Bangalore District Court
The Karnataka Veterinary vs The Alumni Association on 6 August, 2021
BEFORE THE COURT OF XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL & A.C.M.M. (SCCH-26) AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF AUGUST 2021
PRESENT: SRI.R.MAHESHA. B.A.L, LLB.,
XXIV ADDL. SCJ &
ACMM & MEMBER - MACT
BENGALURU.
S.C No.1946/2017
Plaintiff : The Karnataka Veterinary
Animal & Fisheries and
Sciences University, Bangalore
Rep by its Dean Dr.R.V.Prasad
(Sri.B.H.-Advocate)
Vs
Defendant : The Alumni Association,
University of Agricultural
Sciences, Hebbal Campus,
Bangalore,
Rep by its President/Secretary.
(Sri.N.T.-Advocate)
Date of Institution : 16.12.2017
of the suit
Nature of the suit : Ejectment
Date of : 19.06.2018
commencement
recording of the
evidence
2 SC.No.1946/2017
SCCH-26
Date on which the :
Judgment was 06.08.2021
pronounced
Total Duration : Year Month/s Days
03 07 20
(R.Mahesha)
XXIV Addl. Small Causes Judge,
& A.C.M.M. Bangalore.
::JUDGMENT::
This suit is filed by the plaintiff for a judgment and decree against the defendant directing the defendant to hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule property along with the building to the plaintiff and such other orders deemed fit and proper.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint are as follows:-
That originally suit schedule properties owned by then Karnataka University of Agricultural Sciences, 3 SC.No.1946/2017 SCCH-26 Bangalore and has leased 1 acre 87 cents of land to the defendant in the year 1993 for Rs.100/- per annum and 1 acre 44 cents of land in the year 2003 for Rs.1,000/-
per acre per annum consisting of 3 storied building. In view of the Karnataka Veterinary Animal and Fisheries and Sciences University Act 2004, the suit schedule property has been transferred to the plaintiff university. That the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the said suit schedule property. That the period of lease under lease agreement for 99 years and 49 years. Further it is averred in the plaint that defendant has violated terms of lease deeds dt.10-07-1993 & 21-10-2003. Therefore plaintiff has issued quit notice for delivery of vacant possession of suit schedule along with building and also terminated tenancy on 01-06-2017. After receipt of statutory notice, defendant replied on 15-06-2017, but plaintiff did not comply with the demand of the plaintiff to vacate schedule premises and hand over possession. 4 SC.No.1946/2017
SCCH-26 Therefore the plaintiff left with no other alternative was constrained to institute the present suit seeking for delivery of vacant possession of suit schedule along with building.
3. After service of summons, the defendant appeared through counsel and filed their written statement. They admitted ownership of plaintiff over suit schedule properties and defendant was tenant under plaintiff. Further defendant admitted that rent amount averred in the plaint is also correct. They contended that, in view of the lease deed fixing the term of lease for a period of 99 years and 49 years from the date of execution, defendant was inducted as tenant and suit was filed on 16-12-2017 before the expiry of lease period. So present suit is premature and the suit filed by Dean is also not maintainable. Further they specifically contended that, this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction 5 SC.No.1946/2017 SCCH-26 to try this suit and the plaintiff mentioned wrong boundaries while filing the suit on this score also this suit is also not maintainable. The defendant further specifically contended that defendant association is registered one. The defendant association constructed building in the vacant land with the prior permission from Karnataka University of Agricultural Sciences. There is no cause of action arose to file this suit. Before expiry of lease period without any bonafide and sufficient cause, the present suit filed. Therefore the present suit is premature and same is not maintainable against this defendant. Hence sought for dismissal of suit with exemplary cost.
4. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, at the first instance Placcide E D'souza then dean of Karnataka Veterinary Animal & Fisheries University Bangalore has examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex-P1 to 7. Later vide IA 10 and 11 order dt.22-11-2018, the evidence lead 6 SC.No.1946/2017 SCCH-26 by Placcide E D'souza was ordered as discarded and one Dr.R.V.Prasad Dean of Karnataka Veterinary Animal & Fisheries University Bangalore permitted to lead evidence on behalf of plaintiff university, then Dr.R.V.Prasad-Dean Karnataka Veterinary Animal & Fisheries University Bangalore has examined as PW-1 and in his chief examination affidavit, he reiterated the entire plaint averments and documents got marked as Ex-P1 to 11. On the other hand, one Dr.K.Narayana Gowda President of Alumini Association of University of Agricultural sciences has examined as DW-1 in his chief examination reiterated the written statement contentions and got documents marked as Ex-D1 to D38.
5. I have heard oral argument from advocate for plaintiffs and defendants.
6. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the points that arise for my consideration are: 7 SC.No.1946/2017
SCCH-26
1. Whether the plaintiff has proved the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff university and the defendant association?
2. Whether plaintiff proved that the termination of tenancy in respect of suit schedule property?
3. Whether plaintiff is entitle for the delivery of vacant possession of suit schedule property along with building?
4. What order or decree?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 to 3 : In the Affirmative
Point No.4 : As per final order for the
following:
REASONS
8. Before going to actual disputed facts, it is worthful to mention undisputed facts of the case first. The undisputed facts are plaintiff university established 8 SC.No.1946/2017 SCCH-26 in the year 2004 with its headquarters at Bidar for the purpose of development advancement of learning, research in the field of veterinaries, fisheries, poultries etc., and separate Act was passed in the state legislature, the defendant is an institution by virtue of Karnataka Veterinary Animal and Fisheries, Sciences University Act 2004. As per Section 8(1) of Karnataka Veterinary Animal and Fisheries, Sciences University Act movable and immovable properties as stated in para 4 of plaint owned and managed by erstwhile university of agricultural sciences, stands transferred and vest with the Karnataka Veterinary Animal and Fisheries, Sciences University Bidar. The plaintiff is the owner of Hebbal Campus with around 300 acres land along with all buildings stated in Schedule I of the Act. The plaintiff has executed two lease deed of the suit schedule property in two different portions for a period of 99 years and 49 years for the rent yearly Rs.100/- and Rs.1000/- 9 SC.No.1946/2017
SCCH-26 respectively. The lease period is still existing. At the time of inception of defendant they entered two lease deeds in the year 1993 and in the year 2003. the plaintiff is owner of suit schedule properties and defendant is tenant under plaintiff. As per lease deeds vacant land leasedout defendant. The defendant association enumerated in the memorandum of association published in 1989 as per the general body meeting held on 27-3-1989, the defendant association constructed a building in the suit properties. The defendant had paid rent regularly as per agreed lease deed. The above suit filed within the expiry of lease period. The suit filed on the ground the defendant violated the terms of lease agreement. The plaintiff issued cause notice U/s 106(1) of TP Act, in turn defendant replied..
10 SC.No.1946/2017
SCCH-26
9. Point No.1 to 3: As these points are taken together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts and circumstance of the case.
10. To prove the averments of plaint, Dr.R.V.Prasad- Dean Karnataka Veterinary Animal & Fisheries University Bangalore has examined as PW-1 and documents got marked as Ex-P1 to 11 and he was subjected cross examination by defendant. During cross examination, the defendant suggested about his specific contention took in his written statement. During cross examination PW-1 admitted that there is no resolution passed in University Board of Directors committee to file this suit against defendant. The Dean of the university gave instructions to prepare this case. While filing this suit against defendant, there is no appointment of University Vice Chancellor. The dean was temporary Vice Chancellor at the time of filing the suit. In the year 2018 11 SC.No.1946/2017 SCCH-26 February month regular Vice Chancellor was appointed. The dean mean is head of academics and head of campus. He looking the plaintiff properties in the capacity of head of the campus. The plaintiff university main branch situated in Bidar. He aware about lease deed entered between plaintiff and defendant, he knew the things by seeing documents. Old students of plaintiff institutions are defendants institutions members. The defendant institutions having 10000 members. The plaintiff institution earlier comes under agriculture university, it was bifurcated in the year 2004. The lease deeds are executed by agriculture university. The plaintiff university did not having original lease deeds. The said lease deeds may be in the possession of defendant's institutions. The plaintiff university having possession of schedule property the defendant agreed plaintiff ownership were suit schedule property and they paid rent to plaintiff. He clearly admitted two lease deed 12 SC.No.1946/2017 SCCH-26 dt.10-07-1993 and 21-10-2003 and further he admitted that plaintiff leasedout property to defendant institution 1 acre 87 cents for the period of 99 years and 1 acre 44 cents leasedout to defendant for a period of 49 years. Further he admitted that still that lease deeds period has been not expired. The boundaries mentioned in Ex-D1 and 2 admitted as different, but he stated both schedule overlapped with the same schedule. Further he admitted the building shown in Ex-D3 and 4 its defendant's institution building. The vacant park as per Ex-D5 and 6 it belongs to plaintiff it is utilized for the purpose of park. It is also leasedout property to defendant's institution. Further he admitted that the building in Ex-D1 property was constructed by defendant institution in the supervision of agricultural university in the year 1996 and 1997. Further he admitted that in Ex-D1 and 2 there is a clear clause land shall not sublease to others. Further he contending during cross examination that the 13 SC.No.1946/2017 SCCH-26 defendant institution subleased to private software company and ground floor sub leased for organizing functions. Further he admitted that defendant institution constructed Ex-D3 and 4 building and one shed. Further he denied the suggestion of defendant. The defendant constructed building as per Ex-D3 and 4 with the permission of plaintiff. Further he clearly admitted that as per Ex-D3 and 4 building constructed with the permission took from agricultural university and he clearly denied other suggestions put forth by defendant.
11. To prove defendant institution specific contention of written statement averments, one Dr.K.Narayana Gowda President of Alumini Association of University of Agricultural sciences has examined as DW-1 and got documents marked as Ex-D1 to D38. He was also subjected cross examination by plaintiff. He 14 SC.No.1946/2017 SCCH-26 stated during cross examination that he clearly knew about suit schedule properties and boundaries, both suit schedule property are overlapped each other. The plaintiff university established by the legislature, Karnataka Animal and Fisheries University Act 2004. further he denied the suggestion of plaintiff, government granted 300 acres of land to plaintiff university, it consists vacant land, buildings, hostels, staff quarters etc., Further he admitted that after land granted by government, the plaintiff university become owner of 300 acres of land. Further he admitted Ex-P1, as per Ex-P1 suit schedule properties is also included in Ex-P1. further he clearly admitted that both suit schedule extent were leasedout to defendant institution in the year 2003 and 1993. He himself denied his document i.e., Ex-D1 and 2. Further he clearly admitted that Ex-D1 property while leased out to defendant, it is a vacant land. Further he contending that in Ex-D1 property they got 15 SC.No.1946/2017 SCCH-26 proper permission and approval of plan from University of agricultural science. Further he contended that Ex- D15 is permission and plan approval document from university of agricultural science. Further he stated during cross examination that they constructed building ground floor and first floor as per Ex-D16. Further he denied Ex-D16 properties are subleased to others. Further he stated that they letting-out the first floor and ground floor buildings for the purpose of agriculture related functions. In turn they received money from program organizers. Further he stated during cross examination that they received rents as per their bylaw rules of defendant institutions. Further he stated that they did not construct any building in Ex-D2 property, it has been used for park purpose. He clearly admitted that plaintiff caused notice as per Ex-P3 and Ex-P2. Further he admitted that after receiving of Ex-P2 they paid balance rent of Rs.15,400/- through cheque. 16 SC.No.1946/2017
SCCH-26 Further he denied suggestion of plaintiff, they started construction of building in Ex-D2 property for the purpose of lodging. Further he denied at the time of attempting in constructing of building in Ex-D2 property Karnataka Veterinary Allumini Association has filed PIL before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Further he denied in said PIL statusquo order had granted in favour of petitioners. Further he clearly admitted that properties letout for sublease as per byelaw adopted by defendant institution. Further he admitted that defendant institution bylaws are not applicable to plaintiff university. Further he clearly admitted that by letting out sub rent defendant institution getting Rs.24,00,000/- income per year Rs.32,78,790/-, Rs.29,69,363/- (as per Ex-D19 and 20). Further he contended during cross examination that they did not sublease vacant land. Further he denied other suggestions putforth by plaintiff. 17 SC.No.1946/2017
SCCH-26
12. On careful perusal of entire oral and documentary evidence placed by both parties, it depicts that Ex-D1 and 2 are unregistered lease agreement entered between then university of agricultural sciences, Bangalore and defendant association president. In Ex-D1 entered the property measuring 1 acre 87 cents on 10- 07-1993 for a period of 99 years lease. In Ex-D2 lease entered measuring 1 acre 44 cents on 21-10-2003 for a period of 49 years. It is worthful to appreciate Ex-D1 and 2 validity with suitable provision of law.
13. Section 17(1)(d)(2) of the registration Act and Section 107 (3) of T.P.Act mandate registration of lease deeds in case on immovable property is leased.
1. From year to year, or
2. For any term exceeding one year, or
3. Reserving a yearly rent So above circumstances lease deed compulsory registered instrument.
18 SC.No.1946/2017
SCCH-26 Similarly Section 18© of the registration Act exempts a lease deed granting lease of an immovable property for any term less than one year from compulsory registration.
14. Section 105 of T.P.Act defined lease " a lease of an immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made for a certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or promised or of money, a share of crops service or any other thing of value to be rendered periodically or on specified occasions to the transfer or by the transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms ". According to the registration Act "
lease includes a counter part, kabuliyat, an undertaking to cultivate or occupy, and an agreement to lease ".19 SC.No.1946/2017
SCCH-26 EFFECT OF NON REGISTRATION :-
Section 49 of the registration Act setsout the consequences of non registration of documents, which are required to be compulsorily registered. Section 49 makes it clear that lease deed which is compulsorily registrable document. If not registered will not affect the immovable property comprised therein in any manner. Such lease deed will also not be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property except for two limited purpose.
1. As a evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance
2. As an evidence of any collateral transaction which by itself is not required to be effected by registered instrument.
15. So as per above provisions all leases for immovable property with a term exceeding one year or required to mandatorily registered at the earliest. Such a 20 SC.No.1946/2017 SCCH-26 lease shall only be enforceable once registered. If not registered such document cannot be received in evidence. However in case between Anthony Vs K.C.Ittoop and sons and others the Supreme Court held that an unregistered instrument cannot create a contractual lease exceeding one year due to the three pronged statuary restrictions under law. (U/s 17 and 49 of Registration act and Section 107 of TP Act). However it also held that " the presumption that a lease not exceeding one year stood created by conduct of parties, was unrebutted". This principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Park Street properties Pvt., Ltd., Vs Deepak Kumar Singh and others wherein it was interalia held that " in absence of a registered instrument, the courts are not precluded from determining the factum of tenancy from the other evidence on record as well as conduct of the parties ". The duration of such a lease shall be 21 SC.No.1946/2017 SCCH-26 on month-to- month basis as provided U/S 106 of T.P.Act. So in the instant case, Ex-D1 and 2 unregistered document schedule property leased-out to defendants for a period of 99 years and 49 years. So as per Section 17(1)(d)(2) lease agreement shall compulsorily registrable. Unregistered lease agreement can be looked for collateral purpose and it can be considered as month to month lease. The learned counsel for plaintiff place reliance on decision of our Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka RFA 82/7 A/W Mis Civil.9123/2010 between Kempa Hanumaiah Vs M/s Allied motors Service station a partnership firm represented by and others (Single Bench) DD- on 27-2-2012. In this case referred decision in case of Smt.Kusumadevi Vs Smt.Gowramma and others reported in 2006(5)AIR KAR-R478 as held as follows:-
Transfer of property Act Ss.53A, 107-Registration Act (16 of 1908), S.49-Unregd, lease deed-Admissible for 22 SC.No.1946/2017 SCCH-26 defending possession obtained in part performance of agreement of lease-However, since lease is for period beyond one year and same is created by unregd. Instrument-it is a 'monthly" and not " yearly" lease- Lessee cannot rely upon terms of lease relating to thirty years lease period and claim protection from eviction qua S.53 A T.P.Act-Term relating to period of lease is not "collateral purpose" within meaning of S.49 of Registration Act.
By applying above principle of law Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Kempa Hanumaiah case held that- " in case of unregistered lease deed as the lease is for a period of more than one year, the lease will have to be construed as monthly not yearly "
16. From the oral evidence which are placed before the court it is very much made out that the plaintiff is the landlord and defendant is a tenant in respect of the 23 SC.No.1946/2017 SCCH-26 suit schedule properties. So there is no need for much discussion on this aspect. Now the question letout is whether there is a termination of tenancy is validly terminated.
17. The plaintiff had issued a legal notice which is marked as Ex-P3 dated 01-06-2017 which was served on the defendant and reply is sent on 15-06-2017. After giving a period of nearly 180 days, the suit came to be filed. The reply notice issued on 15-06-2017 after giving a period of nearly six months the plaintiff had comeup with this suit.
18. The suit of the plaintiff being one for ejectment. The only fact that has to be considered before this court is whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff and defendant and that the tenancy is validly terminated. As per the office copy of legal notice, it is very much madeout that the defendant had been served with the legal notice with an intimation 24 SC.No.1946/2017 SCCH-26 of the plaintiff to quit and deliver vacant possession along with building of the schedule properties. The defendant having served with the notice had issued reply notice which makesout that it had given notice to the defendant with regard to the intimation of the plaintiff to vacate the schedule property. Inspite of service of legal notice, the defendant had failed to deliver and handover vacant possession of suit schedule property along with building to plaintiff. The learned senior advocate for defendant mainly argued before this court that Dean is not a competent person to file this suit. Hence on this ground, this suit is not maintainable. Further defendant took specific contention in the suit that provisions of clause of schedule Section 8(4) of TP Act a suit exempted from the cognizance of Small Cause Court the remedy of a lessor against lessee on the lease is to file suit for possession before an ordinary civil court not before the Small Cause court. Further defendant took another 25 SC.No.1946/2017 SCCH-26 contention that due to giving wrong description of schedule properties the above suit is not maintainable. On the above scores, the defendant sought for dismissal of above suit during his argument.
19. Further learned counsel for defendant stressed his argument about that this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try this suit, because, defendant association is registered association after receiving vacant land from plaintiff university, defendant association have putup the building/convention center and utilized for the purpose and object stated rules adopted by the General Body meeting of the defendant association held on 27-03-1989. The buildings utilized to meet the object of association cause the plaintiff himself filed further chief examination without getting prior permission of this court on 04-07-2019 and he produced Ex-P11. As per Ex-P11 the defendant association receiving monthly rent of more than 26 SC.No.1946/2017 SCCH-26 Rs.5,00,000/- from the building. This court having jurisdiction to try pecuniary jurisdiction in metropolitan area upto Rs.2,00,000/-only. The above rent is more than Rs.2,00,000/-. Hence this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case. Hence on this score also this suit is not maintainable.
20. The learned senior counsel for plaintiff replied during arguments that the grounds contended by defendant are not tenable under law, he took court attention and relied decision of our Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka 3 judges bench parties between Abdul Wajid Vs A.S.Onkarappa ILR 2011 KAR 229. In this case, Apex court held that " court of Small Causes have jurisdiction to take cognizance of not only a bare suit for ejectment but also a suit for ejectment with a prayer for recovery of mesne profits or damages, subject to its pecuniary limits in respect of the premises to which 27 SC.No.1946/2017 SCCH-26 K.R.Act is not applicable. The interpretation placed by the division bench in Sarojamma's case, on clause B of Article 4 of schedule to KSCC Act does not laid down the correct law". So in view of the law laid down in the above case, the objection raised by defendant is not sustainable.
21. Further learned counsel for plaintiff replied and took court attention about that DW-1 himself admitted during cross examination in page 9 from 1 to 5th line deposed as follows:-
"zÁªÁ C£ÀĸÀÆa ¸Àéw£ Û À ¸ÀA¥ÀÇtð ªÀiÁ»w £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛzÉ. zÁªÁ C£ÀĸÀÆa ¸ÀéwÛ£À ZÉPï§A¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉüÀÄvÉÃÛ £É. ¸ÁQë ¸ÀévÀB JgÀqÀÄ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ EªÉ ªÉÆzÀ®£É ¸ÀéwÛUÉ ¥ÀǪÀðPÉÌ AiÀÄÄ J¸ï gÀ¸ÉÛ ¥À²ª Ñ ÀÄPÉÌ AiÀÄÄ J¸ï gÀ¸ÉÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉl£Àðj PÁ¯ÉÃeï gÀ¸ÉÛ, GvÀÛgP À ÉÌ r¸É£ à Àìj ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÀ¸ÉÛ, zÀQëtPÉÌ ªÉlgï£Àj PÁ¯ÉÃeï gÀ¸ÉÛ JgÀq£ À ÃÉ ¸ÀéwU Û É ¥ÀǪÀðPÉÌ §¼Áîj gÀ¸ÉÛ ¥ÀǪÀðPÉÌ C®Äå«Ä¤ C¸ÉÆøAiÉÄñÀ£ï ©°ØAUï GvÀÛgP À ÉÌ r¸É£ à Àìj ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÀ¸ÉÛ zÀQëtPÉÌ ªÉlgï£Àj PÁ¯ÉÃeï gÀ¸ÉÛ. F JgÀqÀÆ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ MAzÀPÉÆÌAzÀÄ ®UÀvÁÛVªÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj". 28 SC.No.1946/2017
SCCH-26 In view of the clear admission by DW-1 the suit schedule priorities boundaries are one and the same and overlapped each other. Therefore the objection raised by the defendant due to wrong description of boundaries the present suit not maintainable is not sustainable. The argument of learned defendant counsel holds no water.
22. The learned plaintiff counsel replied during his arguments that originally the suit schedule properties and other properties owner was Karnataka Agricultural University. In the year 2004 a separate university was established for veterinary sciences which is known as Karnataka Veterinary Animal Fisheries Sciences University, its head office located at Bidar. As per Section 8(1) of Karnataka Veterinary Animal Fisheries Sciences University, the properties stated in para 4 of plaint stands transferred from university of Agricultural sciences and vest with Karnataka Veterinary Animal 29 SC.No.1946/2017 SCCH-26 Fisheries Sciences University, Bidar. As per Ex-P1, all the movable and immovable properties with all fittings and fixtures instrument, furniture's, equipments owned and managed by agricultural science university, Bangalore transferred to Karnataka Veterinary Animal Fisheries Sciences University, Hebbal, Bangalore. The Governor is Chancellor of above university, plaintiff did not sue in the name of Governor. The Dean is head of academic and head of the campus, he has been competent person to look after properties of Karnataka Veterinary Animal Fisheries Sciences University. The Vice Chancellor had authorized to Dean to sign all the legal papers pertaining to Hebbal campus properties as per Ex-P6 and 8. At the first instance one Dr.R.V.Prasad was Vice-Chancellor-KVAFSU-Bidar, he authorized Dr.Placid Eugene D'souza Dean-Veterinary College and campus head, Regional Campus KVAFSU, Hebbal, Bangalore (as per Ex-P6). Later one H.D.Narayanaswamy 30 SC.No.1946/2017 SCCH-26 was Vice-Chancellor-KVAFSU-Bidar, he authorized Dr.R.V.Prasad Dean-Veterinary college and campus head, Regional Campus KVAFSU, Hebbal, Bangalore (as per Ex-P8). PW-1 clearly stated during cross examination that while filing the suit there is no appointment of Vice Chancellor during vacant period PW-1 was incharge of Vice Chancellor post in the year February 2018 regular vice chancellor was appointed. Thereafter PW-1 was worked as Dean of Veterinary college, he is head of academics and campus. So dean is being head of academics and campus he filed above suit against defendant. The defendant did not produced any contra document to show dean is not a competent person to prosecute the above case against defendant. It is pertinent to refer shara in Ex-P1 on 02-07-2016 one Dr.S.Yathiraj-Dean V.C.H. and campus head Bangalore, he received Ex-P1 from estate officer University of Agricultural Science, GKVK, Bangalore. So from looking 31 SC.No.1946/2017 SCCH-26 into the entire facts and circumstances and materials of plaintiff, it depicts that Dean is a competent person to look after properties of plaintiff university. Hence the argument addressed by defendant dean is not a competent person to file the suit is also not tenable.
23. The learned plaintiff counsel replied about pecuniary jurisdiction that this suit filed based on Ex- D1 and 2 on the relation of landlord and tenant. The suit schedule properties leased-out to defendant as per Ex-D1 and 2 for a period of 99 years and 49 years. The annual rent for the schedule properties lease dated 10-7-1993 is fixed at Rs.100/-, annual rent for lease dated 21-10-2003 is fixed for Rs.1,000/- per acre with an increase of 10% for every five years. After issuance of demand notice dt.7-5-2014, defendant paid arrears of rent Rs.15,400/- from 2005 to 2014-2015. So total annual rent of both suit schedule per year Rs.1,540/-. So this court having 32 SC.No.1946/2017 SCCH-26 pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this suit. There is no any legal hurdle to try this suit because the total rent value is within Rs.2,00,000/-. Therefore this court absolutely having power to try the case.
24. In the present case, defendant has relied unregistered lease deed and confronted by PW-1 and got marked as Ex-D1 and 2, both have Xerox copies. Lease deeds have made true copy by defendant advocate. An unregistered lease deed is inadmissible in evidence. But unregistered lease deed can be admitted in evidence for limited collateral purpose. The collateral purpose in this case is the relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant. Except for this collateral purpose, court would not consider the unregistered lease deed for any other purpose. For this reason, this court would not enforce terms and conditions of lease deed (Ex-D1 and 2). The defendant admitting ownership of plaintiff over suit 33 SC.No.1946/2017 SCCH-26 schedule and defendant admitted he was tenant under plaintiff. The plaintiff being owner of suit schedule definitely has right to quit month to month tenancy.
IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION RELEVANT PROVISION FOR TERMINATION OF TENANCY.
Section 106(1) in The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (1) In the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary, a lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by six months' notice; and a lease of immovable property for any other purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by fifteen days' notice.
25. In the instant case, admittedly defendant was the tenant under the plaintiff for a period of 99 years and 34 SC.No.1946/2017 SCCH-26 49 years. As already this court held that, defendant was monthly tenant. The plaintiff had issued a legal notice which is marked as Ex-P3 dated 01-06-2017 which was served on the defendant and reply is sent on 15-06-2017. After giving a period of nearly 180 days, the suit came to be filed. The reply notice issued on 15-06-2017 after giving a period of nearly six months the plaintiff had come-up with this suit. So as per Section 106 of T.P.Act, the above suit filed after lapse of six months from the date of notice. The lease deeds executed between parties being for more than one year were required to be compulsorily registered and has not been got registered, it does not confer any right on the lessee to continue to be a tenant for the term stipulated in these deeds. As a result the tenancy of the lessee in respect of suit properties became a month to month tenancy which could be terminated by giving notice to the defendant U/s 106 of T.P.Act. This provision provides that in the 35 SC.No.1946/2017 SCCH-26 absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary, a lease of immovable property, for any purpose other than agricultural or manufacturing purposes, shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month, terminable on the part of either lessor or lessee by 15 days notice. In this case, tenancy was from month to month and schedule properties are agricultural properties. But leased for other than agricultural purpose. Ex-P5 issued as contemplated U/s 106 of T.P. Act on 15-6-2017, the present suit filed on 16-12-2017. So in view of the above consideration of period, the plaintiff validly termination of tenancy of defendant.
26. Now this suit filed for possession of schedule properties along with buildings. Admittedly buildings were constructed with the implied consent of plaintiff. Even though plaintiff having knowledge about construction of buildings in vacant land, he impliedly permitted to 36 SC.No.1946/2017 SCCH-26 defendant for construction. The plaintiff issued quit notice on 1-6-2017 as per Ex-P3, the defendant replied on 15-6-2017 as per Ex-P5. So as per receipt of quit notice, the possession of suit schedule property is wrongful possession. The building constructed by defendant cannot be removed unless building is removed from the earth. The plaintiff being owner is entitle vacant possession of land along with building. Hence, as the plaintiff had proved that the plaintiff university is the owner of the suit schedule property and the defendant being the tenant of the schedule properties, it having intimated its intention to terminate the tenancy of the defendant and it having acknowledged by the defendant, it is the boundan duty of the defendant to vacate and handover vacant possession of the suit schedule properties to the plaintiff university, but in stead of it, the defendant had not deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule properties along with building in spite of giving sufficient 37 SC.No.1946/2017 SCCH-26 time. As such, the plaintiff university had sought for the relief with a direction to the defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property along with the building. When there is valid termination of tenancy by issuance of quit notice and the plaintiff had validly terminated the tenancy of the defendant as per Sec.106 (1) of Transfer of Property Act, the defendant is liable to quit the schedule properties and hand over vacant possession of suit schedule property along with the building to the plaintiff. Hence point No.1 to 3 answered in the Affirmative.
27. Point No.4: In view of my answer given to points No.1 to 3, plaintiff is entitled for the delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule properties along with building. In view of the discussions made supra, I proceed to pass the following:
38 SC.No.1946/2017
SCCH-26
-: ORDER :-
The suit of plaintiff is hereby decreed with cost.
The defendant is directed to quit, vacate and handover vacant possession of the suit schedule property along with building to the plaintiff within 60 days from the date of this order.
The plaintiff is at liberty to take legal action if defendant fail to comply court decree.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer through online computer, transcript thereof is corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 6th day of August 2021) (R.MAHESHA) XXIV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & A.C.M.M. BENGALURU.
SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of land of 1 acre 87 cents of land and 1acre 44 cents of land situated in KVAFSU, Hebbal Campus totally 3 acres 31 cents of Sy.No.1 of Butt Range, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore District with building and bounded on:
East by : KVAFSU Road:
39 SC.No.1946/2017
SCCH-26
West by : Veterinary College Road:
North by : KVAFSU Library:and
South by : KVAFSU Road/Veterinary
College.
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF PW-1: Placcid E D'Souza LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF Ex.P-1: List of buildings Ex.P-2: Notice Ex.P-3: Legal notice Ex.P-4: Postal acknowledgment Ex.P-5 : Reply notice Ex.P-6: Authrozation Ex.P-7: Notarized copy of ordersheet of Writ Petition No.14964/2015 Ex.P-8: Original Copy of the Authorization letter Ex.P-9: Receipt of Alumni Association Ex.P-10 Notarized copy of Order sheet of W.P no.14964/2015 Ex.P-11 Original copy of the income and expenditure accounts for the year 2014-15 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT DW-1 : K Narayanagowda 40 SC.No.1946/2017 SCCH-26 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT Ex.D1 & D2 : Lease deed Ex.D3 to D6 : Photos Ex.D7 : CD Ex.D8 : Original copy of the Authorization letter Ex.D9 : True copy of the constitution of rules pertaining of alumni Association Ex.D10 : True copy of the constitution of rules pertaining of alumni Association Ex.D11 : True copy of the memorandum rules and regulations and by laws Ex.D12 : True copy of the memorandum rules and regulations and by laws Ex.D13 : Certified copy of the work order dt11-12-1997 Ex.D14 : Certified copy of the Property card Ex.D15 : Certified copy of the Master plan of Allumini Association construction of convention centre Ex.D16 : Certified copy of the proposed front elevation of convention centre of Allumini Association Ex.D17 : Certified copy of the plan proposed modified Allumini association construction of the farmers hostel Ex.D18 : Certified copy of the letter dt-07-06-2005 request to the university to hand over the farmers hostel block Ex.D19 : Certified copy of 37th Annual general body meeting 2019-20 Ex.D20 : Certified copy of the report allumini support to the university Ex.D21 to 37 : 17 photographs Ex.D38 : CD (R.MAHESHA) XXIV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & A.C.M.M. BENGALURU.