Karnataka High Court
Sri Ramesh K vs Smt Kumari Indira on 17 November, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47045
CRP No. 231 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 231 OF 2019 (SC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI RAMESH K
S/O P KEMPAIAH,
NO.151/2, R.T.STREET,
BALEPET, BANGALORE - 560 053
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H.J. SANGHVI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT KUMARI INDIRA
W/O T. NARAYAN,
Digitally signed R/AT 172/A, 10TH CROSS,
by IV MAIN, BAPUJI NAGAR,
SHARADAVANI
B MYSORE ROAD,
Location: High
Court of BANGALORE-560 026
Karnataka
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.18 OF SMALL CAUSES
COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
05.01.2019 PASSED IN SC.NO.173/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE
III ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:47045
CRP No. 231 of 2019
HC-KAR
BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF
MONEY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Sri. H.J. Sanghvi, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent.
2. Plaintiff is the revision petitioner, challenging the validity of the Order dated 05.01.2019 passed in S.C.No.173/2013 on the file of the III Additional Judge, Small Cause Court, Bangalore, SCCH-18.
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:
3.1 A suit for recovery of advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was filed by the petitioner contending that he has vacated the suit property on 09.12.2012 and he -3- NC: 2025:KHC:47045 CRP No. 231 of 2019 HC-KAR was in occupation of the same from 02.10.2011 on rental basis at the rate of Rs.9,000/- per month at the first instance and after 1 year Rs.9,450/-.
4. The defendant entered appearance and denied the plaint averments and contended that the suit property was not kept in tidy condition and therefore he had to incur expenses for whitewash of the premises after the petitioner vacated the premises and she vacated on 09.12.2012 and for the month of November and December, he was in due towards the arrears of rent and therefore sought for not only dismissal of the suit but also award the counter claim towards the whitewash and colour wash expenses.
5. Suit on contest, came to be dismissed. So also the counter claim was rejected. Landlord did not choose to appeal against the rejection of the claim whereas petitioner being the plaintiff has filed the present revision on the following grounds:-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:47045 CRP No. 231 of 2019 HC-KAR The Judgement & Decree in question is frivolous, vexatious and the same is liable to be set-aside;
The Court below failed to appreciate the Evidence and the Documents available on record in accordance with law;
The Trial Court below totally failed to note that, the alleged Agreement furnished was not taken on record;
Despite the same, the Trial Court proceeded to pass Judgement based on the contents of the said Agreement i.e. Ex.D-1.;
The Trial Court grossly failed appreciate the Document furnished and marked at Ex.P-1 to P-3;
The Court below also failed to appreciate that the Petitioner had discharged all the duties and liabilities till the date of vacating the premises in question;
The Trial Court failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances in accordance with law in toto;
Even otherwise, the Suit of the Petitioner ought to have been Decreed as prayed for viewed from any angle;
The Petitioner reserves many other contentions to be canvassed at the time of Final Hearing:-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:47045 CRP No. 231 of 2019 HC-KAR The Petitioner has not filed any other proceeding/s either on the file of the Hon'ble Court or elsewhere based on the facts pleaded herein;
The Revision is filed accompanied with Limitation Application;
The Claim made is Rs. 25,3345/-. The Suit is valued accordingly for the purpose of Court Fee & Jurisdiction. Hence, Fixed Court of Rs.20/- Is herewith furnished as contemplated under Sch. II Art.11(q)(iii) of K.C.F. & S.V. Act 1958.
6. Sri. H.J. Sanghvi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that when the Trial Judge has rejected the counter claim, at least for the whitewash charges and remaining portion of the rent for the December 2012 was to be decreed out of the security deposit and sought for allowing the revision petition to that extent.
7. None appears for the respondent.-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:47045 CRP No. 231 of 2019 HC-KAR
8. Having heard the arguments of the counsel for petitioner, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
9. On such perusal of the material on record, the learned Trial Judge Taking note of the material evidence on record in paragraphs No.15 to 19 has held as under
and dismissed the suit:
"15. While close scrutiny of the entire oral and documentary evidence, ther is no dispute in respect to rental agreement between the parties, the defendant was owner, plaintiff was tenant. The defendant has deposed that, rental agreement was written and same is marked as Ex-D-1. Same is denied by plaintiff. He contended rental deed was not executed. it is only an oral agreement. While perusing the facts, lease period is more than 11 months. In present case, defendant letting out premises in question to plaintiff for residential use. He relied clause 5 and 6 of the lease deed, it is not comes under collateral purpose. Use of unregistered document to prove an important clause thereof would not be a use for collateral purpose, Ex-D-1 alleged agreement of rent, a document required to be registered it was not registered, is not admissible in evidence U/s.49(c) of Registration Act. Thus, in view of Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of 2008 (SCC) 564 in case of K.B.Saha and sons (P) -7- NC: 2025:KHC:47045 CRP No. 231 of 2019 HC-KAR Ltd., Vs. Development Ltd., While deciding question of admissibility of the document, the Hon'ble apex court has discussed meaning of collateral purpose. In view of the above said Judgment, Ex-D-1-rental agreement had no value under law. Thus, the learned counsel for defendant has filed application and sought to refer the document for the purpose of assessing signature of plaintiff on Ex-D-1. Even though, the said document bears the signature of plaintiff, it had no value under law. Thus, application filed by plaintiff U/s.45 of the Indian Evidence Act is rejected.
16. Further admittedly the plaintiff has vacated the premises in question on 9-12-2012. Further there is no evidence of plaintiff he made repairs and white wash to the premises. If any person intended to vacate the premises, he must give notice to the owner prior to a months. Otherwise, it would cause hurdle to the owner of the premises.
17. Under these circumstances, the defendant ha deducted a sum of Rs.37.800/- towards rent and electricity charges from the advance amount paid by plaintiff and paid the balance amount of Rs.63,000/-. Further some days rent is necessary for deduction from the advance amount, in the interest of justice, because in general owners have relied their livelihood on the basis of rent of the premises. In case tenant vacated the premises without sufficient prior intimation to the owner, it would cause hardship to the owner. Even though there is no agreement between the parties, in my opinion, impliedly he has to pay rent for some days depending upon the -8- NC: 2025:KHC:47045 CRP No. 231 of 2019 HC-KAR facts and premises. Admittedly rent was Rs.9,450/-p.m. and for 2 months rent it comes to Rs.18,900/-. As per plaintiff, he has not paid rent of November and December, he vacated the house on 9-12-2012, he is liable to pay rent of December also, because premises is not a lodge to deduct only 9 days rent and Rs.18,900/- should be deducted from Rs.25,345/-, then it comes to Rs.6,445/-.
18. Further while perusing the evidence of parties, the plaintiff has not produced any documents to shows that he has got repaired and white wash was done to the premises. It is customary to make white wash at the time of vacating the premises. Further Rs.6,445/- was necessary towards painting and other minor repair work. Thus, defendant is not liable to pay any amount as stated in the plaint.
19. Further the defendant has sought Rs.35,000/- as expenses incurred by painting and other repair work of the premises. In this regard, she has produced Ex-D-3 to
5. While perusing the said records, it reveals that, defendant has purchased the items for painting and other repair work. But he has not examined the person who issued the said tax invoices or any documents to show the repair and painting done to the premises. Further the defendant in his written statement contended that, he is ready to pay court fee and he has taken counter claim. However, on perusal of the records, it reveals that, the defendant has not paid the court fee and he was not assessed the valuation of the suit amount. There is no -9- NC: 2025:KHC:47045 CRP No. 231 of 2019 HC-KAR valuation slip and further more she was not mentioned any cause of action for taking counter claim."
10. On close consideration of the material on record in the light of the contentions sought on behalf of the petitioner, for the month of November and December admittedly no rents were paid which was at the rate of Rs.9,450/- per month and therefore sum of Rs.18,900/- was deducted from the suit claim. Towards the arrears of rent. Sum of Rs.37,800/- was deducted towards the electricity charges.
11. Advance amount as per the notice is Rs.25,345/- out of which, sum of Rs.18,900/- came to be deducted therefore the remaining amount is only to the tune of Rs.6,445/-.
12. Insofar as the said amount of Rs.6,445/-, learned Trial Judge has stated that it is spent towards the whitewash charges. When the Learned trial Judge has
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47045 CRP No. 231 of 2019 HC-KAR rejected the counter claim towards the whitewash charges by the defendant, necessarily said sum of Rs.6,445/- was to be decreed.
13. To that extent, the suit should succeed.
14. Accordingly, following Order:
ORDER
(i) Civil Revision Petition is allowed in part.
(ii) Plaintiff's suit is decreed in a sum of Rs.6,445/-
with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till recovery.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC CT-SG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38