Bangalore District Court
Not Furnished The Documents Regarding ... vs Stated That She Has Paid Sum Of Rupees 4 on 23 September, 2017
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL.
MACT., BANGALORE, (SCCH-7)
Dated this the 23rd Day of September 2017
PRESENT: SMT. SUJATHA, S. B. COM., LL.B.,
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
S.C.No.1699/2016
S.Vishweshwara Aiyar, ..... PLAINTIFF
@ S.Vishweshwara Sharma Iyer,
S/o Late Santhanam.A.S.,
Residing at No.989,
3rd Floor, 4th Main,
'D' Block, Gayathrinagar,
Rajajinagar II Stage,
Bangalore - 560 010.
(By Sri. Ramesha, Adv.,)
V/s
Smt. P. Manjula, ..... DEFENDANT
W/o Late Chandrashekar,
Shop No.3, No.989,
4th Main, 'D' Block,
Gayathrinagar,
Rajajinagar II Stage,
Bengaluru - 560 010.
(By Sri. H.M. Somashekaraiah,
Adv.,)
SCCH-7 2 S.C.No.1699/2016
1. Date of Institution : 21.09.2016
2. Nature of Suit : Ejectment
3. Date of Evidence : 12.01.2017
4. Date of Judgment : 23.09.2017
5. Total duration : YEAR/S MONTH/S DAYS
01 00 02
(SUJATHA. S)
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM,
Court of Small causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant to quit and deliver back vacant possession of the schedule property to the Plaintiffs by way of eviction.
2. The suit schedule property is, A shop premises bearing No.3, situated at building No.989, IV Main Road, 'D' Block, Gayathrinagar, Rajajinagar II nd Stage, Bangalore - 560 010, measuring 10 X 9 ft., 90 ft in total and bounded on:
East by : Shop of the same premises building, West by : Private Property North by : House of building owner and South by : Road SCCH-7 3 S.C.No.1699/2016
3. The brief facts of the case is that, the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property bearing No.989, 4th Main 'D' Block, Gayathrinagar, Rajajinagar, IInd Stage, Bangalore - 560 010 consisting of ground, first, second and third floor, herein after referred as suit schedule property. The Defendant is a tenant under the Plaintiff by paying rent of Rupees 4,400/- per month excluding electricity charges. The tenancy commenced from 10.06.2009 and the period of tenancy is eleven month. At the time of inception Defendant has paid security deposit of Rupees 40,000/- which will not carry any interest and no rental agreement has been executed. Plaintiff stated that the tenancy of the Defendant is a single composite tenancy, the rental agreement was not prepared and no rental agreement is produced before the court. The Defendant had taken shop on 10.06.2009 the tenancy commencing from 10.06.2009 and the period of tenancy is eleven months. The Defendant has been occupying the suit schedule property for the purpose of vegetable selling business. Plaintiff stated that he require suit schedule property for his own use. In this connection, the Plaintiff has personally approached the Defendant on a number of occasions with a request to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property, however the Defendant has failed to comply his request. Being let with no other alternative, he has got issued Legal Notice dated 02.06.2016 terminating the tenancy of the Defendant. Plaintiff stated that the said notice sent by R.P.A.D., has been served on SCCH-7 4 S.C.No.1699/2016 the Defendant. Plaintiff stated that instead of vacating the suit schedule property the Defendant had sent untenable reply. Under the circumstances the Plaintiff filed the suit and prayed to decree the suit.
4. After service of summons, Defendant appeared through Counsel and filed Written Statement contending that, the suit of the Plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts. She is the tenant in respect of the shop No.3 in premises No.989 main 'D' block, Gayathrinagar, 2nd Stage, Rajajinagar, Bangalore - 560 010 initially on a monthly rent of Rupees 1,300/- and the same has been enhanced from time to time and at present she is paying monthly rent of Rupees 4,400/- apart from the monthly rent payable she is paying electricity bills regularly. She further contended that the Plaintiff wantonly and purposely not inclined to receive the rents as and when falls due stating that he has changed his name without furnishing the proof for having changed his name. She sent the monthly rents through money order as the Plaintiff not furnished the documents regarding change of his name. She further contended that the monthly rent is Rupees 4,400/- and she is paying rent regularly to the Plaintiff. The Defendant stated that she has paid sum of Rupees 40,000/- as advance amount at the time of inception of the tenancy. She further contended that the requirement of the suit schedule property for own use of Plaintiff is absolutely false. The requirement of the suit schedule property by the Plaintiff is not SCCH-7 5 S.C.No.1699/2016 bonafide and reasonable. She further contended that the Plaintiff in this case by somehow on one other pretext trying to evict her from the suit schedule property and went on giving all types of pinpricks and harassment for the last 3 years, to evict and get it leased for higher rent and advance. She further contended that the Plaintiff disconnected the electricity supply to the suit schedule property illegally. She forced to give complaint to the Inspector of Police, Subramanyapura Police station in the month of August 2016. Thereafter she got electricity connection by spending her own amount. She further contended that she is a widow admittedly she is doing vegetable vending business. She and her children are trying to lead their life out of meager income derived from vegetable vending. Plaintiff got issued false and untenable notice and it has been properly replied by her. The Defendant stated that there is no valid termination of tenancy. There is no cause of action to file this suit. Under the circumstances, Defendant prayed to dismiss the suit.
5. In order to prove the case of Plaintiff, the Plaintiff himself got examined as P.W.1 and got marked 4 documents as per Exs.P1 to P4. During the course of cross-examination of D.W.1 one documents got marked at Ex.P.5 through confrontation. On behalf of the Defendant, the Defendant herself got examined as D.W.1 and got marked 3 documents as per Exs.D5 to D7. During the course of cross-examination of Plaintiff 4 documents got marked SCCH-7 6 S.C.No.1699/2016 on behalf of Defendant through confrontation of P.W.1 as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4.
6. Heard the argument.
7. The points that would arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought in the plaint?
2. What Order?
8. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative Point No.2 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1 : It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendant is tenant in respect of the suit schedule property. The tenancy commenced from 10.06.2009 for a period of 11 months. At the time of entering into rent agreement the Defendant has paid security deposit of Rupees 40,000/-, which will not carry any interest. The rate of rent is fixed at Rupees 4,400/- p.m. The tenancy of the Defendant is single composite tenancy and the rental agreement was not prepared. The Defendant has occupied the suit schedule property for the purpose of vegetable selling business. Now the Plaintiff require the suit schedule property for SCCH-7 7 S.C.No.1699/2016 his own use. Plaintiff personally approached the Defendant on a number of occasions with a request to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property. However she has not complied request of Plaintiff. Hence Plaintiff got issued Legal Notice dated 02.06.2016 terminating the tenancy of the Defendant. The said notice duly served to the Defendant. However she has issued untenable reply and not vacated the suit schedule property.
10. In this case the Defendant admitted that she is the tenant in respect of the suit schedule property. She stated that initially the rent was fixed at Rupees 1,300/- and rate of rent has been enhanced from time to time and at present she is paying monthly rent of Rupees 4,400/-. The Defendant stated that the Defendant apart from the rent, she is also paying electricity charges regularly. The Defendant stated that the requirement of the suit schedule property by he Plaintiff is not bonafide and reasonable. The Defendant stated that the Plaintiff in this case trying to evict her form the suit schedule property by giving all types of pinpricks and giving harassment to her since 3 years. Defendant contended that she lodged complaint before the jurisdictional Police. She stated that the Plaintiff got false notice, which is properly replied by her. Defendant stated that there is no valid termination of tenancy.
SCCH-7 8 S.C.No.1699/201611. In order to prove the case of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff himself got examined as P.W.1 and in his evidence affidavit he has reiterated the facts stated in the plaint. Plaintiff has produced Ex.P.1 Copy of Reply issued by BBMP stating that the Katha in respect of the suit schedule property is entered in the name of Plaintiff as per the application dated 08.07.2002, Ex.P.2 Certificate issued by the BBMP stating that katha in respect of suit schedule property is entered in the name of Plaintiff, Ex.P.3 Tax paid receipt and Ex.P.4 Copy of Legal Notice dated 02.06.2016. In the cross-examination by the counsel for Defendant P.W.1 admitted 4 photographs which are shown to him and they were marked at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4. In the cross- examination by the counsel for Defendant, P.W.1 admitted that prior to 1999 his name was Vinod.S.B and now he has changed his name as Vishweshwara Sharma Iyer. P.W.1 stated that building which consist suit schedule property is consisting of 4 floors including ground floor. P.W.1 stated that ground floor consists 5 shop premises and he has let-out only one shop premises and remaining shops are in his possession. P.W.1 denied the suggestion that since 7 years he is running paying guest in his building. In the cross-examination P.W.1 admitted that the Defendant is doing vegetable business in the suit schedule property. P.W.1 also admitted that during the year 1999 the rate of rent was fixed at Rupees 1,300/- and the Defendant used to pay electricity bill. P.W.1 also admitted that from time to time the rate of rent was enhanced and now the rate of rent is SCCH-7 9 S.C.No.1699/2016 Rupees 4,400/- p.m. P.W.1 admitted about receipt of advance amount of Rupees 40,000/- from the Defendant at the time of her inception in suit schedule property. However P.W.1 denied the suggestion that in order to give harassment he has filed false suit against the Defendant.
12. In this case Defendant herself got examined as D.W.1. In her evidence affidavit she has stated details of her case as stated in written statement. D.W.1 has produced Ex.D.5 Complaint copy dated 15.02.2014 along with endorsement, Ex.D.6 Complaint copy dated 19.08.2016 and Ex.D.7 Endorsement issued by the Police dated 13.10.2016. In the cross-examination by the counsel for Plaintiff, D.W.1 admitted that she obtained suit schedule property on rent basis from the Plaintiff in year 1999. D.W.1 also admitted that recently Plaintiff has changed his name and she is paying rent to the Plaintiff. D.W.1 stated that now her sister is running vegetable shop in the suit schedule property. D.W.1 denied the suggestion of counsel for Plaintiff that in order to give harassment to the Plaintiff she used to lodge false complaint against him. D.W.1 admitted that as per the terms of rent agreement she agreed to pay rent before 15th of every month. D.W.1 also admitted that she has issued reply to the notice issued by the Plaintiff on 18.06.2016 and the copy of said reply Notice got marked at Ex.P.5. D.W.1 admitted that the tenancy period is for 11 months. D.W.1 also admitted that the rent agreement is not renewed.
SCCH-7 10 S.C.No.1699/201613. In this case there is no dispute that Plaintiff is owner of the suit schedule property and the Defendant is tenant under the Plaintiff. It is also not in dispute that tenancy of Defendant commenced from 10.06.2009 and the period of tenancy is for 11 months. Further Plaintiff and Defendant also admitted that no rental agreement was prepared and tenancy is not renewed. It is to be noted that as per Ex.P.4 Notice dated 02.06.2016 the Plaintiff has terminated the tenancy of the Defendant. In the said notice the Plaintiff called upon the Defendant to vacate and hand over the suit schedule property to him on or before 25.06.2016. Thereafter the Plaintiff filed this suit on 21.09.2016. By issuing reply notice as per Ex.P.5 the Defendant admitted receipt of notice dated 02.06.2016 issued by the Plaintiff to her. Admittedly, the Defendant has not vacated the suit schedule property inspite of receipt of termination notice. In the cross-examination Defendant specifically admitted that now she is not running vegetable business in the suit schedule property and her sister is running said business. Under the circumstances the Defendant being the tenant is liable to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the Plaintiff. For the aforesaid reasons, I have answered Point No.1 in the Negative and Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
14. POINT NO.2 :- For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following;
SCCH-7 11 S.C.No.1699/2016ORDER The suit filed by the Plaintiff is hereby decreed with costs.
The Defendant is hereby directed to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the Plaintiff within two months from the date of this Order.
If the Defendant fails to handover vacant possession of suit schedule property within two months from the date of this order, Plaintiff is at liberty to recover the same, in accordance with law.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her corrected and then, pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 23rd day of September 2017.) (Sujatha .S.) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PLAINTIFF :-
P.W.1 : S. Vishweshwara Aiyar @ S.Vishweshwara Sharma Iyer SCCH-7 12 S.C.No.1699/2016
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE PLAINTIFF :-
Ex.P.1 : Uttara Pathra dated 12.07.2002
Ex.P.2 : Certificate dated 22.07.2002
Ex.P.3 : Property Tax Receipt dated 03.03.2013
Ex.P.4 : Office copy of Legal Notice dated 02.06.2016
Ex.P.5 : Reply notice dated 08.06.2016
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE DEFENDANTS:-
D.W.1 : P. Manjula
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE DEFENDANTS :-
Ex.D.1 to 4 Photographs
Ex.D.4
Ex.D.5 : Copy of Complaint dated 15.02.2014
Ex.D.6 : Copy of Complaint dated 19.08.2016
Ex.D.7 : Endorsement dated 13.10.2016
(Sujatha .S.)
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.