Bangalore District Court
Padmini Balakumar vs Vishwanath Udupa on 6 June, 2025
1 O.S.No.4068/2016
KABC010129422016
IN THE COURT OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH-28)
Present : Smt. A.M. NALINI KUMARI, B.A.L, LL.M, PGD in IR & PM,
XIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 6th day of June, 2025
O.S.No. 4068/2016
Plaintiff: Padmini Balakumar,
W/o. P. Balakumar,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at No.15/9.
Sellammal Nagar Extn.,
Pollachi.
Represented by her
Power of Attorney holder :
Balakumar,
S/o. Appadurai Raj,
Aged about 56 years,
R/at No.15/9.
Sellammal Nagar Extn.,
Pollachi.
(By Sri. M.H.R. Advocate)
-Vs.-
Defendants: 1. Vishwanath Dudupa,
S/o. U.J.D. Udupa,
Aged about 55 years,
2. Prabha V. Udupa,
Aged about 50 years,
2 O.S.No.4068/2016
R/at No.11 & No.12/1,
Banasavadi main Road,
Opp. ITC Factory, Cook Town,
Bengaluru 560 005.
(By Sri. J.L. Advocate)
6/6/2016
Date of Institution of the suit
Eviction & Recovery of rent
Nature of the suit
Date of the commencement
22/8/2024
of recording of the Evidence.
Date on which the judgment 6/6/2025
is pronounced.
Year/s Month/s Days
Total duration 09 - -
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of eviction of the Defendant from suit schedule A & B premises with a direction to the Defendants to pay arrears of rent of Rs.8,10,000/- from the month of January 2016 till February 2018 with other consequential reliefs.
2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff is that, Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the Property bearing No.11 and 12/1 situated at Banaswadi Main Road, Cook Town, Bengaluru, measuring East to West 50 feet, North to South 60 feet and 3 O.S.No.4068/2016 another Property East to West 35.1+29.3/2 and North to South 50.10+31.6/2, which are A & B-schedule properties, which Property the Defendants are said to have taken on Rental Agreement dated 2.4.211. It is also the case of the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff had let out the Suit Schedule Property to the Defendants conditionally to construct a hotel building in the said schedule Property and to run hotel business in the schedule Property for a period of 6 years from the date of Rental Agreement dated 2.4.2011 and that based upon the said Rental Agreement dated 2.4.211 the Defendant is said to have agreed to construct a hotel building in schedule-B Property investing a sum of Rs.8 lakhs by themselves to an extent of 800 sft., and thereafter the Plaintiff is said to have agreed to return the advance amount of Rs. 3 lakhs plus the construction charges of Rs.8 lakhs, in total Rs.11 lakhs to the Defendants at the time of vacating the suit premises.
3. It is also the case of the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff and Defendant had an additional condition with regard to the above condition Rental Agreement dated 2.4.2011 was also entered into in respect of monthly rent for the Suit Schedule Property for a sum of Rs.35,000/- per month initially and the Defendants 4 O.S.No.4068/2016 have to pay 50% of the rent ie., Rs.17,500/- p.m.for 3 months or until the construction of hotel and thereafter the Defendant had agreed to pay the full rent of Rs.35,000/- p.m. to the Plaintiff with 5% enhanced rent. It is also the case of the Defendant agreed in the Rental Agreement that they would also construct a bank ATM counter in the ground floor of the building in B-schedule Property and hand over the said ATM counter to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff has got right to let out the said ATM Counter to any bank and receive rents from the concerned bank. But the Defendants from the date of Rental Agreement till date have not handed over the ATM counter to the Plaintiff and as such, Rs.3 lakhs loss is said to have been occurred to the Plaintiff.
4. The Plaintiff has also contended that from the date of Rental Agreement to the month of April 2011 Defendant never paid full rent of Rs.35,000/- to the Plaintiff and never enhanced any yearly 5% rent to the Plaintiff. Hence Plaintiff had issued Legal Notice to the Defendants on 29.4.2014, thereafter the Defendants have paid full rent of Rs.35,000/- to the Plaintiff from the month of June 2014 to the month of October 2015. Since form the month of November 2015 the Defendants have completely stopped payment of monthly rent to the Plaintiff and 5 O.S.No.4068/2016 that the Defendants are due of rent from November 2015 to till date nearly 4 months to the tune of Rs.1,40,000/- and therefore, the Plaintiff is said to have issued a Legal Notice dated 29.4.2014 which came to be served on the Defendants on 5.5.2014 and that inspite of several requests and demands made by the Plaintiff, the Defendant has failed to hand over the ATM counter and also the rent. Hence, Plaintiff is said to have terminated the Rental Agreement dated 2.4.2011 by causing the Legal Notice on 29.4.2014 and therefore based upon the said cause of action that is said to have arisen on 2.4.2011, which is the date of execution of Rental Agreement in favour of the Plaintiff and on 1.12.2015 when the Plaintiff demanded for handing over the bank ATM Counter and on 1.11.2015 when the Defendants stopped monthly rent to the Plaintiff and on 1.11.2015 when the Plaintiff had issued ejectment Legal Notice. The Plaintiff has approached this Court seeking direction to the Defendant to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the A & B-schedule premises along with interest and further to direct the Defendants to pay arrears of rent of Rs.8,10,000/- for the month of January 2016 to February 2018.
5. The Defendants have filed their Written Statement and 6 O.S.No.4068/2016 have contended that they are the authorized tenants under the ownership of Plaintiff Smt. Padmini Balakumar in respect of Property bearing No.11 and 12/1 situated at Banaswadi Main Road, Cook Town, Bengaluru, measuring East to West 50 feet, North to South 60 feet, which is A-schedule Property and another Property East to West 35.1+29.3/2 and North to South 50.10+31.6/2, which is B-schedule property. Further Defendant also admits that the Plaintiff is the owner of the Suit Schedule Property and admitted that the Plaintiff and Defendants have entered into a conditional Rental Agreement in respect of the Suit Schedule Property as on 2.4.211 and also admitted that the Plaintiff had let out the Suit Schedule Property to the Defendant on condition to construct a hotel building in the said schedule Property by investing their own funds and the Defendants have paid initial advance of Rs.3 lakhs as on 2.4.2011. The Defendants have also contended that in furtherance of the Rental Agreement Defendants have constructed as hotel building in schedule Property by investing their own funds nearly about 800 Sft., of hotel building and that the Plaintiff had agreed to return advance amount of Rs.3 Lakh plus construction charge of Rs.8 lakh, in total 11 lakh. And that the Defendants at the time of vacating the Suit Schedule Property for a period of 6 7 O.S.No.4068/2016 years from the date of Agreement, the limitation would commence. The Defendants have also admitted of the additional condition with regard to the Rental Agreement dated 2.4.2011 and payment of rent in respect of the Suit Schedule Property for a sum of Rs.35,000/- p.m. and also contended that the Defendants had paid full rent of Rs.35,000/- pm to the Plaintiff and further contended that based upon the Rental Agreement dated 2.4.2011 Plaintiff was to furnish BBMP khata and building construction sanction plan by BBMP and the construction license to the Defendants within 3 months from the date of Rental Agreement to construct the said hotel in the Property but the Plaintiff has not furnished any such BBMP khata and sanctioned plan. And further contended that the Plaintiff had failed to furnish any such plan, as such the Defendant had to construct a temporary hotel shed over the suit Property by investing a sum of Rs.10 lakh during the month of April 2011 and that when the construction was in progress, the Plaintiff's brother had brought a construction to an halt on the basis of an order of stay from the Civil Court in O.S.No. 27062/2010 as on 10.5.2011. As such the construction work over the schedule Property came to an halt.
8 O.S.No.4068/2016
6. Further the Defendants have contended that, as of June 2011, the Defendants have invested a sum of Rs.5 lakh for borewell and a sum of Rs.10 lakh for construction of temporary hotel shed and a sum of Rs.3 lakh ie., initial advance amount to the Plaintiff and a sum of Rs.2 lakh for khata and tax, in total the Defendants had invested a sum of Rs.20 lakhs upon the suit Property as of June 2011 and since the Plaintiff had not obtained any khata the Defendants were caused with a notice from BBMP Under Section 321(1) of KMC Act, calling upon the Plaintiff to demolish the structure existing in the Suit Schedule Property and being aggrieved by the same, Plaintiff is said to have filed and Appeal in the KAT which is also pending for consideration and the suit in O.S.No. 2161/2016 was also filed by the Plaintiff.
7. Further the Defendants have contended that, Defendants had requested several times for the Plaintiff to get the khata in her name from the BBMP but till date the Plaintiff has not secured any katha or the license and contend that the Defendants had invested Rs.45 lakhs by obtaining bank loan form Hotel Owners Co-operative Bank and out of Rs.45 lakhs the Defendants had paid a sum of Rs.3 lakhs advance as on 2.4.211 and a sum of Rs.10 lakh on every month from 2.5.2011 9 O.S.No.4068/2016 to 2.12.2015 a sum of Rs.17,500/- x 60 months, in total Rs.10 lakhs to the Plaintiff through bank cheques and Rs.10 lakhs for construction of temporary hotel building in the Suit Schedule Property and Rs.5 lakhs for the borewell in the Suit Schedule Property and for decoration and hotel cooking appliances Rs.7 lakh. In total Defendants have invested Rs.45 lakh in respect of the Suit Schedule Property. And that on these and other grounds the Defendants have contended that the limitation period mentioned in the Rental Agreement was 6 years from the date of issuance of BBMP sanction and plan. Since no such sanction is placed on record by the Plaintiff the agreement is not yet commenced at all. Hence, on these and other grounds the Defendants have sought to dismiss the above suit.
8. The Defendants have also filed their additional written statement claiming similar grounds as urged in the original Written Statement.
9. Based upon the above pleadings of the parties, my learned Predecessor in office has framed the following issues :-
ISSUES
1. Does the plaintiff proves valid and legal termination of tenancy?10 O.S.No.4068/2016
2. If so, does the plaintiff proves to be entitled for possession of the suit schedule property?
3. Does the defendants prove the plaintiff not to have furnished BBMP construction plan and license as per the Rental Agreement?
4. Does the plaintiff is entitled to seek the reliefs as prayed for?
5. What order or decree?
10. The Power of Attorney Holder of the Plaintiff has examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P1 and 2 documents and the matter was posted for further chief and Cross-examination of P.W.1 was taken as nil since P.W. 1 had to come from Chennai and the Defendants had not represented and as such no representation from the Defendants, the cross examination of P.W.1 was taken as nil. And counsel for Plaintiff has not adduced further Plaintiff's side evidence and the matter was posted for Defendants side evidence.
11. Further the Defendants have got the said P.W.1 recalled for Cross-examination and P.W.1 was present on 4.1.2025 and Cross-examined by Sri. M.S.S. and further the Defendants have 11 O.S.No.4068/2016 also examined themselves as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D1 to 51 documents and in Cross-examination got marked Ex.P3 to P7 documents and the matter was posted for arguments.
12. Both the Learned Counsels have addressed their written arguments. Learned Counsel for Plaintiff has filed a memo with one document while addressing the arguments on main. Perused the materials available on record.
13. My findings to the above Issues are as under:
Issue No.1 .. In the Affirmative Issue No.2 .. In the Affirmative Issue No.3 .. Partly in the Negative Issue No.4 .. In the Affirmative Issue No.5 .. As per final order for the following:
REASONS
14. Issue No.1:- This issue is casted upon the plaintiff to prove valid and legal termination of tenancy in between the Plaintiff and the Defendants. In this regard the Power of Attorney Holder of the Plaintiff has examined himself as P.W. 1 and got marked a notarized Power of Attorney dated 2.3.2016 executed in his faovur by his mother Padmini Balakumar. Ex.P2 is the office copy of Legal Notice dated 29.4.2014, which is caused to 12 O.S.No.4068/2016 Vishwanath Udupa and Prabha V. Udupa the Defendants herein calling upon the Defendants to vacate the premises on or before 30.6.2014. However the Defendant in his written statement except for the contention that the Plaintiff has not produced the BBMP license and plan the Defendant has not raised any other defense as seen from the Written Statement Apart from this, the Defendants have not denied the said Legal Notice of termination ie., Ex.P2. Further the Defendants have also not replied the said Legal Notice nor have they taken any contention of the said Legal Notice being replied by the Defendants. Therefore, the Legal Notice as of now which is Ex.P2 stands established as a matter of due execution of the same for the reasons that the Defendants have not denied the said termination notice caused by the Plaintiff herein nor have they replied to the said notice. Therefore, in the line of the of the above requirement, the due notice ie., statutory notice of termination is duly complied by the Plaintiff. Therefore, in the light of the above discussion and also the Defendant who has led their evidence has not placed any document to show countering the requisite notice nor has any objections urged in their Written Statement so far as it relates to the Legal Notice caused upon to the Defendants. Hence. In the light of the above 13 O.S.No.4068/2016 discussion, issue No.1 stands answered in the Affirmative.
15. Issue No.3 : This issue is upon the Defendants to prove that the Plaintiff has not furnished BBMP Construction plan and license as per the Rental Agreement. The contention throughout the Written Statement of the Defendant after admitting the Rental Agreement entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendants is that, the Plaintiff has not obtained requisite plan and license from the concerned BBMP authority. In this regard the Defendant No.1 has examined himself as D.W.1 and reiterated the Written Statement averments and got marked Ex.D1 to D51 documents.
16. Ex.D1 to 10 are the tax paid receipts in respect of the Suit Schedule Property in the name of Krishnamurthy T.V. Ex.D11 is the endorsement issued by BBMP in relation to transfor of khata calling upon the Plaintiff to produce the document to show that she is the daughter of deceased T.V. Krishnamurthy so as to enable the Plaintiff to get the khata transferred in her name in respect of the Suit Schedule Property. Ex.D12 is the acknowledgment of Swarna khata issued by BBMP. Ex.D13 is an invoice issued by Sri Murugan Borewells in the name of 14 O.S.No.4068/2016 Vishwanath Udupa. Ex.D14 is the sketch showing of the water connection and sanitary connection being availed at 12/1 issued by one Priyadarshini Engineering Works. Ex.D15 is the quotation for electrical works to be carried out in the premises, which is addressed to Padmini the Plaintiff herein. Ex.D16 is another invoice and quotation issued by one Prestige Service Works addressed to the Plaintiff. Ex.D17 is another quotation for electrical works issued in the name of Plaintiff. Ex.D18 is another quotation for electrical works. Ex.D19 is the sanctioned order of electricity connection issued in the name of Plaintiff. Ex.D20 is the official memorandum that the said electricity connection with RR No.1CAE632 E5L5843 is running in the name of Krishnamurthy T.V. and it has been transferred to the name of Ms.Padmini. Ex.D21 is a tax invoice issued by Larson and Tubro Limited in the name of the Plaintiff. Ex.D22 is another receipt for having payment of additional security deposit issued by the BESCOM in the name of the Plaintiff. Ex.D24 is the tax invoice dated 12.2.2016 in the name of Padmini. Ex.D25 is the endorsement issued by the BESCOM in the name of the Plaintiff. Ex.D26 is the inspection report issued by BESCOM in the name of Padmini, the Plaintiff herein. Ex.D27 is the sanctioned order issued by BBMP with regard to customer 15 O.S.No.4068/2016 services. Ex.D28 is another prorata demand note issued by BWSSB. Ex.D29 is another prorata demand note dated 20.5.2017 issued by BWSSB. Ex.D30 is the notice for having caused upon the Plaintiff for payment of water charges of Rs.35,432/- is issued by BWSSB. Ex.D31 is another notice issued upon the Plaintiff as on January 2022 that Rs.24,8145/- was due. Ex.D32 is the Report issued by BWSSB. Ex.D33 is the endorsement issued by the BWSSB. Ex.D34 is estimate for a sum of Rs.42,46,000/-. Ex.D35 is a notice caused to the tenant by BBMP by causing a showcause notice as on 21.8.2018. Similarly Ex.D36 is another notice caused to the tenant in the nature fo show cause notice. Ex.D37 is anther show cause notice caused to the owner ie., Plaintiff. Ex.D38 is the occupier notice issued to Defendant Under Section 108A and Clause 3 of KMC Act r/w. Rule 27 of Taxation Rules. Ex.D39 to 46 are the tax paid receipts being paid to BBMP in the name of Padmini, the Plaintiff herein. Ex.D47 is on demand notice dated 28.6.2023 issued by BBMP calling upon the Plaintiff to pay Rs.71,300/- towards Property tax. Ex.D48 is the order sheet in O.S.No. 27062/2010 filed by one Gopinath Krishnamurthy as against Padmini Balakumar, the Plaintiff herein. Ex.P49 is another plaint copy in O.S.No. 8003/2013. Ex.D50 is the appeal 16 O.S.No.4068/2016 in 166/2014 filed before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by Vishwanath Udupa and the Plaintiff as against the Commissioner, BBMP. Ex.D51 is the certified copy of the notice issued by BBMP dated 28.1.2014 in respect of the defense raised by the Defendant is concerned, the last document ie., Ex.D51 is a temporary order whereby the Plaintiff Padmini Balakumar and Vishwanath Udupa are issued with a notice under Section 321(1) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, that the construction in Property No.12/1 situated at Banaswadi Main Road, Maruthi Sevanagar, Bengaluru was put up without obtaining any plan sanctioned from the concerned BBMP as required under the KMC Act. This fact goes to show that the defense put forth by the Defendant that the Plaintiff has not obtained any requisite sanction for the Defendants to put construction in the Suit Schedule Property is made out. It is crucial to note that the neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendants have placed the said Rental Agreement before the Court.
17. The Defendant has contended that as per the Rental Agreement the Plaintiff were to furnish the requisite BBMP construction plan and license for the Defendant to put up the construction of a hotel in the Suit Schedule Property. But though 17 O.S.No.4068/2016 the Defendant has produced Ex.D1 to D51 documents, the Defendant has not placed the said rental agreement before the Court so as to ascertain if there were any conditions incorporated thereunder. If the said burden was upon the Plaintiff to secure the said license or building plan. That apart it is also contended by the Defendant that when the Rental Agreement was in existence, there was a stay obtained by the Plaintiff's brother one Gopinath, which fact the Defendant has produced a document by way of Ex.D48 a suit filed by Gopinath Krishnamurthy as against Padmini Balakumar for declaration and a stay is also granted in favour of said Plaintiff in the said suit in respect of the Suit Schedule Property with a direction to maintain a status-quo. That being the case, the Plaintiff nor any person could have obtained any sanction plan for putting up any construction.
18. That apart the Defendant has admitted the photographs in his Cross-examination and the same is marked as Ex.PD3 and 4 ie., culled out for brevity. "Witness admitted that the said photographs belongs to his hotel run by him and on the same it is marked as Ex.P3 and P4". Further, "It is true to suggest that the photographs pertains to my hotel and that there is a PG 18 O.S.No.4068/2016 inside the said hotel, however the witness admits the photographs, the same is marked as Ex.P5 and P6". Further witness is confronted with another photograph, "The hotel seen in the photograph belongs to me, hence the same is marked as Ex.P7". This Ex.P3 to 7 are the photographs, which are confronted to D.W.1 and got marked by the Plaintiff in Cross- examination. Whereby there is a categorical admission of the Defendant having put up a hotel in the suit premises and there is an existence of hotel in the said premises. Therefore the contention of the Defendant that due to non obtaining of building plan and the Defendant had put put a temporary hotel in the suit premises cannot be accepted for the reasons that the photographs reflects of a full fledged hotel being existing in the suit premises and also PG annexed to the same is seen annexed to the Property vide photographs. Therefore, in the light of the above discussion it is partly answered affirmative so far as it relates to the Plaintiff having not obtained any BBMP construction plan or license to put up construction in the building. But whether there was a condition in the Rental Agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that the Plaintiff was to obtain the same is again for the Defendant to establish the same. To that extent since the Rental Agreement 19 O.S.No.4068/2016 is neither placed on record by the Plaintiff and the Defendant the said issue No.3 needs a negative finding so far as it relates to the said condition being casted upon the Plaintiff to obtain the BBMP plan. However the fact that there was a stay at the said relevant point of time cannot be ruled out and further any building plan or license will have to be obtained either by the occupier or by the owner of the said Property, which fact cannot be ruled out, which is evident from the perusal of Ex.D51. Hence, to that extent the Defendant has failed to establish the relevant clause as contended by him as the Rental Agreement is not placed on record. Accordingly issue No.3 is answered partly in the Negative.
19. Issue No.2 & 4 : These two issues are with regard to Plaintiff's entitlement for possession of the Suit Schedule Property and the other relief. The Plaintiff has approached this Court on the basis of the Rental Agreement entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendants herein. Whereby the Defendant categorically admits the entire plaint averments so far as it relates to the jural relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants is concerned, except for the alleged payment being made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff and also another 20 O.S.No.4068/2016 contention that the Plaintiff had not obtained building plan and license from the BBMP, other aspects of the pleadings of the Plaintiff are categorically admitted by the Defendant. The Defendant also goes to an extent of admitting that there was a Rental Agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant herein. The Written Statement to that aspect is an admission made by way of pleadings, which admitted facts need not be established by way of specific proof. On the other hand the Plaintiff by virtue of issue No.1 has placed material to show that the tenancy between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is duly terminated by virtue of Ex.P2. In the light of above discussion, there is no reason as to why the case of the Plaintiff should not be decreed holding that the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought for with a direction to the Defendant to quit, vacate and handover the vacant physical possession of the suit A & B- schedule premises along with a direction to the Defendant to pay arrears of rent of Rs.8,10,000/- for the month of January 2016 till February 2018. In this regard though the Defendant has placed Ex.D1 to D51 documents, not a single document is placed on record by the Defendant for having paid any rent to the Plaintiff herein. Though the Defendant has contended that the Defendant has invested a sum of Rs.45 lakhs by obtaining 21 O.S.No.4068/2016 loan, no document in supportive of the same is produced by the Defendant. On the other hand the Defendant has also admitted that there was a Rental Agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to pay rent to the Plaintiff from 2/4/2011 at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per month and initially to pay 50% of the rent ie,. Rs.17,500/- per month to the Plaintiff up to the date of furnishing of the construction plan for hotel building to the Defendant and after furnishing the sanction plan by the Plaintiff, the Defendant were to start construction in the suit premises immediately thereafter after the expiry of 2 months from the date of sanction plan, the Defendant were to pay full rent of Rs.35,000/- per month to the Plaintiff. This categorical admission and also the fact that there is an existence of hotel in the premises which is put up by the Defendant is probabalized by the Plaintiff whereby the Defendants are running a hotel in the said premises. Ex.P3 and P4 photographs probabalize of the same.
20. It is also crucial to note that the very Defendant documents goes to show that the Defendant has put up a temporary construction illegally in the suit premises, which is evident at Ex.D51. Therefore, as admitted by the Defendant, the Defendants were to pay monthly rent at the rate of Rs.17,500/- 22 O.S.No.4068/2016 ie, 50% of Rs.35,000/- which is Rs.17,500/- as admitted by the Defendant. And further the Defendant has admitted that the suit premises belongs to the Plaintiff and that the Plaintiff is owner of the said Property is concerned, the Defendant has produced other documents as well, whereby the name of the Plaintiff is reflected in all the documents relating to the statutory notice etc., which are standing in the name of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, which fact is also admitted whereby the ownership and the jural relationship with the Plaintiff and himself is also admitted and established.
21. It is also crucial to note that the Defendant at para-14 of his examination-chief-affidavit has admitted the termination notice issued by the Plaintiff as on 29.4.2014. Therefore, in view of the said admission and also the relationship being strained and also Rental Agreement is not being placed on record either by the Plaintiff or by the Defendant, the Plaintiff is entitled for eviction of the Defendant from the Suit Schedule Premises and also the rent as sought for at the rate of Rs.17,500/- per month as arrears of rent from the month of January 2016 to February 2018 since the Plaintiff has not placed any document of license or plan. In the light of above 23 O.S.No.4068/2016 discussion, I hold that the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought for. Accordingly, issue No.2 & 4 are answered that the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought for.
22. Issue No.5 : In furtherance of my findings to above issues I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER The suit of the Plaintiff seeking the relief of direction to the Defendant to quit and vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule A & B premises with consequential relief of direction to the Defendant to pay arrears of rent of Rs.8,10,000/- is hereby decreed in part along with costs.
Further the Defendants are hereby directed to quit, vacate, handover the vacant possession of the Suit Schedule Property within 3 months from the date of decree.
Further the Plaintiff is also entitled for arrears of rent to an extent of Rs.17,500/- per month commencing from the month of January 2016 till February 2018 and future rent at the rate of Rs.17,500/- only from the date of the suit till vacation of the Suit Schedule Premises.24 O.S.No.4068/2016
In terms of the same, Office to draw a decree holding that the suit of the Plaintiff is decreed in part.
(Dictated to the Stenographer-G1, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me, in the Open Court, on this the 6th day of June, 2025) (A.M. NALINI KUMARI) XIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the Plaintiff's side:
PW.1 : Guhan Balakumar List of exhibits marked for the Plaintiff's side:
Ex.P.1 Power of Attorney dated 2/3/2016
Ex.P.2 Office copy of Legal Notice dated
29/4/2014
Ex.P.3 to 7 Photographs
List of witnesses examined on behalf of Defendant's side:
DW.1 : Vishwanatha Udupa 25 O.S.No.4068/2016 List of exhibits marked on behalf of the Defendant's side:
Ex.D.1 to 10 Tax paid receipts
Ex.D.11 Endorsement
Ex.D.12 Tax paid receipt
Ex.D.13 Invoice dated 23.9.2010
Ex.D.14 Sketch
Ex.D.15 to 18 Quotations
Ex.D.19 & 20 BESCOM orders
Ex.D.21 Tax invoice
Ex.D.22 & 23 BESCOM Receipts
Ex.D.24 Tax invoice dated 12.12.2016
Ex.D.25 Back Billing charges by BESCOM
Ex.D.26 Inspection report
Ex.D.27 BESCOM sanction order
Ex.D.28 & 29 Demand notice by BESCOM
Ex.D.30 & 31 Demand notice in respect of water
charges
Ex.D.32 Application report
Ex.D.33 Water charges receipt
Ex.D.34 Estimate
Ex.D.35 to 37 Showcause notice
Ex.D.38 Occupier notice
26 O.S.No.4068/2016
Ex.D.39 to 46 Tax paid receipts
Ex.D.47 Demand notice
Ex.D.48 Certified copy of order sheet in O.S.No.
27062/2010
Ex.D.49 Plaint, Written Statement in O.S.No.
8003/2013
Ex.D.50 Appeal memo in 166/2014 with order
sheet
Ex.D.51 Temporary order by BBMP
(A.M. NALINI KUMARI)
XIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.