Bangalore District Court
Smt. Tara Chandrasekharan vs Ms.Deepa Sangeeth on 3 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE XLIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH.No.44), AT BENGALURU
PRESENT: SRI. SHUBHAVEER B., B.Com.,LL.B.
XLIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU .
DATED: THIS THE 3 RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020
O.S.No.7036/2017
Plaintiff- Smt. Tara Chandrasekharan,
age 70 years
w/o. Late Col.C.S.N.Chandrasekaran,
residing at No.19, Sena Vihar,
Kammanahalli Main road,
Bengaluru -560084.
(By Sri.B.M.Arun, advocate)
-vs-
Defendant- Ms.Deepa Sangeeth,
w/o. Sri.Sangeeth Velekkatt Arunan,
residing at No.51,
1 st A Cross, 3 rd Main,
Domlur II stage,
Bengaluru -560071.
also at No.1099,
(temporary construction in first
floor), 5 th cross, 12 th main,
HAL 2 nd stage, Indirangar,
Bengaluru -560038.
2
O.S.No.7036/2017
(By Sri.VVN- advocate)
Date of Institution of the suit : 16.10.2017
Nature of the suit : ejectment and for
mense profits
Date of commencement of
recording of the evidence : 16.01.2019
Date on which the Judgment
was pronounced : 03.02.2020
Total Duration Years Months Days
: 02 03 18
(SHUBHAVEER B.)
XLIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge ,
Bengaluru
J U D G M E N T
The above suit is filed for ejectment and for mense profits.
2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of suit schedule 'A' property, i.e., piece and parcel of immovable property bearing no.1099, 5 th cross, 12 th main, HAL 2 nd stage,c 3 O.S.No.7036/2017 Indiranagar, Bengaluru, measurng east to west :
(14+13.60)/2 Mtrs. and North to South: 18.40 Mtrs. consisting of built up area of 1358 Sq.Ft on the ground floor, 704.13 Sq.Ft on the first floor and terrace area and 16.40 Sq.Ft of garage space, with specific boundaries.
The same was leased to Kitschdii Retial Pvt Ltd., represented by its Director, Ms.Seema Pisharody,as per lease agreement, dated 01.04.2015. Apart from others, it was made clear that they should not make any structural alterations, or create any third party rights. Inspite of it, the said Seema Pisharody, unauthorisedly allowed the defendant to build a bamboo wall around the entire terrace area on the 1 st floor upon terrace area, which is suit 'B' schedule property. On questioning, the defendant requested the plaintiff, to lease the suit 'B' schedule property. Accordingly, the plaintiff entered into a lease 4 O.S.No.7036/2017 agreement, with the defendant, on 15.06.2016, in respect of suit 'B' schedule property. The term fixed was one year, starting from 18.05.2016 and ending on 17.05.2017. The rent payable by the defendant was Rs.25,000/-, per month, till August, 2016 and Rs.30,000/-, per month, afterwards. The defendant has also deposited a sum of Rs.1,80,000/-, as refundable interest fee deposit. The lease was expired on 17.05.2017 and the possession of the defendant is akin to that of a trespasser. The plaintiff got issued quit notice, dated 30.06.2017, calling upon the defendant to quit and handover possession of the suit schedule property, for which the defendant got issued an untenable reply notice, on 21.07.2017 and refused to vacate suit 'B' schedule property. The plaintiff is entitled to for damages every month, after termination of the 5 O.S.No.7036/2017 tenancy, for illegal occupation of suit 'B' schedule property, by defendant. Hence the above suit.
3. The defendant in her written statement has admitted the ownership of the suit 'B' schedule property by the plaintiff; the landlord- tenant relationship between the plaintiff and defendant in respect of suit 'B' schedule property; execution of lease agreement between the plaintiff and defendant, in respect of suit 'B' schedule property; receipt of quit notice, dated 30.06.2017 and getting issued reply notice, dated 21.07.2017; denied other allegations made in the plaint.
4. The defendant contends that she is running a dance and Yoga school in the plaint 'B' schedule premises, as per the notification of Government of Karnataka and orders issued to the defendant and there are 120 students in the said school from junior level to senior level. 6
O.S.No.7036/2017 Further there are 9 teaching staff and two administrative staff working in the said school. Most of the students who are attending the above mentioned school come from poor families. It will be difficult for the defendant to shift the school from the schedule premises, since these students are attending for several years. Hence prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. From the pleadings the following issues are framed -
1. Whether lease of suit property is legally and validly terminated?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to for mense profits?
3. What order?
6. On behalf of the plaintiff, the daughter/ power of attorney holder of the plaintiff herself got examined as P.W.1, who deposes in accordance with the 7 O.S.No.7036/2017 allegations made in the plaint. Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 are marked. On behalf of the defendant, defendant herslef got examined as D.W.1, who deposes in accordance with the contentions taken in her written statement. Ex.D1 is marked. Arguments heard.
7. The answers to the above issues are-
Issue No.1 In the positive
Issue No.2 In the positive
Issue No.3 As per the final order, for the
following-
REASONS
8. Issue No.1- As discussed above, the
ownership of the suit 'B' schedule property by the
plaintiff; entering into of a lease agreement by the
plaintiff with the defendant, with regard to suit 'B'
schedule property; issuance of quit notice, by the
plaintiff, on 30.06.2017 and receipt of the quit notice, by 8 O.S.No.7036/2017 issuing reply notice, by the defendant, dated 21.07.2017; are admitted facts.
9. It is the only contention of the defendant that the notice of termination is bad in law. The evidence of P.W.1, who deposes in accordance with the allegations made in the plaint, corroborated by Ex.P1, power of attorney; Ex.P2, quit notice, dated 30.06.2017; Ex.P3, reply notice, dated 21.07.2017; Ex.P4, registered gift deed, dated 11.07.2007, in respect of suit schedule 'A' property, which was gifted in favour of the plaintiff; Ex.P5, Khatha certificate; Ex.P6, Khatha extract and Ex.P7, Uttarapatra; showing the suit 'A' schdule property standing in the name of the plaintiff and Ex.P8 & P9- tax paid receipts; clearly establish that there was the landlord and tenant relationship between the plaintiff and defendant and the same was terminated by issuing the 9 O.S.No.7036/2017 quit notice, which was received by the defendant. The quit notice is dated 30.06.2017. Reply notice is dated 21.7.2017. In that event, the quit notice was received by the defendant, on, or before 21.07.2017. Whereas the above suit is filed, after lapse of statutory period, i.e., on 16.10.2017. Further nothing is elicited in the cross- examination of P.W.1, to discard her evidence even though it is suggested to P.W.1 that the defendant has been paying the rent in respect of suit 'B' schedule property to the plaintiff, P.W.1 has specifically answered that the same has been received as damages.
10. With regard to term of lease and non- registration of the alleged agreement, as per the principles of the ruling reported in AIR 2000 SC 3523 (Antony Appellant Vs. K.C.Hoop & Sons and Others), "non registration of lease deed, compulsorily registerable- 10
O.S.No.7036/2017 not fatal to creation of lease - lease for period not exceeding one year can be presumed to be created in such cases." Hence viewed from any angle, the tenancy of the defendant, in respect of suit 'B' schedule property, is validly terminated and after termination of the tenancy, the occupation of the defendant is unauthorised. Hence issue No.1 is answered accordingly.
11. Issue No.2 - It is an admitted fact that initially the rent was Rs.25,000/- and afterwards, the defendant was paying Rs.30,000/-, per month, as rent. No material is produced by the plaintiff to show what shall be the exact amount of mense profits, she is entitled to. But it is an admitted fact that Rs.30,000/- was paid by the defendant, per month, to the plaintiff, subsequent to termination of the tenancy. Therefore, if mense profits is fixed at the rate of Rs.30,000/-, per month, from the date 11 O.S.No.7036/2017 of filing of the suit, till delivery of actual vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff, the ends of justice will be met. As per order 20 R 12(1) (b-a)of CPC, with regard to mesne profits, the same may be decided in the suit itself. Hence this issue is answered accordingly.
12. Issue No.3- In view of the answers to issue Nos. 1 and 2, the following-
ORDER The suit is decreed with costs, to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.
The defendant is directed to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the suit schedule 'B' property, which is part of schedule 'A' property, to the plaintiff, within one month from the date of this Judgment, i.e., from 03.02.2020.
12
O.S.No.7036/2017 The defendant is liable to pay mense profits at the rate of Rs.30,000/-, per month, from the date of suit, i.e., from 16.10.2017, till delivery of actual vacant possession of the suit 'B' schedule property, to the plaintiff.
SUIT SCHEDULE 'A' PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of immovable property bearing No.1099, 5 th cross, 12 th main, HAL 2 nd stage, Indirangar, Bengaluru -560038, measuring East to West: (14+13.60)/2 Meters and and North to South: 18.40 Meters, in all totally measuring 253.92 sq.mtrs; consisting of a built up area of about 1358 Sq.Ft on the ground floor, 704.13 Sq.Ft on the first floor and terrace area and 16.40 Sq.Ft of garage space and bounded on-
East by : Road
West by : Property No.1098
North by : Property No.1083,
South by : Road
13
O.S.No.7036/2017
SCHEDULE 'B' PROPERTY
All that piece and parcel of entire open terrace area above the first floor of the schedule 'A' property, with temporary construction (Bamboo).
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcript thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in open Court, on this the 3rd day of February, 2020.) (SHUBHAVEER B.) XLIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff-
P.W.1 - Mrs.Gayathri Chandrasekharan II. List of witnesses examined on behalf of defendant-
D.W.1 - Mrs.Deepa Sangeetha
III. List of documents exhibited on behalf of plaintiff-
14
O.S.No.7036/2017
Ex.P1 Power of attorney
Ex.P2 Copy of quit notice
Ex.P3 Reply notice
Ex.P4 Registered gift deed
Ex.P5 Khatha certificate
Ex.P6 Khatha extract
Ex.P7 Uttara patra
Ex.P8&9 tax paid receitps
IV. List of documents exhibited on behalf of defendant-
Ex.D1 Order issued by Government.
(SHUBHAVEER.B) XLIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Digitally signed by SHUBHAVEER JAIN B SHUBHAVEER DN: cn=SHUBHAVEER JAIN B,ou=GOVERNMENT OF JAIN B KARNATAKA,o=HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,st=Karnataka,c=IN Date: 2020.02.04 11:02:26 IST 15 O.S.No.7036/2017 (Judgment pronounced in open court) ORDER The suit is decreed with costs, to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.
The defendant is directed to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the suit schedule 'B' property, which is part of schedule 'A' property, to the plaintiff, within one month from the date of this Judgment, i.e., from 03.02.2020.
The defendant is liable to pay mense profits at the rate of Rs.30,000/-, per month, from the date of suit, i.e., from 16.10.2017, till delivery of actual vacant possession of the suit 'B' schedule property, to the plaintiff.
16
O.S.No.7036/2017 SUIT SCHEDULE 'A' PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of immovable property bearing No.1099, 5 th cross, 12 th main, HAL 2 nd stage, Indirangar, Bengaluru -560038, measuring East to West: (14+13.60)/2 Meters and and North to South: 18.40 Meters, in all totally measuring 253.92 sq.mtrs; consisting of a built up area of about 1358 Sq.Ft on the ground floor, 704.13 Sq.Ft on the first floor and terrace area and 16.40 Sq.Ft of garage space and bounded on-
East by : Road
West by : Property No.1098
North by : Property No.1083,
South by : Road
SCHEDULE 'B' PROPERTY
All that piece and parcel of entire open terrace area above the first floor of the schedule 'A' property, with temporary construction (Bamboo).
Draw decree accordingly.
17 O.S.No.7036/2017