Dismissed

Syed Abdul Rub v. M. Nirmala

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2023RSA/904/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This second appeal challenging a lease termination order was dismissed. The court held that no substantive question of law arose as the appellant failed to adduce any evidence or cross-examine witnesses, leaving the trial courts' findings unchallenged and sustainable.

What did the court decide?

The appeal raised under Section 100 of CPC was dismissed, along with the accompanying interim application.

Syed Abdul Rub Vs M. Nirmala — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:26843 RSA No. 904 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.904 OF 2023 (EJE)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SYED ABDUL RUB AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O ABDUL JAHEER R/AT NO.422, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, 1^ST STAGE, VISHWESHWARANAGARA, MYSURU – 570001

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI B.S.NAGARAJ., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

M. NIRMALA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS W/O LATE VIJAYENDRA KUMAR

¶15

V. MADHUSUDHAN AGED 38 YEARS S/O LATE VIJAY KUMAR

¶16

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.613/1, 2^ND MAIN, GIRIDARSHINI BADAVANE, ALANAHALLI, MYSURU-570001.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI MOHANKRISHNA R.G., ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.03.2023

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:26843 RSA No. 904 of 2023

¶21

¶22

PASSED IN R.A.NO.117/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.04.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.495/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU.

¶23

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

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This matter is listed for admission.

¶26

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶27

appellant.

¶28

The main contention of the appellant’s counsel that Exs.P3 and P4 are created and signature is forged and both the Courts have committed an error in accepting the documents Exs.P3 and P4 and notice of termination and postal acknowledgement and appellant’s counsel also framed the substantive question of law contending that suit is not maintainable in law in the absence of issuance of statutory notice as required under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act and both the Courts below are not justified in giving finding on issue Nos.1 and 2 as affirmative without considering the wrong address on Ex.P3 and forged signature on Ex.P4 and judgment

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:26843 RSA No. 904 of 2023

¶30

¶31

and decree of both the Courts are not sustainable and concurrent finding is erroneous and notice issued has not been served to the defendant and the same is not sufficient to dismiss the suit.

¶32

Having heard the appellant’s counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, particularly the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the appellant has not led any evidence before the Court, even not cross-examine PW1 in spite of the written statement is filed before the Court and with regard to the issuance of notice in paragraph No.25 of the judgment of the Trial Court, it is specifically mentioned that notice was issued and the same was duly served on the defendant and admittedly by paying two months arrears of rent to the second plaintiff, the defendant himself admitted that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant and also in paragraph No.26 of the Trial Court judgment, the Trial Court held that no reasons need to be assigned for termination of lease under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and the same is settled law and also in case of termination of lease under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, no reasons need to be assigned and the same

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:26843 RSA No. 904 of 2023

¶35

is valid termination and even not cross examined PW1 and also not led any evidence to rebut the evidence of the plaintiff and hence the evidence given by PW1 and documents produced by the plaintiff are remained unchallenged.

¶36

The counsel for the appellant would submit that no opportunity was given to cross examine PW1 and on perusal of order of the Trial Court it is very clear that when the case was set down for cross examination, he did not choose to crossexamine the witness PW1 even though written statement was filed and the same is considered in paragraph No.26 of the Trial Court judgment and when the defendant took the defence that an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- was given as security deposit, in order to prove the same, not cross examined the witness and even not led any evidence and his defence remains as defence in the written statement and no material is placed before the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court also on consideration of oral and documentary evidence available before the Court, even finding on re-appreciation of evidence taken note of issuance of notice in paragraph No.44 of the order of the Appellate Court and in paragraph No.48 also given a concurrent finding that notice was issued and tenancy was terminated and

¶37

NC: 2023:KHC:26843 RSA No. 904 of 2023

¶38

¶39

hence defendant is not entitled for any relief and also in paragraph No.49 the Appellate Court taken note of the fact that even the defendant has not come forward to rectify the mistakes occurred before the Trial Court and the appellant continued the very same attitude and the judgment of this Court reported in ILR 2004 KAR 2864 considered in paragraph No.50 and in paragraph No.51 categorically the Appellate Court held that defendant has completely fail to produce any such document before the Court of law and show that suit premises is necessary for its business usage without complying the terms and conditions. The defendant is also directed to pay arrears of rent by vacating the premises and in the absence of any documentary evidence and first of all evidence of PW1 is not rebutted by cross-examining the witness and also not produced any document to substantiate his case and even not led any evidence and defence which was taken by the defendant remains as defence and suit was also filed in the year 2018 and disposed of on 22.4.2021, after three years and hence I do not find any error committed by both the Courts, since there is no material on behalf of the appellant herein to consider the same and there is no substantive

¶40

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:26843 RSA No. 904 of 2023

¶41

question of law to frame the same and the counsel would vehemently contend that there is no proper service of notice and the same also cannot be considered unless the evidence has been led before the Trial Court to substantiate his contention, first of all he has not cross-examined PW1 and also not produced any document and also not rebutted the evidence of PW1 before the Trial Court and hence, I do not find any substantive question of law to frame the same to consider the matter in a second appeal in the absence of any material on record.

¶42

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

¶43

Consequently, IA No.1/2023 filed before this Court is also dismissed.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61

Syed Abdul Rub v. M. Nirmala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Abdul Rub v. M. Nirmala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Prema Vs Sri Rajanna

Muniyamma Vs Narayanappa

Sri S Mohammed Nassuruddin @ Iliyas Vs Smt Noor Jahan

K Mohammed Younus Vs Shazama Sultana

Smt Rathnamma Vs Shri Nagaraja Reddy

Sri Kempegowda Vs Smt Latha