Disposed

Mr Aashir P M R v. Sri Syed Musadiq

Karnataka HC10 Feb 2023CRP/342/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Act, the court disposed of the matter by upholding the trial court's decree regarding arrears of rent. The petitioner was directed to pay the respondent Rs.3,66,450/- representing the recovered rent after adjusting the advance received.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay Rs.3,66,450/- to the respondent within three months; interest at 6% p.a. if default occurs.

Mr Aashir P M R Vs Sri Syed Musadiq — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - CRP No. 342 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 342 OF 2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. AASHIR P.M.R., S/O ABOO HAJI, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, CARRYING ON BUSINESS AT SHOP NO.711, 1^ST CROSS, R.K.HEGDE NAGAR, ARABIC COLLEGE POST, BENGALURU – 560 045. RESIDING AT SY.NO.47/2 & 47/3, SREERAMAPURA MAIN ROAD, NEAR TATA INSTITUTE, AMRUTHAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 092.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

(BY SRI. UMA MAHESHWARI C., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.PRAVEEN KUMAR K N., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI. SYED MUSADIQ, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O LATE SYED MAQUBULL, RESIDING AT NO.711, 1^ST CROSS, R.K.HEGDE NAGAR, ARABIC COLLEGE POST, BENGALURU – 560 045.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. JANARDHANA G., ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

¶15

¶16

CRP No. 342 of 2019

¶17

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.18 OF SMALL CAUSES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.04.2019 PASSED IN SC.NO.942/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BENGALURU PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTION.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Revision Petition under Section 18 of the Small Causes Act, is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2019 passed by the XXII Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru in S.C.No.942/2015 decreeing the suit, and directing the petitioner/defendant to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule shop premises to the plaintiff within a period of three months with arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.6,300/- per month from November-2011 till June-2012, and at the rate of Rs.6,500/- per month from July-2012, till the delivery of the suit schedule shop premise to the plaintiff.

¶21

In light of the impugned decree, it is submitted that the respondent/plaintiff admited delivery of possession of the shop premises to the landlord on 30.10.2019. The only issue that is involved in this petition is with regard to the, arrears of rent payable by the petitioner to the respondent at the rate of

¶22

¶23

CRP No. 342 of 2019

¶24

Rs.6,500/- per month from July-2012 till delivery of the suit schedule premises to the respondent/plaintiff.

¶25

The trial Court recorded the finding that the rent receipts at Exs.D.6 to D.9 are fabricated documents and accordingly, held that the agreed rate of rent was Rs.6,300 per month from November-2011.

¶26

The petitioner/defendant having disputed that Exs.D.6 to D.9 have been written by the same person and signed by the same persons, this Court vide order dated 04.10.2021 referred the rent receipts at Exs.D.6 to D.9 to the Karnataka State Forensic Science Laboratory, Madiwala, Bengaluru - 560 068.

¶27

In light of the order passed by this Court, the Assistant Director of Karnataka State Forensic Science Laboratory, has submitted the report. A perusal of the report indicates that, there is interpolation of the rent receipts produced by the petitioner/defendant at Exs.D.6 to D.8 interpolated, and the trial Court has rightly recorded the finding that the agreed rate of rent was Rs.6,500/- per month from November-2012. The FSL report further indicates that Ex.D.9

¶28

¶29

CRP No. 342 of 2019

¶30

which is rent receipt dated 02.05.2015 is said to have been issued by the plaintiff and there is no altercation in Ex.D9. Though the defendant has produced Ex.D.9 to substantiate his claim that, the defendant had paid arrears of the rent till 02.05.2015, however, he has not produced any rent receipts for the period 2012-2013 as well as for the period October 2014 till May-2014.

¶31

Petitioner has not filed objection to the report submitted by the Karnataka State Forensic Science Laboratory. Hence, the report submitted by the FSL has to be accepted, and contention of the petitioner that, Exs.D.6 to D.8 have been written by the same person is not acceptable, and the trial Court has rightly held that the figures in the said rent receipts have been interpolated.

¶32

The trial Court taking into consideration the evidence on record, has rightly held that the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the rent at Rs.6,300/- per month from November-2011 till June-2012, and at the rate of Rs.6500/- per month from July-2012, till the delivery of the suit schedule premises.

¶33

¶34

CRP No. 342 of 2019

¶35

I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.

¶36

The respondent-Plaintiff has filed a memo of calculation stating that after deducting Rs.3,00,000/- which was received towards advance by the defendant, the defendant is due a sum Rs.3,66,450/- towards the arrears of the rent without interest.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant on instructions submits that, it would suffice if Rs.3,66,450/- is paid by the petitioner-defendant without interest.

¶38

In view of the same, the petitioner-defendant is hereby directed to pay Rs.3,66,450/- to the respondent-plaintiff herein within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Failing which, the respondentdefendant is entitled for interest at the rate of 6% per annum from thereafter. Accordingly, petition is disposed of.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Mr Aashir P M R v. Sri Syed Musadiq

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Aashir P M R v. Sri Syed Musadiq

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G Pratap Kumar Vs the State by Halasurgate Police

M/S Sai Srushti Estates Vs Smt Rathnamma

Sri G v Sathish Reddy Vs Sri P K Somashekara Reddy

Sri Venkappareddy Vs Santhosha T v

The Citizen House Mortgage and Housing Co. Operative Society Limited Vs J Lokanath Gowda

Bethany Education Board Vs Victoria Swamy