Dismissed

M/S Manappuram Group of Companies v. Sri.G. Sathyanarayan

Karnataka HC17 Mar 2023RSA/598/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal against eviction suit judgment, the High Court held that the lower courts were not liable to frame a substantial question of law regarding the interest charge. The appeal was dismissed on merits, finding no error in ordering arrears of rent with interest due to the appellant's default.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the interest and damages order in favor of the respondent was upheld.

M/S Manappuram Group of Companies Vs Sri.G… — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - RSA No. 598 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 598 OF 2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S. MANAPPURAM GROUP OF COMPANIES REGISTERED OFFICE AT MANNAPURAM HOUSE, P.O. VALAPAD, THRISSUR, KERALA-680 567.

¶8

THE BRANCH MANAGER MANAPPURAM GROUP OF COMPANIES, MYSORE BRANCH OFFICE, NO.49, SAMACHAR BUILDING, D. DEVARAJA URS ROAD, MYSORE

¶9

Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

BOTH THE APPELLANTS ARE REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, SRI. PURUSHOTHAMA D.K AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

¶11

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI K.R. POORNA PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI.G. SATHYANARAYAN S/O G.L.SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/AT NO.224, VAIKHARI DEWANS ROAD, CHAMARAJA MOHALLA, MYSORE-570 024.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

¶16

RSA No. 598 of 2019

¶17

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.10.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO.187/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.12.2015 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1780/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSORE.

¶18

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This matter is listed for admission and I have heard the

¶21

learned counsel for the appellants.

¶22

The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of eviction against the appellants-defendants herein is that the suit schedule property is the first floor of the premises bearing No.49, having 400 sq. ft. carpet area, Samachar Building, situated at Devaraja Urs Road, Devaraja Mohalla, Mysuru. The defendants are the tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule premises from 20.06.2006 for a period of three years for a rent of Rs.6,000/- p.m. and have paid advance amount of Rs.75,000/- at the time of inception of the tenancy. The tenancy has come to an end on 20.06.2009. The plaintiff got issued legal notice and terminated the tenancy on 20.10.2009

¶23

¶24

RSA No. 598 of 2019

¶25

requesting the defendants to vacate and handover the suit schedule premises before 20.12.2009 and also demanded Rs.1,000/- per day for illegal occupation. To the said notice, the defendants have given untenable reply and admitted that the tenancy has come to an end on 20.06.2009, inspite of the same, they have not vacated the suit schedule premises. Hence, suit is filed for damages.

¶26

In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendants appeared through their counsel and filed the written statement admitting the lease agreement dated 20.06.2006, the rate of rent and payment of security deposit of Rs.75,000/- and denied the other allegations. It is contended that, in the agreement, there was no specific clause or termination of tenancy and the defendants with a sole intention to evict the defendants, issued notice. It is contended that the plaintiff wanted to increase the rent by 15% but, the defendants without any demand from the plaintiff has been paying enhanced rent of Rs.6,900/- per month from July, 2009 and the plaintiff is receiving the same and the same was in accordance with the oral understanding. As such, there is no question of termination of tenancy.

¶27

¶28

RSA No. 598 of 2019

¶29

Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the issues whether the plaintiff proves that he has validly terminated the lease, whether the plaintiff proves that defendants are liable to vacate and handover the vacant possession of suit schedule property, whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for the damages of Rs.54,000/- with interest at 18% per annum, whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are liable to pay future damage of Rs.1,000/per day for illegal occupation till delivery of possession. In view of the defence of the defendants, the Trial Court also framed issue with regard to whether the defendants prove that though tenancy is not continued after stipulated period of lease, the tenancy subsists and relationship of landlord and tenant continues.

¶30

The Trial Court, having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, answered the issues as ‘affirmative’, in coming to the conclusion that, once the tenancy is terminated, the very contention of the defendants that tenancy subsists and relationship of landlord and tenancy continue is answered as negative and ordered to pay the

¶31

¶32

RSA No. 598 of 2019

¶33

rent at the rate of Rs.6,900/- per month and calculated the same as damages to the tune of Rs.4,97,720/- and ordered to pay the interest at 18% per annum.

¶34

Being aggrieved the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal was filed before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record formulated the point that whether the Trial Court was justified in directing the appellant to pay the damages for the period from 10.10.2012 till 25.07.2015. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of material available on record allowed the appeal in part and so far as it pertains to ordering for damages at Rs.6,900/- per month for the period from 10.10.2012 to 25.07.2015 is set aside. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, the present appeal is filed questioning the judgment and decree of both the Courts.

¶35

The counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that allowing of interest at 18% per

¶36

¶37

RSA No. 598 of 2019

¶38

annum is unjust and illegal and also further contend that the appellants are voluntarily ready to pay the rent at enhanced rent of Rs.6,900/- after June 2009 however, the respondent has deliberately refused to accept the rent only in order to make the ground for eviction of the appellants herein. The Trial Court has rightly appreciated that the respondent herein has refused to accept the keys submitted with a memo dated 10.10.2012 and also directing to pay the interest at 18% per annum by both the Courts is not sustainable. The counsel vehemently contend that this Court has to frame the substantial question of law with regard that ordering of interest at 18% per annum on the damages is erroneous and hence, this Court has to admit the appeal and frame the substantial question of law.

¶39

Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, it discloses that it is not in dispute that the appellants are the tenants of the respondent and it is also not in dispute that earlier

¶40

¶41

RSA No. 598 of 2019

¶42

there was an agreement for a period of three years and on

¶43

expiry of three years, notice was issued is also not in dispute. When the rents were not paid, the suit was filed before the Trial Court and the appellants also not disputed the fact that the rent was enhanced to Rs.6,900/- per month and also not deposited the rent before the Trial Court. The suit was filed in the year 2009 and the same was disposed off on 17.12.2015 and thereafter an appeal was filed in the year 2018 and the same was also disposed off on 27.10.2018. The First Appellate Court also considering the material available on record formulated the point that whether the respondent/owner is entitled for the rent for a period of 2012 to 2015 and having taken note that when the key was offered, owner has not taken the keys and possession from the defendants/appellants hence, reversed the finding of the Trial Court and made it clear in the appeal that the respondent/owner is entitled for the rent only for the earlier period and not entitled for the rent at the rate of Rs.6,900/- per month from 10.10.2012 till 27.10.2018 and set aside the order of the

¶44

¶45

RSA No. 598 of 2019

¶46

Trial Court. When the arrears of rent is also not deposited and not placed any material before the respective Courts having deposited the rent, I do not find any error committed by both the Courts in directing to pay the arrears of rent with the interest at 18% per annum since default has been committed by the appellants. Hence, this Court cannot invoke Section 100 of CPC to admit the appeal and to frame the substantial question of law with regard to the interest part is concerned. Thus, no grounds are made out to admit the appeal and to frame substantial question of law.

¶47

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

The appeal is dismissed.

¶50

In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. if any, does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

ST/SN

M/S Manappuram Group of Companies v. Sri.G. Sathyanarayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Manappuram Group of Companies v. Sri.G. Sathyanarayan

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. Kathayayani L Shetty Vs Smt. Lilly D'Souza

Smt Savithramma Vs Rekha

Suresha Vs Smt. H R Anitha

Rangaswamy Vs Smt Gangamma

Shashikala Vs Smt. Gangalakshmamma

Smt Venkatamma Vs Sri Siddartha Education Society