Allowed

M/S Prime Label Pvt. Ltd. v. Sri Kantilal Pukhraj Jain

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2024RFA/2168/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiff's suit for ejectment of a defaulting tenant, dismissed by the trial court for want of a written lease agreement, was allowed on appeal. Bank statements showing monthly rent transfers proved the tenancy; decree for possession granted with liberty to execute.

What did the court decide?

Judgment set aside; suit decreed; defendant to vacate within 30 days; arrears of rent adjustable against earnest money; liberty to execute decree.

M/S Prime Label Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri Kantilal Pukhraj Jain — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:41816 RFA No. 2168 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2168 OF 2022 (EJE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S PRIME LABEL PVT LTD REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR RAJESH JAIN ALIS RAJESH MANORATH JAIN R/AT NO B-164 4TH MAIN 2ND STAGE PEENYA

¶8

BANGALORE 560058 .. APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. IRSHAD AHMED K.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI KANTILAL PUKHRAJ JAIN AGED 67 YEARS S/O SRI PUKHAJ DHOKA NO B-1, 5TH FLOOR NO 934/59 NAGARATHPET MAIN ROAD NAGARATHPET BANGALORE 560002 .. RESPONDENT

¶13

(VIDE ORDER DATED 25.09.2024, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:41816 RFA No. 2168 of 2022

¶15

RFA FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.07.2022 PASSED IN OS No.5827/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT

¶16

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶17

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶19

Though this appeal came up for admission, heard for

¶20

final hearing as the notice to respondent is served absent.

¶21

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial court.

¶22

This appeal is filed by the appellant – plaintiff under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the judgment, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for ejectment, in O.S.No.5827/2021 dated 30.07.2022 before the XXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:41816 RFA No. 2168 of 2022

¶24

The case of the plaintiff before the trial court is that he is the owner of the suit schedule premises - Apartment bearing No. A, 5^th Floor, at property No.934, situated at Dharmaswamy Temple Road – Nagarthpet main road, Bangalore and the plaintiff let out the premises to the defendant from 01.04.2019 at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per month. The defendant was paying the rent regularly. Thereafter, after some time, he has neither paid the rent nor vacated the premises, he locked the door and was not coming to the schedule premises and he is absconding. Hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice, which is also affixed on the door as well as the business area. But he has not replied and also not vacated the premises. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit. Notice was served on the defendant by way of affixture and the trial court has held the notice as sufficient and the defendant was placed ex-parte.

¶25

To prove the case, the plaintiff himself was examined as PW1 and got marked 9 documents. There is

¶26

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:41816 RFA No. 2168 of 2022

¶27

no cross-examination and no evidence from the side of the defendant. After hearing the arguments, the trial court formulated the point for consideration, as to,

¶28

“whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought for?”

¶29

The trial court answered the point in the negative and dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court.

¶30

The learned counsel for the appellant – plaintiff seriously contended that the trial court dismissed the suit only on the ground that there is no lease agreement. The trial court committed an error in not accepting Ex.P5 – bank statement, where the rents were paid continuously by the defendant through bank transfer. The defendant was also running a gold business called as ‘Alankar Gold’ and the amounts of Rs.18,000/- per month were transferred by way of online transfer. The said document is not properly considered and appreciated by the trial court. The plaintiff is the owner and the defendant is the

¶31

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:41816 RFA No. 2168 of 2022

¶32

tenant. A case is made out by the plaintiff before the trial court to prove his ownership and tenancy. But the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence on record and dismissed the suit. Hence, prayed for setting aside the same.

¶33

After hearing the arguments, the points that arises

¶34

for consideration are,

¶35

(i) Whether the plaintiff proved that he is the owner and the defendant is the tenant of the suit schedule premises?

¶36

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of ejectment in the suit?

¶37

(iii) What order?

¶38

On perusal of the record, especially Ex.P1 reveals that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule premises. Ex.P2 is the tax paid receipt. Ex.P3 is the khata extract, which reveals that he is the owner of the suit schedule premises. Ex.P4 is the letter given by the plaintiff

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:41816 RFA No. 2168 of 2022

¶40

to the Manager of the State Bank of India, Peenya Industrial Estate Branch, for furnishing the bank statement. Ex.P5 is the bank statement which reveals that the plaintiff is having account at State Bank of India, Peenya Industrial Estate Branch, Bengaluru. The statement reveals that the plaintiff received a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from the defendant as earnest money/ advance to the premises and every month he was paying a rent of Rs.18,000/- to the plaintiff. It is being transferred from the account of ‘Alankar Gold’, to which the defendant is said to be the proprietor. One of the entries in the bank statement reveals that once, the defendant has paid Rs.54,000/- towards arrears of rent for three months. Finally, the rent was paid on 12^th December 2020 and thereafter there is no transfer of any rent from the defendant to the plaintiff. It clearly reveals that the defendant was staying in the suit schedule premises without paying the rent to the plaintiff only on oral agreement. Ex.P6 is the legal notice issued to the defendant for vacating the suit schedule premises. Ex.P7

¶41

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:41816 RFA No. 2168 of 2022

¶42

is the postal receipt, Ex.P8 is the unserved postal envelope and Ex.P9 is the tax paid receipt. These documents were not considered by the trial court. Considering the same, there is no reason for the trial court to reject the claim of the plaintiff to show that he is the owner and the defendant was the tenant. Though the defendant has not appeared and contested the matter, the trial court ought to have considered the evidence on record and as per the evidence of PW1, who has categorically stated that he is the owner and the defendant was the tenant. The suit is dismissed merely because there is no lease agreement produced by the plaintiff. Even otherwise, the court can presume that the lease agreement is always with the tenant and when he is ex-parte, the question of expecting the lease agreement is not correct. The defendant was ex-parte and not contested the matter before the trial court. Such being the case, the plaintiff made out a case that the defendant is a tenant and the property was leased out to the defendant on 01.04.2019 and thereafter he was a defaulter and neither paid the rent nor vacated the

¶43

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:41816 RFA No. 2168 of 2022

¶44

premises after receiving notice. Therefore, it is a fit case

¶45

for allowing the appeal.

¶46

Since the defendant has not vacated the premises,

¶47

the court can execute the decree and vacate the premises. The trial court without properly appreciating the evidence on record dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, which called

¶48

for interference and liable to be set aside.

¶49

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

(i) The appeal is allowed.

¶52

(ii) The judgment passed by the trial court is set aside.

¶53

(iii) The suit of the plaintiff is decreed and the defendant is directed to quit and vacate the schedule premises within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶54

(iv) It is stated that the defendant locked the house and absconding. Therefore, the appellant is at liberty to file execution petition and execute the decree of this Court.

¶55

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:41816 RFA No. 2168 of 2022

¶56

(v) The plaintiff is also entitled to arrears of rent and it can be adjusted with the earnest money or advance money.

¶57

(vi) Office to draw the decree accordingly.

¶58

Sd/(K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE

¶59

¶60

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

M/S Prime Label Pvt. Ltd. v. Sri Kantilal Pukhraj Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Prime Label Pvt. Ltd. v. Sri Kantilal Pukhraj Jain

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

Kum Prakruthi J Vs Smt Lakshmi Devi

Purushottham Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Abdul Razak Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Narahari @ Benaka Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Narayanaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Imran @ Twist Imran Vs the State of Karnataka