Bangalore District Court
Sri. Shivalinge Gowda vs M/S Maruthi Engineering Works on 7 August, 2021
IN THE COURT OF XLII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-43)
Present: Sri. Kengabalaiah,
B.Com., LL.B.
XLII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge.
Dated this 7 th Day of August, 2021
O.S.No. 6246/2018
Plaintiff/s : Sri. Shivalinge Gowda,
S/o Thirumala Gowda.
Aged about 40 years,
Proprietor of M/s C.S.Enterprises
No.112, 2nd Main, Industrial Town,
Rajajingar, Bangalore - 44.
[By Sri. S.S.P., Adv.]
-Vs-
Defendant/s : M/s Maruthi engineering Works
Rep. By its Partners
1. H.Srinivas
S/o G.R.Hanumanthe Gowda
Aged about 53 years,
3. H.Suvarna Maruthi
S/o G.R. Hanumanthe Gowda
Aged about 48 years,
O/at No.112, 2nd Main,
Industrial Town, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore - 44.
And both are R/at No.12, 2nd Main,
Vasanth Nagar, Bangalore -52.
[D1 - Exparte]
[D2 - By Sri. B.S.P.N., Adv.]
OS.No.6246/2018
2
Date of institution of the suit 27.8.2018
Nature of the suit Permanent injunction
Date of commencement of 14.2.2020
recording the evidence
Date on which the judgment 07.08.2021
was pronounced
Total duration Years Months Days
02 11 11
(Kengabalaiah),
XVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge.
*********
J UD GM E N T
The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants
for permanent injunction.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that, the defendants are
the partners of M/s Maruthi Engineering Works, which is the
A-schedule property. The plaintiff is a tenant of a portion of
the above said firm property measuring east to west to 45 feet
and north to south 15 feet and is in possession and
enjoyment of the the said property, which is B-schedule
property. The plaintiff is the tenant under the defendants and
one Late Balachander since from 2014 and the lease
agreement dated 21.4.2014 executed by them on behalf of
OS.No.6246/2018
3
M/s Maruthi Engineering Works and thereafter,
H.Balachander died on 20.2.2016. The plaintiff has paid an
advance amount of Rs.1,60,000/- and the rent of
Rs.13,000/- p.m. The plaintiff is running and manufacturing
sheet cutting in the schedule B- property and he has
installed cutting machinery worth Rs.1,00,000/- and the
plaintiff paying the rent regularly to the defendants through
cheque and cash.
3. It is further stated that, during the year 2015,
quarrel arose between the family of the defendants and
amicably settled the matter before the Panchayath and
executed a mutual agreement dated 10.1.2015 between them
and as per the said mutual agreement the rent of B-schedule
property is fell to the share of the 2 nd defendant and the
plaintiff has paid the rent to the 2 nd defendant. During the
month of March 2018, without any dispute the 2 nd defendant
lodged a police complaint against the plaintiff and the 1 st
defendant before the jurisdictional Magadi Road police
station and the 2nd defendant had pressurized the police and
obtained the signature of the plaintiff on the blank stamp
paper and the same is typed by the 2nd defendant as the
OS.No.6246/2018
4
plaintiff is agreed to vacate the schedule B- property on
31.8.2018 and the original of the said signed agreement is
with the 2nd defendant and the copy of the same was handed
over to him. The 2nd defendant has no right to vacate the
plaintiff from the schedule B-property on the basis of the
alleged agreement dated 17.3.2018 and the plaintiff has not
executed the said agreement and he has not agreed to vacate
the schedule premises. On the guise of the said agreement, at
any time the 2nd defendant may dispossess the plaintiff
illegally from the schedule property. The plaintiff has spent
huge amount for installation of the machinery and he is
facing difficulty to run the factory because of interference of
the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant is moneyed and
influential person. The plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss
and injury he he is vacated from the schedule premises. The
cause of action of the suit arose on 21.4.2014 and further
when the defendants demanded and try to dispossess the
plaintiff from the schedule premises. Hence, this suit.
4. In pursuance of the summons, the defendant No.1
remained absent and placed exparte. The defendant No.2
appeared through his counsel and filed the written statement
OS.No.6246/2018
5
by admitting the plaint allegation in para-3 and partly
admitting the plaint allegation in para-4. The 2 nd defendant
states that the Lease agreement dated 21.4.2014 is executed
by the defendants. He admit the plaint allegation in para-5
and contended that as per the rent agreement, rent shall be
enhanced for 2 years once at the rate of 10% if the plaintiff
continued in the schedule property, but the plaintiff has not
enhanced the rent till today from 2016. This defendant has
denied the allegations of plaint para-6 regarding installation
of machinery worth Rs.1,00,000/- in the schedule property
and paying the rent regularly. This defendant has denied the
allegations of plaint para-7 that the plaintiff is smoothly
running the business in the schedule premises as false. The
plaintiff is very irregular in payment of rent. He has denied
the further allegation that during the year 2015, quarrel
arose between the family of the defendants, as false. But
amicably settled the matter before the Panchayath and
executed a mutual agreement dated 10.1.2015 between them
and as per the said mutual agreement the rent of B-schedule
property is fell to the share of the 2 nd defendant and the
OS.No.6246/2018
6
plaintiff has paid the rent to the 2nd defendant, is true and
correct.
5. The allegations made in para-9 of the plaint that
during March 2018 without any dispute the 2 nd defendant
lodged a police complaint against the plaintiff and the 1st
defendant before the jurisdictional Magadi Road police
station and the 2nd defendant had pressurized the police and
obtained the signature of the plaintiff on the blank stamp
paper and the same is typed by the 2nd defendant as the
plaintiff is agreed to vacate the schedule B- property on
31.8.2018 and the original of the said signed agreement is
with the 2nd defendant and the copy of the same was handed
over to him, are all false and the plaintiff is put to strict proof
of the same. This defendant has got right over the property as
this defendant is the owner and partner of the said property
and the plaintiff and this defendant amicably agreed and
executed the said agreement. This defendant has denied the
allegations in para-10 of the plaint that the plaintiff has not
executed the said agreement and he has not agreed to vacate
the schedule premises and on the guise of the said
agreement, at any time the 2nd defendant may dispossess the
OS.No.6246/2018
7
plaintiff illegally from the schedule property and the plaintiff
has spent huge amount for installation of the machinery and
he is facing difficulty to run the factory because of
interference of the 2nd defendant and the 2nd defendant is
moneyed and influential person. The plaintiff will be put to
irreparable loss and injury he he is vacated from the schedule
premises as false.
6. It is further submitted that, as per the mutual
agreement dated 10.1.2015, the plaintiff has not paid the
rent to this defendant regularly and he is a chronic defaulter
and the plaintiff is liable to pay 7 months arrears of rent
amounting to Rs.91,000/- and the plaintiff has colluded with
the 1st defendant and he is not in good terms with this
defendant and he has also not maintained the schedule
premises cleanly and without the knowledge of this defendant
he has demolished the compound wall. Therefore, this
defendant has lodged a police complaint against the plaintiff
and the 1st defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiff undertook to
vacate the schedule premises as he is unable to run the
factory and he has also agreed to pay the 7 months rent of
Rs.91,000/- out of the advance amount of Rs.1,60,000/- and
OS.No.6246/2018
8
executed the agreement dated 17.3.2018 and this defendant
acknowledged the same to adjust the arrears of rent in
advance amount.
7. It is further submitted that, the plaintiff is a
chronic defaulter and he has not paid the up to date rents
and he has also not enhanced the rent as per the lease
agreement dated 21.4.2014 and this defendant requested the
plaintiff to enhance the rent, but the plaintiff has not agreed
for the same and undertook to vacate the schedule premises.
Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in law
and only for harassing this defendant in collusion with the 1 st
defendant filed this suit. This defendant is unemployed and
there is no job and he has vacated the residential house at
Vasanthnagar in Ex.No.2233/2000 and there is no house for
his residence. Therefore, the schedule premises is required
for his bonafide use and occupation. The plaintiff is liable to
vacate the schedule premises. There is no cause of action for
this suit and the one alleged is imaginary one. Hence sought
for dismissal of the suit.
8. On the basis of the above pleadings, my learned
predecessor has framed the following issues : -
OS.No.6246/2018
9
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in
peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit "B"
schedule property as tenant under the
defendants and one late Balachander as
alleged in the plaint as on the date of filing of
the suit?
2) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants
interfered with plaintiff's possession as alleged
in the plaint?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the relief of
injunction against the defendants as prayed
for?
4) What order or decree
9. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the
plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and he got marked the
documents at Ex.P1 and P2. On the other hand, the
defendant No.2 himself examined as DW.1, but he not
produced any documents.
10. Heard the arguments of both the sides.
11. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1: In the Negative
Issue No.2: In the negative.
Issue No.3: In the negative
Issue No.4: As per final order, for the following:
R E A SON S
12. Issue No.1 :- The plaintiff has filed this suit
against the defendants for permanent injunction. In order to
OS.No.6246/2018
10
prove his, the plaintiff himself has filed an affidavit in lieu of
his examination-in-chief as PW.1 by reiterating the contents
of the plaint pleadings and he has deposed that the
defendants are the partners of M/s Maruthi Engineering
Works and he is a tenant in a portion of the property
measuring east to west to 45 feet and north to south 15 feet
and he is the tenant under the defendants and one Late
Balachander who is elder brother of the partners from 2014
and the lease agreement dated 21.4.2014 executed by the
partners on behalf of M/s Maruthi Engineering Works. He
has paid an advance amount of Rs.1,60,000/- and the rent of
Rs.13,000/- p.m. to the defendants. Further he has deposed
that, he is running and manufacturing sheet cutting in the
schedule B- property and he has installed cutting machinery
worth Rs.1,00,000/- and the plaintiff paying the rent
regularly to the defendants.
13. Further, he has deposed that, there was a dispute
between the defendants and quarrel with each other and
amicably settled the matter before the Panchayath and
executed a mutual agreement dated 10.1.2015 between them
and as per the said mutual agreement the rent of B-schedule
OS.No.6246/2018
11
property is fell to the share of the 2 nd defendant and he has
paid the rent to the 2nd defendant. But, during the month of
March 2018, without any dispute the 2nd defendant lodged a
police complaint against him and with the help of the police,
the 2nd defendant had obtained his signature on the blank
stamp paper and the same is typed by the 2nd defendant as
the plaintiff is agreed to vacate the schedule B- property on
31.8.2018 and the copy of the same was handed over to him
by the 2nd defendant and demanded him to vacate the
schedule premises on the basis of the alleged agreement
dated 17.3.2018. But as per the mutual agreement between
the brothers, it is an agreement for collecting the rent
amount only but not to vacate the tenants from the schedule
premises. It is further deposed that he has not agreed to
vacate the schedule premises and not executed any
agreement in favour of the 2nd defendant. He has spent huge
amount for installation of the machinery and he is facing
difficulty to run the factory because of interference of the 2 nd
defendant. The 2nd defendant is influential person having
support of police and local politician.
OS.No.6246/2018
12
14. It is further deposed that there are several
damages in the premises like broken cement roof, damages
on flooring and water sewage problem and he has
approached the 2nd defendant to make good the same, but he
refused to do so. He has made certain changes to safeguard
the machinery and the premises from the rain water and
sewage water. The defendant No.2 has bad relationship with
his brothers and due to this defendant No.2 is trying to
illegally vacate him from the schedule premises. In support of
his evidence, he has relied upon the Bank account statement
at Ex.P1 and also 7 rent receipts at Ex.P2.
15. On the other hand, the 2 nd defendant has filed his
affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief as DW.1 by
reiterating the contents of the written statement and he has
admitted that the plaintiff is a tenant under him under the
lease agreement dated 21.4.2014 executed by the partners of
M/s Maruthi Engineering Works. The plaintiff has paid an
advance amount of Rs.1,60,000/- and rent of Rs.13,000/-
p.m. The plaintiff has not enhanced the rent till today from
2016 as per the lease agreement. Further he has deposed
that family arrangement before the Panchayath was entered
OS.No.6246/2018
13
into vide mutual agreement dated 10.1.2015 between their
family and as per the said agreement schedule B-property fell
to his share. Thereafter the plaintiff paid the rents to him.
The plaintiff has not paid the rents regularly and he has
become chronic defaulter and he is in arrears of rent for 7
months amounting to Rs.91,000/-. The plaintiff is not in
good terms with him and he has not maintained the schedule
premises cleanly and without the knowledge of him, the
plaintiff has demolished the compound wall, for which he has
lodged a police complaint against the plaintiff. Thereafter, the
plaintiff undertook to vacate the schedule premises as he is
unable to run the factory and he has also agreed to pay the 7
months rent of Rs.91,000/- out of the advance amount of
Rs.1,60,000/- and executed an agreement dated 17.3.2018.
16. Further, he has deposed that he is unemployed
and there is no job and he has vacated the residential house
at Vasanthnagar in Ex.No.2233/2000 and there is no house
for his residence. Therefore, the schedule premises is
required for his bonafide use and occupation. The plaintiff is
liable to vacate the schedule premises.
OS.No.6246/2018
14
17. On careful scrutiny of the evidence of both PW.1
and DW.1, it is an undisputed fact that the plaintiff is a
tenant of the schedule premises under the defendants who
are partners of M/s Maruthi Engineering Works. From the
evidence of DW.1, it reveals that the schedule B-property fell
to his share in the family arrangement which took place
between them and mutual agreement has been taken place
on 10.1.2015 between the family members. The plaintiff has
paid the rent to him as per the said agreement, but the
plaintiff has not paid the rent regularly and he is a chronic
defaulter and he is in arrears of 7 months rent amounting to
Rs.91,000/-.
18. Though the plaintiff has contended that during
the month of March, 2018, without any dispute the 2 nd
defendant lodged a police complaint against him and
obtained his signature on blank stamp paper and the same
was typed by the 2nd defendant making false statement that
he has agreed to vacate the premises by 31.8.2018 and the
2nd defendant has demanded him to vacate the schedule
premises on the basis of the said agreement. Except his bald
allegations, he has not produced any documents to show that
OS.No.6246/2018
15
the 2nd defendant has obtained his signature on the blank
stamp paper and typed false statement as he has agreed to
vacate the schedule premises. From the evidence of DW.1, it
appears that he is unemployed and he has vacated the
residential house at Vasanthnagar in Ex.No.2233/2000 and
he has no house for his residence and hence, the schedule
premises is required for his bonafide use and occupation. The
evidence of DW.1 remained unchallenged by the plaintiff, as
such it cannot be said that the schedule premises is not
required for own use and and occupation of the 2 nd
defendant. Though the plaintiff has made several allegations
against the defendants regarding forcibly vacating the
schedule premises, but he has failed to prove that the 2 nd
defendant has tried to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from
the schedule B-property. On the other hand, the schedule B-
property is very much required for the 2 nd defendant for his
own use and occupation. For the above reasons and
discussions, I have answered these issue No.1 in the
affirmative.
19. Issue No.2:- When the plaintiff has failed to
prove that the 2nd defendant has tried to forcibly vacate him
OS.No.6246/2018
16
from the schedule premises, the question of interference by
the 2nd defendant does not arise at all. Hence, I have answer
the issue No.2 in the negative.
20. Issue No.3:- For the discussions made on issue
No.1, it is clear that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the
2nd defendant has tried to forcibly vacate the plaintiff from the
schedule premises and failed to prove the interference by the
2nd defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as
prayed. Hence, I answer the above issue No.3 in the negative.
21. Issue No.4:- In view of the discussion above, I
proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
Suit of the plaintiff against the defendants for permanent injunction is hereby dismissed.
Draw a decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, typed by him, the transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me, in the open court, on this the 7th day of August, 2021).
(Kangabalaiah), XLII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
OS.No.6246/2018 17 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for plaintiff:
P.W.1 Shivalinge Gowda List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:
Ex.P1 Account statement Ex.P2 7 Rent receipts
List of witnesses examined for defendants:
DW.1 H.Suvarna Maruthi List of documents exhibited for defendants:
Nil XLII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.