Karnataka High Court
Sri M Vasanth Kumar vs Sri Munikamaiah on 9 October, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:39815
CRP No. 16 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 16 OF 2017 (SC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI M VASANTH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
S/O MUTHURAYAPPA
DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE
NAME AND STYLE OF
M/S MOHAN ENTERPRISES
AS ITS PROPERTY IN
GROUND FLOOR SHOP NO.4,
OF PREMISES NO.1/1,
SRI AYYAPPA COMPLEX
SULTAN PLAYA
Digitally signed
DINNUR MAIN ROAD
by R T NAGAR POST
SHARADAVANI
B BENGALURU - 560 032
Location: High ...PETITIONER
Court of
Karnataka (BY SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY V.K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI MUNIKAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
S/O LATE GANGAPPA,
2. SMT DEVAMMA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
W/O SRI MUNIKAMAIAH,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:39815
CRP No. 16 of 2017
HC-KAR
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.101, 3RD MAIN,
KGE LAYOUT, RMV II STAGE,
BENGALURU - 94
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJESH S.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1
R2 - ABSENT)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF SMALL CAUSE
COURT ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
18.11.2016 PASSED IN S.C. NO.370/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE
XIII ADDL. SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, BENGALURU. DECREEING
THE SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND ETC.
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. Narayana Swamy V.K., learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Tenant is the revision petitioner challenging the decree of ejectment in respect of the following property (hereinafter referred as 'suit property') passed in S.C. No.370/2016 dated 18.11.2016.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:39815 CRP No. 16 of 2017 HC-KAR SUIT PROPERTY Shop no. 4 in ground floor of premises No. 1/1, Sri. Ayyappa complex, Sultanpalya, Dinnur Main Road, R. T. Nagar post, Bangalore-560032 and the demised shop premises measuring about east to west 12 feet and north to south 24 feet excluding walls and the same being bounded on the east by remaining portion of the same premises of plaintiffs and bank, west by private property, north by road, south by private property.
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:
3.1 Petitioner being the landlord of the suit property, terminated the tenancy of the revision petitioner-tenant by issuing the Notice as is contemplated under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, which is marked at Ex.P1.
4. Though notice is duly served, there was no compliance to the callings of notice which necessitated the landlord to file a suit for ejectment which was registered in S.C.No.370/2016.-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:39815 CRP No. 16 of 2017 HC-KAR
5. Before the Trial Court, the respondent entered appearance, filed written statement contending that he is not a tenant but he is a mortgagee and he has paid a sum of Rs.8 Lakhs as mortgage amount.
6. It is also contended that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant and suit filed in O.S.No.25938/2015 for permanent injunction and hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.
7. Learned Trial Judge recorded the evidence of the plaintiff. Plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and placed on record two documents namely copy of the legal notice and postal acknowledgement. As against material evidence placed on record, there was no defence evidence. PW1 is not even cross-examined by the defendant. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:39815 CRP No. 16 of 2017 HC-KAR
8. Under such circumstances, learned Trial Judge considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record rightly passed an Order of ejectment which is impugned in the present revision petition.
9. Sri. V.K. Narayana Swamy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that the Trial Court did not take into consideration the contents of the written statement and wrongly decreed the suit and sought for allowing the revision petition.
10. Counsel for respondents Sri. Rajesh S.V. is absent today.
11. Having heard the arguments of Sri. V.K. Narayana Swamy, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:39815 CRP No. 16 of 2017 HC-KAR
12. On such perusal of the material on record, admittedly legal notice issued by plaintiff before institution of the suit marked at Ex.P1 is not replied by the revision petitioner - tenant. He did not even chose to step into the witness box to advance his case nor cross-examine PW1.
13. Under such circumstances, the statement made on oath by the plaintiff remains unchallenged.
14. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, the decree of ejectment passed by the Trial Court requires no interference that too in the revisional jurisdiction.
15. However, taking note of the fact that the suit schedule premises is a shop wherein the defendant is said to be carrying on real estate business, reasonable time is to be granted for vacating the premises on the condition that an undertaking would be filed to pay the monthly rent as and when it accrues and without driving the landlord to -7- NC: 2025:KHC:39815 CRP No. 16 of 2017 HC-KAR file execution petition voluntarily vacating the premises on or before 31.03.2026.
16. Accordingly, the following :
ORDER
(i) Revision Petition is dismissed.
(ii) However, time is granted till 31.03.2026 to vacate and handover the vacant possession to the plaintiff with driving the plaintiff to file execution petition and to pay the arrears of rent and monthly rent as and when it accrues.
(iii) An undertaking by way of affidavit in this regard to be filed by the revision petitioner within two weeks from today, failing which respondent - landlord can execute the decree.
(iv) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44 CT-SG