also relied upon the following decisions reported in:
AIR 1970 SUPREME COURT 2025, wherein their Lordships held that:
"The question whether an agent can enforce his lien in a particular case is a mixed question of law and facts.
Therefore, in the absence of any specific plea, that question cannot be gone into."
AIR 1968 Supreme Court 933 wherein their Lordships held that:
"A waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a known right. There can be no waiver unless the person against whom the waiver is claimed had full knowledge of his rights and of facts enabling him to take effectual action for the enforcement of such rights."
(2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 228 wherein their Lordships held that:
20 O.S.1979/2013
"We are, therefore, of the opinion that mere acceptance of rent by the landlord- Its respondent herein from the tenant in possession after the lease has been determined either by efflux of time or by notice to quit would not create a tenancy so as to confer the erstwhile tenant the status of a tenant or a right to be in possession."
ILR 2007 Karnataka 3862 wherein their Lordships held that:
"Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) (21 of 1929) - Suit for possession and mesne profits - Dismissal of Appealed against - Valid termination of tenancy by the issuance of notice in accordance with law - Subsequent acceptance of rents-
Whether amounts to waiver of termination notice - Held, When once there is a valid termination of tenancy by the issuance of notice, it is for the defendant to vacate and handover possession of the suit schedule property and the defendant cannot further resists the suit for ejection 21 O.S.1979/2013 on the ground that landlord accepted the rents subsequent to the issuance of termination notice - Acceptance of rents subsequent to the issuance of valid termination notice does not amount to waiver of termination notice."
Karnataka Law Journal 2007 (2) wherein their Lordships held that:
"(C) TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882, Section 113, Illustration (a) and Section 111(h) - Notice to quit - Waiver of - Mere acceptance rent accrued for period subsequent to notice period does not constitute waiver - Essence of Section 113 is consensus ad idem of parties - If such rent is accepted without intention to treat lease as subsisting, there is no waiver."
AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1734 wherein their Lordships held that:
"Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882), Ss.13, 111(h) - Quit notice - Waiver -
Acceptance of rent by landlord for period 22 O.S.1979/2013 subsequent to quit notice - Not by itself sufficient to conclude that notice was waived - Landlord even though accepting rent filing and prosecuting eviction suit - Cannot be said to have waived notice."
AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2905 wherein their Lordships held that:
"On expiry of period of lease, mere acceptance of rent for the subsequent months in which the lessee continued to occupy the leased premises cannot be said to be a conduct signifying 'assent' to the continuance of the lessee even after expiry of lease period."
AIR 2002 Allahabad 212 wherein their Lordships held that:
"Mere acceptance of rent after the period of termination of the tenancy does not amount to waiver of notice to quit. There must be some intention of waiver."
AIR 1952 Allahabad 579 wherein their Lordships held that:
23 O.S.1979/2013
"Acceptance of rent - Section 113 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - landlord accepts rent - continues prosecution for ejection - held, mere acceptance of rent not a waiver of right of ejectment obtained by decree."
AIR 1987 Supreme Court 773 wherein their Lordships held that:
"Section 111(e) Contemplates a surrender of the entire interest under the lease and not a part of the interest alone. Moreover, a lease can be determined only by restoring possession in respect of the entire property which was taken on lease."
In the instant case, the defendant has taken a contention that after the receipt of quit notice, he has given reply along with cheque for Rs.35,000/- rent for the month of January 2013 for the ground floor premises and stating about vacating the first floor portion intimating the plaintiff to collect keys on 24 O.S.1979/2013 31.01.2013, but the plaintiff has failed to do so and is tenant only in respect of ground floor etc. Though the defendant taken such contention, he being tenant in respect of both floors-schedule property under a single Lease, cannot unilaterally choose to remain in possession of one portion and vacate another portion and defendants' contention that the plaintiff has refused to take the keys as alleged is untenable. Though the plaintiff has received some amount through cheques during pendency of suit, that alone is not sufficient to hold that he waived notice to quit there being no positive intention of waiver of notice to quit and also pleaded that he is not interested to continue tenancy in favour of the defendants. The plaintiff having issued notice as per Ex.P.1 stating about tenancy, asking to deliver vacant possession of the schedule premises by terminating the tenancy and the defendant having replied to the said notice, such notice cannot be termed as not proper termination of tenancy as contended by 25 O.S.1979/2013 the defendants. Hence, the termination of tenancy of the defendants is legal and accordingly, I answered Issue No.1 in the affirmative.
.11. ISSUES NO.2:- The plaintiff contended that the defendant is due a sum of Rs.65,000/- i.e., Rs.15,000/- for the month of January 2013 and Rs.50,000/- for the month of February 2013 and Rs.16,333/- towards damages as on 10.03.2013, in all Rs.81,333/-. PW.1 in his affidavit evidence also stated the same. The defendant in the written statement also stated that after two years from the date of Lease dated 11.09.2009, the defendant has been paying a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month. The defendant having paid rent through cheque for Rs.35,000/- for the month of January 2013 is liable to pay remaining rent of Rs.15,000/- for the month of January 2013 and Rs.50,000/- for the month of February 2013 and Rs.16,333/- towards damages as on 10.03.2013. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for said 26 O.S.1979/2013 amount of Rs.81,333/- and the defendant is liable to pay the said amount. Hence, the plaintiff proves that the defendant is liable to pay Rs.81,333/- and accordingly, I answered Issue No.2 in the affirmative. .12. ISSUE NO.3:- The defendant contended that they paid Rs.4,50,000/- as Security Deposit with the plaintiff. 1st defendant who examined as DW.1 in his affidavit evidence also stated regarding payment of Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- towards refundable Security Deposit in all Rs.4,50,000/-. The plaintiff / PW.1 in the cross-examination admitted payment of Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- advance amount by the defendant and retaining total advance amount of Rs.4,50,000/- with him. Hence, the defendant proves that he has paid Rs.4,50,000/- towards Security Deposit to the plaintiff, accordingly, I answered Issue No.3 in the affirmative.
27 O.S.1979/2013.13. ISSUE NO.5:- The plaintiff has claimed damages for unauthorized use and occupation of the schedule property at the rate of Rs.70,000/- per month till the date of delivery of possession of the schedule property. In Ex.P.1-Copy of Legal Notice, the plaintiff has stated regarding termination of tenancy and also asked to pay damages for unauthorized use and occupation of the schedule property at the rate of Rs.70,000/- per month till delivery of schedule property. The plaintiff having issued notice terminating the tenancy and after termination of tenancy, the defendant being in unauthorized occupation of schedule property is liable to pay damages. The defendant in his written statement having admitted that as per the Lease Deed dated 01.11.2009 enhancement of Rs.15% was due under the Agreement, after the period of 2 years from the date of Agreement and by mutual consent of both parties, agreed to pay total sum of Rs.90,000/- collectively for both premises No.41 and 22 and accordingly, after 2 28 O.S.1979/2013 years from the date of Lease Deed from 01.11.2009, the defendant has been paying a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month in respect of the schedule property. The plaintiff also pleaded that the defendant is due a sum of Rs.15,000/- for the month of January 2013 and Rs.50,000/- for the month of February 2013. The plaintiff has not adduced satisfactory evidence to claim damages at the rate of Rs.70,000/- per month having claimed Rs.50,000/- for the month of February 2013 and as such, he is entitled for damages of Rs.50,000/- per month. The plaintiff / PW.1 in his affidavit evidence also stated that the defendant has paid a sum of Rs.2,20,500/- before the Court towards damages. The defendant having paid some amount during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month from the date of suit till delivery of vacant possession excluding the amount already paid during pendency of the suit and 29 O.S.1979/2013 Security Deposit amount of Rs.4,50,000/-, accordingly, I answered Issue No.5 in the affirmative. .14. ISSUE NO.4:-The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants for Ejectment evicting the defendants from suit schedule property, delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property and directing them to pay a sum of Rs.81,333/- and damages at the rate of Rs.70,000/- per month from the date of suit till delivery of possession and costs, etc. The plaintiff having proved the legal termination of tenancy of the defendants and the defendants' liability to pay Rs.81,333/-, the plaintiff is entitled for the possession of the suit schedule property and Rs.81,333/- from the defendant, accordingly, I answered Issue No.4 in the affirmative. .15. ISSUE NO.6: In view of the reasons and discussions on the above Issues No.1 to 5, I proceed to pass the following:
30 O.S.1979/2013
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with costs as under.
The defendants are directed to evict from the suit schedule property and deliver vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff within three months from today, failing which, the plaintiff is at liberty to take vacant possession of the schedule property from the defendants in accordance with law.
The defendants are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.81,333/- and damages at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month to the plaintiff from the date of suit till delivery of vacant possession by deducting the amount already paid 31 O.S.1979/2013 during pendency of the suit and Security Deposit amount of Rs.4,50,000/-.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, the transcript print is corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of December 2015).
(JINARALAKAR. B.L.) XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
PLAINTIFF:
PW.1 -Mr.T.Neerajakshulu
S/o. T.Doreswamy Naidu.
DOCUMENTS PRODUCED ON BEHALF OF
PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 Copy of Legal Notice.
Ex.P.2 Postal Acknowledgment.
Ex.P.3 Reply of the defendant.
Ex.P.4 Lawyer Notice dated 20.03.2013.
Ex.P.5 Photograph of schedule property.
Ex.P.5(a) Relevant portion.
Ex.P.6 Photograph of shop in Konanakunte.
Ex.P.6(a) Relevant portion.
32 O.S.1979/2013
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
DEFENDANTS:
DW.1 -D.R.Shivaram S/o.Late Rama Shetty.
DOCUMENTS PRODUCED ON BEHALF OF
DEFENDANTS:
Ex.D.1 Photograph reflecting Sai Vishnu Arcade
Building.
Ex.D.2 Photograph reflecting To-let Board on Sai
Vishnu Arcade Building.
Ex.D.3 Photograph reflecting Cell Number
9002009999 in To-let Board.
Ex.D.4 Photograph reflecting Staircase to reach
1st and 2nd floors.
Ex.D.5 Photograph reflecting Left Staircase to
reach 1st and 2nd floors.
Ex.D.6 Copy of Deed of Lease dated 09.11.2000.
Ex.D.6(a) Signature of 1st defendant. Ex.D.7 Deed of Lease dated 16.09.2006. Ex.D.7(a) Signature of 1st defendant.
(JINARALAKAR B.L.) XL Addl.City Civil & Sessions judge, Bengaluru.33 O.S.1979/2013
ORDER (SRI.JINARALAKAR B.L.) XL Addl.City Civil & Sessions judge, Bengaluru.