Disposed

The Tamilnadu Handloom Weavers Co. Operative Society Ltd. v. Hotel Roopa

Karnataka HC4 Oct 2021RSA/680/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a second appeal regarding eviction for non-renewal of tenancy. The court rejected the appellant's claim for a quota and upheld the termination of tenancy under the Transfer of Property Act. While rejecting the demanded market rent, the High Court granted a six-month extension to vacate upon payment of Rs. 1 lakh/month, along with arrears. No further time will be granted

What did the court decide?

Appellant granted six months time to vacate (until 30.03.2022) subject to paying Rs. 1 lakh rent per month and clearing arrears of Rs. 10,000 per month from the date of suit, with liberty to evict for

The Tamilnadu Handloom Weavers Co. Operative Society… — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶5

R.S.A.NO.680/2021 (POS)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE TAMILNADU HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 350, PANTHEON ROAD, EGMORE, CHENNAI-8 REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER CO-OPTEX REGIONAL OFFICER 138, GOVINDAPPA ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560004 PRESENTLY I.E., MR.A.GOPAL S/O T.S.ARUNACHALAM AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.

¶8

… APPELLANT

¶9

[BY SRI K.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE]

¶10

AND:

¶11

HOTEL ROOPA A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BALMATTA ROAD MANGALURU-57 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR.VINAYACHANDRA D.SUVARNA S/O LATE DAMODARA R.SUVARNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT ‘VAISHNAVI’, SHIVABHAG, KADRI, MANGALURU-2.

¶12

… RESPONDENT

¶13

[BY SRI P.P.HEGDE. ADVOCATE FOR C/R]

¶14

¶15

THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.05.2021 PASSED IN RA.NO.2/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, D.K.MANGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.12.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.121/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANGALURU.

¶16

THIS R.S.A. COMING ON FOR ADDMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

When this matter was listed for admission on 01.10.2021, heard the matter in part. Learned counsel for the appellant sought time to submit regarding payment of enhanced rent stating that the Regional Manager is having power only to give an undertaking for enhanced rent upto Rs.80,000/- per month and not more than that and he would submit today regarding the quantum of enhancement of rent, in order to vacate the premises with the enhanced rate of rent and after reasonable time.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the premises in which the appellant is running the business would fetch a rent of Rs.2 lakhs per month and the appellant herein is running a Co-operative Society in the name and style the Tamilnadu Handloom Weavers Co-operative

¶20

¶21

Society Limited and paying the rent of only Rs.30,000/- per month.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would also submit that the Trial Court, after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, ordered to pay the enhanced rent of Rs.40,000/- per month and the enhanced rent of Rs.40,000/- per month is also not paid and the appellant is paying only the rent of Rs.30,000/- per month. The counsel also would submit that the son of the plaintiff is also a M.B.A. graduate and he intends to do business in the premises.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant on the previous date of occasion, agreed to pay the rent of Rs.80,000/per month and sought two years time to quit and vacate the premises. However, this Court suggested to pay the rent of Rs.1,25,000/- per month and vacate the premises within a period of one year. Today, the counsel would submit that the appellant is ready to pay an amount of Rs.85,000/- per month as rent.

¶24

¶25

Having considered the material on record, it is not in dispute that the respondent had approached the Trial Court in 2014 seeking for the relief of ejection of the appellant from the suit schedule premises, since the tenancy was terminated vide notice dated 08.01.2014 prior to filing of the suit. The legal notices dated 12.07.2013 and 12.09.2013 were also served on the appellant herein and postal acknowledgment is also produced before the Trial Court.

¶26

The respondent-plaintiff has examined a witness as P.W.1 and relied upon the documents Exs.P1 to P9. On the other hand, the defendant has examined three witnesses as D.Ws.1 to 3 and relied upon the documents Exs.D1 to D23.

¶27

The Trial Court, having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues, whether the defendant is a tenant of the plaintiff under the agreement of lease dated 24.03.2009 and prior to the institution of suit, the plaintiff issued altogether three notices dated 12.07.2013, 12.09.2013 and 08.01.2014 which are marked as Exs.P2, P5 and P7.

¶28

¶29

The Trial Court, after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, answered issue No.1 as ‘affirmative’ with regard to the termination of tenancy between the plaintiff and defendant in respect of ‘A’ schedule property. The Trial Court answered issue Nos.2 and 3 as ‘partly affirmative’.

¶30

Having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, allowed the suit in O.S.No.121/2014 and directed the appellant herein to vacate the premises within three months from the date of the order. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the appellantdefendant filed the appeal in R.A.No.02/2021 before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court also, on considering the grounds urged in the appeal memo, formulated the points whether the plaintiff has terminated the tenancy of the defendant in respect of schedule ‘A’ premises and whether the appellant has paid the Court fee on the appeal under Section 49 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.

¶31

The First Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, answered both

¶32

¶33

the issues in the ‘affirmative’ and confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.

¶34

The learned counsel appearing for the appellantdefendant in his argument vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in not appreciating oral and documentary evidence placed on record particularly, non consideration of the documents Ex.D13, which is the lease agreement dated 30.11.1981 and also Ex.D10, which is the agreement for lease dated 24.03.2009. The counsel also would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in holding that the quit notice issued under Section 106 of

¶35

the Transfer of Property Act is in accordance with law and also committed an error in not considering the clause mentioned in the agreement for lease marked as Ex.D10. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

¶36

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff would vehemently contend that the

¶37

appellant-defendant is squatting on the property from the year 1981 and the same was renewed in the year 2009 in terms of

¶38

¶39

Ex.D10. The Trial Court, after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record directed the appellantdefendant to pay the rent of Rs.40,000/- per month and the rent of Rs.40,000/- per month was also not paid. It is also submitted that, an attempt was made by the respondent-plaintiff to evict the appellant-defendant during the year 2014 and till date, the respondent-plaintiff could not able to secure the possession.

¶40

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and also on perusal of the material available on record and also the evidence discussed earlier, it is not in dispute that the appellant is in possession in the suit schedule premises from the year 1981 and thereafter, lease was also renewed in the year 2009. The Trial Court also passed an order directing the appellant to pay the rent of Rs.40,000/- per month from the date of suit and admittedly, the same is also not paid. Instead, an appeal in R.A.No.02/2021 is filed before the First Appellate Court and the same was disposed of on 26.05.2021.

¶41

Having considered the grounds urged in the appeal, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for

¶42

¶43

the appellant that both the Courts have committed an error in holding that quit notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is in accordance with law, when there is a renewal clause in the documents at Exs.D10 and D13. The renewal clause can be invoked only on understanding between the parties and not bound to renew at the instance of tenant only. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that, both the Courts have committed an error in not considering the clause mentioned at Exs.D10. The said contention also cannot be accepted. The material discloses that, before filing the suit, the respondent had given three notices to the appellant herein and inspite of notices being given to quit and vacate the premises, the appellant has not vacated the premises. When the appellant has also not complied with the order of the Trial Court in paying the rent of Rs.40,000/- per month as directed, the question of extending the time to quit and vacate the premises does not arise. However, taking into note of the fact that the appellant is running a Co-operative Society in the name and style the Tamilnadu Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Limited and when the appellant is also seeking time to quit and vacate the premises, the contention of

¶44

¶45

the respondent that it is appropriate to direct the appellant to pay the rent of Rs.2 lakhs per month, if decide to give more time, as the same is the rent that would be fetched in the place at Balmatta Road, Mangalore also cannot be accepted.

¶46

Taking into consideration the fact that there is no merit in the appeal and also since the appellant is running a Cooperative Society, it is appropriate to grant time of six months i.e., up to 30.03.2022 to quit and vacate the premises, subject to payment of rent of Rs.1 lakh per month to the respondentplaintiff without committing any single default. If the appellantdefendant commit any default in payment of rent, the respondent-plaintiff is at liberty to evict the appellant-defendant from the premises forthwith. It is also noticed that the Trial Court had ordered the appellant-defendant to pay the rent of Rs.40,000/- per month from the date of suit and the same has not been paid by the appellant-defendant. Hence, the appellantdefendant is directed to pay the difference amount of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of suit to till date to the respondent-plaintiff within one month from today.

¶47

¶48

The appellant is also directed to file an affidavit before this Court within one week undertaking that the difference amount of rent of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of suit to till date will be paid within one month and also continuously pay the rent of Rs.1 lakh per month from 01.10.2021 to 30.03.2022 without committing any default. If the appellant fails to pay the difference amount of Rs.10,000/per month and the rent of Rs.1 lakh per month from 01.10.2021, the respondent-plaintiff is at liberty to evict the appellantdefendant from the premises, in terms of the decree. It is made clear that, no further time would be granted after 30.03.2022 to quit and handover the vacant premises.

¶49

With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

The Tamilnadu Handloom Weavers Co. Operative Society Ltd. v. Hotel Roopa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Tamilnadu Handloom Weavers Co. Operative Society Ltd. v. Hotel Roopa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Lakshmamma Vs Nagaraju

S G Shivakumar Vs Smt Sarvamangalamma

Vinod Kumar E Vs E Nagaraj

Smt Usha R Rai Vs Smt Sukahalatha N Alva

Sri Gangaramaiah Vs Smt Chikkamma

Sri M Narayanaswamy Vs Sri P Muniyappa S/O Late Papaiah