Bangalore District Court
The vs On 15.03.2002 For Stopping His Unlawful ... on 16 January, 2020
1
O.S. No.326/2019
C.R.P.67
Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgments in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (CCH No.17 )
DATED THIS THE 16 th DAY OF JANUARY 2020
PRESENT; SRI. R.Y. SHASHIDHARA, B.Com., LL.B,
II Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
O.S.No.326/2019
[ Plaintiff: Ms. Shraddha Krupa,
D/o Dr. Aruna T.M.
24 years,
R/o No.1242, Sri. Laksmi Nilaya,
8th 'A' Main road, 12th cross,
Vijayanagar I stage,
Mysuru-570 017.
Represented by her GPA Holder Dr
(Smt.) Aruna T.M.
(By Sri. MVH, Advocate)
Vs.
Defendant:- Sri. Subbaramaiah P.
Proprietor,
M/s. Seagull Tours and Travels,
No.54, II Main road,
III cross, Dena Bank colony,
Ganga Nagar,
Bengaluru.
(Exparte)
2
O.S. No.326/2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Institution of the suit : 11.01.2019
Nature of the suit (suit on : Permanent and mandatory
injunction
pronote, suit for declaration
and possession, suit for
injunction etc,)
Date of the commencement : 16.07.2019
of recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 16.01.2020
was pronounced : Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration : 01 00 05
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(R.Y. Shashidhara)
II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
& Spl. Judge, Bangalore.
JUDGMENT
The suit filed by the plaintiff restraining the defendant from making material alterations/renovations causing damage to the existing walls and ceilings of the suit schedule premises. Directing the jurisdictional police/ High Grounds Police Authorities to assist the plaintiff to stop the material alteration work to be carried out by the defendant in the suit schedule premises.
3
O.S. No.326/2019 .2. In the plaint, it is stated that the suit schedule property is the premises bearing No.2, Ground floor, measuring 886 sq. feet situated at Race Course Road, Madhava Nagar, Bengaluru. The plaintiff is the lawful owner of the suit schedule premises. She acquired the title of the said property through a Will executed by her grand-father namely B.M. Chandra Shekaraiah, Retired District Judge. After the death of her grand-father, the plaintiff become an lawful owner of the suit schedule premises. It is stated that during the life-time of grand-father of the plaintiff, he leased the suit schedule premises to the defendant on 08.12.1999 on monthly rent of Rs.10,000/- with a condition that the rent shall be enhanced @ 15% at the end of every three years. It was agreed to pay the amount of Rs.3,150/- per month towards charges for the amenities, fittings and facilities provided. The defendant has advanced an amount of Rs.2.63 lakhs to the grand-father of the plaintiff. As per the lease deed, the defendant is not supposed to sub-lease the suit schedule premises to the third party and he is restrained from diverting the use and occupation of the suit schedule premises. It is stated that during subsistence of tenancy till 4 O.S. No.326/2019 November 2016, the defendant has not paid the enhanced and agreed rent periodically. The plaintiff made a demand to pay the escalated rent as per the lease deed. During that time, the defendant has attempted to sublease the premises without consent and knowledge of the plaintiff contrary to the terms of the lease deed. The grand-mother of the plaintiff issued a notice to the defendant for stopping his unlawful act. The said notice received by the defendant. It is stated that from November 2016 onwards the defendant stopped payment of regular rent. Therefore, as per the terms of the lease agreement, the defendant is not eligible to continue his tenancy rights in the suit schedule premises. It is stated that the plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.4022/2018 on 07.01.2018 against the defendant for ejection. The defendant has appeared in the said case and filed the written statement. Now the case posted for plaintiff's evidence. During pendency of the said suit, without knowledge and consent of the plaintiff, the defendant started making material alterations/renovations causing damage to the existing walls and ceilings of the suit schedule premises. The plaintiff has questioned the defendant about his unlawful act. During that 5 O.S. No.326/2019 time, the defendant was making galata and commenced alteration work causing damage to the existing walls and ceilings. The plaintiff lodged the complaint before the High Grounds Police Station against the defendant. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file the suit and prayed for decree. .3. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant has not appeared before this court and placed exparte. Then the case posted for plaintiff's evidence.
.4. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the GPA holder of the plaintiff examined as PW.1. Documents got marked Exs.P.1 to 7.
.5. Heard the arguments.
.6. The following points that would arise for my consideration are:
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is tenant in-respect of the suit schedule premises?
2) Whether the plaintiff proves that without her consent and knowledge, the defendant is making material alterations/renovations causing damage to the existing walls and ceilings of the suit schedule premises?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the reliefs as prayed for?
4) What order or decree?6
O.S. No.326/2019 .7. My answers to the above points are:
Point No.1 : In the affirmative,
Point No.2 : In the affirmative,
Point No.3 : Partly in the affirmative,
Point No.4 : As per final order,
for the following:
R E A S ON S
.8. Points 1 to 3: These two points are inter-
connected. Therefore, for the purpose of avoiding repeated discussion, I taken up all these points together for consideration.
.9. PW.1 in her examination-in-chief reiterated the the averments of the plaint and stated that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of the suit schedule premises. She acquired the title of the said property through a Will executed by her grand-father namely B.M. Chandra Shekaraiah. The grand- mother of the plaintiff died on 06.01.2017 and grand-father of the plaintiff - B.M. Chandra Shekaraiah died on 15.03.2002. After the death of her grand-father, as per registered Will dated 22.06.2001, the plaintiff has become an lawful owner of the suit schedule premises. The Khatha of the property 7 O.S. No.326/2019 transferred in the name of plaintiff. PW.1 further stated that during the life-time of grand-father of the plaintiff, he leased the suit schedule premises to the defendant on 08.12.1999 on monthly rent of Rs.10,000/- with a condition that the rent shall be enhanced @ 15% at the end of every three years. It was agreed to pay the amount of Rs.3,150/- per month towards charges for the amenities, fittings and facilities provided. The lease period is for 3 years. The defendant has advanced an amount of Rs.2.63 lakhs to the grand-father of the plaintiff. It is further stated that as per the Clause 11 of the Lease Deed, the defendant is not supposed to sub-lease the suit schedule premises to the third party and as per clause 9, the defendant is restrained from diverting the use and occupation of the suit schedule premises. PW.1 further stated that during subsistence of tenancy till November 2016, the defendant has not paid the enhanced and agreed rent periodically. The plaintiff has made a demand to pay the escalated rent as per the lease deed. The defendant has attempted to sublease the premises without consent and knowledge of the plaintiff contrary to the terms of the lease deed. The grand-mother of the plaintiff issued a notice to the 8 O.S. No.326/2019 defendant on 15.03.2002 for stopping his unlawful act. The said notice received by the defendant. It is stated that from November 2016 onwards the defendant stopped payment of regular rent. Therefore, as per the terms of the lease agreement, he is not eligible to continue his tenancy rights in the suit schedule premises and he is required to handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the plaintiff with arrears of rent from November 2016. PW.1 further stated that the suit schedule property is required for the plaintiff for their use and occupation for starting medical practice. The plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.4022/2018 on 07.01.2018 against the defendant for ejection. The defendant has appeared in the said case and filed the written statement. Now the case posted for plaintiff's evidence. PW.1 further stated that during pendency of the said suit, the defendant started making material alterations/renovations causing damage to the existing walls and ceilings of the suit schedule premises. Without knowledge and consent of the plaintiff, the defendant is doing the said act. The plaintiff has questioned the defendant about his unlawful act. The defendant was making galata and commenced the alteration 9 O.S. No.326/2019 work causing damage to the existing walls and ceilings. Hence, the plaintiff lodged the complaint before the High Grounds Police Station on 10.01.2019 against the defendant. The police have issued an endorsement and not taken any action against the defendant. Hence, PW1 prayed for decree.
.10. I have perused the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff. Ex.P.1 is certified copy of the GPA executed by the plaintiff in-favour of PW.1, for leading evidence in this case. Ex.P.2 is certified copy of the order sheet in O.S.No.4022/2018 pending on the file of this court. The plaintiff of this case has filed the said suit against the defendant for Ejectment in-respect of the suit schedule premises. Ex.P.3 is copy of the complaint filed by PW.1 to the Police Inspector, High Grounds Police Station dated 0901.2019. It was filed against the defendant for causing obstruction, nuisance and abuse by him. Ex.P.4 is acknowledgment issued by High Grounds Police Station dated 10.01.2019 in-respect of the complaint filed by the plaintiff. Ex.P.5 and 6 are the Khatha extract and Khatha certificate in the name of plaintiff in-respect of suit schedule premises. 10
O.S. No.326/2019 Ex.P.7 is challan for payment of self-assessment of property Tax by the plaintiff.
.11. I have perused the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence placed by the plaintiff. The defendant has not appeared and resisted the case of the plaintiff. I am of the opinion that the case of the plaintiff is supported by oral and documentary evidence. Hence, I come to the conclusion that, the plaintiff has proved that the defendant is a tenant and is in possession of the suit schedule premises. He further he has proved that without her knowledge and consent, the defendant has made an attempt to make material alterations/renovations causing damage to the existing walls and ceilings of the suit schedule premises. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that, the plaintiff is entitle for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant from making material alterations/renovations causing damage to the existing walls and ceilings of the suit schedule premises. Further I am of the opinion that if the said order is not granted, as an owner of the suit schedule premises, the plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss and injury. Hence, I come to the conclusion that, suit of the plaintiff for the relief 11 O.S. No.326/2019 of permanent injunction is liable to be decreed. The plaintiff prayed for directing the jurisdictional police i.e., High Grounds Police to assist her to stop the material alteration work to be carried out by the defendant in the suit schedule premises as prayed by the plaintiff. I am of the opinion that, the above said prayer of the plaintiff cannot be considered. On the basis of decree of permanent injunction to be granted by this court, the plaintiff can approach the jurisdictional police for implement the same. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that suit of the plaintiff for directing the jurisdictional police to assist her to stop the material alteration work to be carried out by the defendant in the suit schedule premises is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that suit of the plaintiff is liable to be partly decreed. From looking into the facts and circumstances, there is no order as to cost. Hence, I answer points 1 and 2 in the affirmative and point No.3 partly in the affirmative. .12. Point No.4: In view of my findings on points 1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:
12
O.S. No.326/2019 O R DE R [ Suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed.
It is restrained the defendant by way of permanent injunction from making material alterations/renovations causing damage to the existing walls and ceilings of the suit schedule premises.
Prayer of the plaintiff for directing the jurisdictional police to assist her to stop the material alteration work to be carried out by the defendant in the suit schedule premises is dismissed.
No cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in open Court on this the 16 th day of January, 2020.) (R.Y. Shashidhara) II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, & Spl. Judge, Bangalore.
A NN E X U R E
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF :
P.W.1 : Dr. (Smt) Aruna T.M.
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of GPA executed by plaintiff
Ex.P.2 Certified copy of order sheet in
O.S.No.4022/2018
Ex.P.3 Copy of complaint dated 09.10.2019 by PW.1
13
O.S. No.326/2019
to the High Ground police station
Ex.P.4 Acknowledgment issued by High Ground police
station
Ex.P.5 Khatha extract
Ex.P.6 Khatha certificate
Ex.P.7 Challan for payment of self-assessment of
property Tax by the plaintiff.
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
Nil (R.Y. Shashidhara) II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, & Spl. Judge, Bangalore.Digitally signed by RACHENAHALLI Y SHASHIDHARA
RACHENAHALLI Y DN: cn=RACHENAHALLI Y
SHASHIDHARA,ou=HIGH COURT OF
SHASHIDHARA KARNATAKA,o=GOVERNMENT OF
KARNATAKA,st=Karnataka,c=IN
Date: 2020.01.18 12:43:42 IST