Rent petitioner appealed the trial court decreeing a suit for recovery of rents and mesne profits against a tenant. The High Court examined evidence and, rejecting the appeal, dismissed the revision as the tenant failed to prove rent payments or inability to use the property.
Appeal dismissed. No Costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
R.F.A No1797/2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. P.S. DINESH KUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
R.F.A NO. 1797 OF 2014 (RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S. BHARTI INFRATEL LTD COMPANY INCORPORATE UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 REGISTERED OFFICE AT H-5/12 MEHRULLI ROAD NEW DELHI-110 030 BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.55 ‘DIVYASHREE CHAMBERS’ BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560 029 BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI. M.S. SHRINATH …APPELLANT
(BY SHRI. B.J. MAHESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
R.F.A No1797/2014
2
RESPONDENT NO.1 IS WIFE AND 2 AND 3 ARE CHILDREN OF LATE C. MOHAMMAD KUNHI
ALL ARE RESIDING AT MUNEER MANZIL PAKIYARA, BEKAL POST PALLIKERE, HOSADURGA TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT KERALA STATE-671 322
REP. BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI. SUFAIL A.K S/O ABDULLA P.M AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/A KANNAMKULAM HOUSE BEKAL POST, PALLIKERE II VILLAGE HOSADURGA TALUK KASARGOD DISTRICT KERALA STATE-671 322
AS PER POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BEFOR SRI. K.V. JAYARAJ NOTARY, KASARAGOD DISTRICT BEARING NOTARIAL REGN NO.587/2008 DT.26.09.2008 …RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NEERAJA KARANTH, ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. K. SHRIHARI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.08.2014 PASSED IN O.S. No.24/2011 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANGALORE, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY MONEY.
THIS RFA, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 23.01.2024 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE , PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
R.F.A No1797/2014
3
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated August 14, 2014 in O.S. No. 24/2011 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mangalore, decreeing the suit for recovery of money.
referred as per their status before the Trial Court.
appellant/defendant and Smt. Neeraja Karanth learned Advocate for the respondents/plaintiffs.
the suit property. Smt. Khadeeja and her late husband had purchased the suit property from M/s Whitex Constructions Pvt.Ltd vide sale deed dated 19.02.1998. Prior to the sale deed, M/s Whitex Constructions Pvt.Ltd had leased the suit property to defendant. After plaintiffs acquired ownership, a separate lease agreement dated 16.09.1997 was entered into between plaintiffs and defendant. Defendant did not
R.F.A No1797/2014
4
pay rents from September 2007. Plaintiffs got issued notices for recovery of money and termination of lease. Inspite of issuance of notices, defendant has not paid the arrears nor vacated the premises. Hence, plaintiffs have brought the instant suit.
Based on the pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:
2. Whether plaintiffs are entitle to receive Rs.5,40,000/with interest at 12% p.a. towards mesne profits with respect of suit property from July 2010 to December 2010?
R.F.A No1797/2014
5
3. Whether plaintiffs are entitle to receive future mesne profits from January 2011 at Rs.3000/- per day with respect to suit property?
4. Whether defendant proves that payment of rent for the period 2007 to June 2011 with respect to suit property to plaintiffs?
5. Whether defendant proves that during 2007 in view of dispute between plaintiffs and Mr. Fakruddin Kunil the tower became non-operative as pleaded in para 5 of written statement?
6. What order or Decree?”
examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked Exs. P1 to P9. Defendant No.1 was examined as D.W.1 and no documents marked. Answering issue Nos. 1 in the affirmative, issues no. 2 and 3 partly in the affirmative and issues Nos.4 and 5 in the negative, the Trial Court has decreed the suit.
appeal, submitted that:
R.F.A No1797/2014
6
the learned Trial Judge has erred in not appreciating that defendant had paid rents till June 2011.
support of the impugned judgment and decree.
and perused the records.
record the point that arises for consideration is:
“w hether the judgment and decree passed by
the Trial Court calls for interference?”
R.F.A No1797/2014
7
R.F.A No1797/2014
8
not merit consideration and accordingly, it is dismissed.
No Costs.
Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/JUDGE
SPS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court calling for interference in a suit for recovery of money and mesne profits?
M/S. BHARTI INFRATEL LTD
KHADEEJA
MUNEER C.M
MANSOOR C.M
P.S. DINESH KUMAR
T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court