Dismissed

M/S Ibm Sports Academy v. N Ramamurthy

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2024RFA/299/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular first appeal against a decree for ejectment, arrears of rent, and damages. The High Court Bench rejected the appellant's challenge solely concerning the award of Rs.2,50,000 for structural damages. The Court held the plea was without merit as the appellant failed to cross-examine the respondent on the quantification and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal challenging the grant of Rs.2,50,000 for structural damages is dismissed.

M/S Ibm Sports Academy Vs N Ramamurthy — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:20382-DB RFA No. 299 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶9

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 299 OF 2019 (RES)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

M/S IBM SPORTS ACADEMY, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.437/B, FLAT E, 5^TH CROSS, OPPOSITE HBR BDA COMPLEX, 1^ST STAGE, II BLOCK, HBR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 043. REP. BY ITS PARTNER MR SYED ISMAIL.

¶12

…APPELLANT (BY SRI RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI VIVEK HOLLA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

N RAMAMURTHY, S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA, 556, PILLAMMA ROAD, BEHIND JALVAYU VIHAR, KACHARAKANA HALLI, BANGALORE-560 043.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI MUNIRAJU K, ADVOCATE FOR C/R; SRI D.R. SUNDARESHA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT [VK FILED] [NOC NOT OBTAINED])

¶18

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC 96 R/W.ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.01.2019 PASSED IN OS NO.2056/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:20382-DB RFA No. 299 of 2019

¶20

XLIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT, ARREARS OF RENT, DAMAGES FOR UNAUTHORISED USE AND OCCUPATION, STRUCTURAL DAMAGES ARREARS OF MAINTENANCE CHARGES AND FOR DIRECTION.

¶21

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, V KAMESWAR RAO J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant

¶24

challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.06.2019 passed in O.S.No.2056/2016, whereby, the learned trial Court has decreed the suit filed by the respondent herein by stating in the following manner:

¶25

"The suit is partly decreed, with costs.

¶26

The defendant is ordered to quit, vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to plaintiff, within one month from date of this order 01.01.2019.

¶27

The defendant is liable to pay Rs.8,00,000/-, towards arrears of rent, along with simple interest at the rate of 10%, per annum, from the date of filing of the suit, i.e., from 11.03.2016.

¶28

The defendant is also liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/-, per month, from 01.02.2016, till delivery of vacant possession of suit schedule property to the plaintiff, along with simple interest, at the rate of

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:20382-DB RFA No. 299 of 2019

¶30

10%, per annum, on each of Rs.2,00,000/-, due from the date of due, till payment, from the defendant to the plaintiff.

¶31

The defendant shall also pay Rs.2,50,000/towards structural damages and towards painting charges to the plaintiff and plaintiff shall deduct the same from the security amount of Rs.20,00,000/-, if the defendant fails to pay the same: Damages and painting charges found to be in excess of Rs.2,50,000/-, as on the date of delivery of vacant possession of suit schedule property, by the defendant, to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is also entitled to for the same.

¶32

The Defendant is directed to furnish written particulars of TDS and Service Tax paid by the defendant, to the authorities concerned, in respect of suit schedule property periodically, to the plaintiff.

¶33

The defendant is also liable to pay arrears of maintenance of the parking, common area, lift, generator maintenance, security charges of Rs.2,00,000/- as on date of filing of the suit, to the plaintiff."

¶34

The suit was filed by the respondent for ejectment, arrears of rent, damages for unauthorized use and occupation, structural damages, arrears of maintenance charges and for directions. Suffice to state that the learned trial Court has framed seven issues for its

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:20382-DB RFA No. 299 of 2019

¶36

consideration. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that during the pendency of the present appeal, the appellant has vacated the premises in question at No.4/1, BBMP Khata, PID No.89-4-4/1 situated at Kammanahalli Main Road, St. Thomas Town Post, Bengaluru. This challenge in the appeal is only in respect of grant of Rs.2,50,000/- by the trial Court as structural damages in favour of the respondent. According to him, the respondent has not proved that he has actually incurred the total expenditure of Rs.2,50,000/- for rectification of the structural damages in the premises in question.

¶37

3. The basis for the learned trial Court to come to

¶38

the figure of Rs.2,50,000/-, which is admittedly the prayer sought by the respondent in the suit is the following:

¶39

"28. It is not known when the defendant is going to hand over the vacant possession of suit schedule property. At the time of vacating the suit schedule property only, the repairs and painting are to be carried out. However considering the areas of suit

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:20382-DB RFA No. 299 of 2019

¶42

schedule property and its walls etc., if Rs.2,50,000/-, is granted in that regard, the ends of justice will be met."

¶43

The aforesaid conclusion of the trial Court is on the basis of the breakup given by the respondent inasmuch as Rs.1,00,000/for rectification of the structural damages and Rs.1,50,000/- for painting etc. It is noted by the learned trial Court that the appellant herein did not cross-examine the respondent on the aforesaid quantification of payment for rectification of structural damages. In fact it is noted by the trial Court that DW.1 who appeared on behalf of the appellant has in his cross-examination admitted the condition as existing in the premises in question as well as in the agreement which was exhibited as Ex.D1.

¶44

It was on the above basis, the learned trial

¶45

Court awarded the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- in favour of the respondent. This being the only challenge in this appeal, we are afraid that the plea of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. The appeal to the extent challenged

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:20382-DB RFA No. 299 of 2019

¶48

before us in the oral submission by the learned counsel for

¶49

the appellant being without merit, the same is dismissed.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

NR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

M/S Ibm Sports Academy v. N Ramamurthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Ibm Sports Academy v. N Ramamurthy

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

Sri Devaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

R S Bhaskar Vs Smt. R S Padma

Smt Geetha Bali Vs Sri B Ganesh

M/S Lakshmi Metal Works Vs M/S Arihanta Metal Company

Smt Yamuna Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Manjunath Gupta Vs the Under Secretary