Dismissed¶74

Mr P Gopal v. Mr P Vasu

Karnataka HC3 Nov 2025CRP/102/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NC: 2025:KHC:44101 | Karnataka HC, CRP No. 102 of 2020 (SC), decided 03.11.2025 by V Srishananda J | Section 115 CPC revision DISMISSED | Challenge to SC.No.15149/2019 (XVII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, 04.01.2020) ejectment decree upheld | Arrears of rent Rs.1,05,000/- and mesne profits Rs.5,000/- p.m. sustained | Rs.2,00,000/- security-deposit plea unproved (DW1 admission, no document) | Rent Rs.5,000/- p.m. paid May-July 2017 then stopped | Premises vacated 11.03.2020 via delivery warrant | Brothers' landlord-tenant dispute.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the record it is not in dispute that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. ¶59

Mr P Gopal Vs Mr P Vasu — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶74

Issue for consideration

Whether the defendant's alleged payment of Rs.2,00,000/- as security deposit to the plaintiff meant that no arrears of rent of Rs.1,05,000/- were due and no mesne profits at Rs.5,000/- per month were payable. +1 more

¶54

Court's answer

The defendant's contention of having paid Rs.2,00,000/- as security deposit is unsubstantiated - no document was placed on record, and DW1 admitted in cross-examination that there is no document showing such payment; hence the plea that no arrears were due fails.

¶65

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of the record it is not in dispute that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property.

¶59

Key takeaways

In cross-examination the defendant specifically admitted that he paid rent at the rate of Rs.5,000/- for a period of three months, corroborating the plaintiff's position that rent was paid for May-July 2017 and then abruptly stopped.ratio¶60
Decreeing of the suit by the trial Court ordering arrears of rent of Rs.1,05,000/- and mesne profit at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month is just and proper and requires no further interference in the revision.ratio¶68

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ORAL ORDER, High Court of Karnataka (single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice V Srishananda), 03.11.2025: Civil Revision Petition No.102 of 2020 (SC) under Section 115 CPC filed by the defendant, Mr. P. Gopal, against the judgment and decree dated 04.01.2020 of the XVII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, in SC.No.15149/2019, which partly decreed the ejectment suit of his brother Mr. P. Vasu with arrears of rent of Rs.1,05,000/- and mesne profits at Rs.5,000/- per month. After the defendant vacated the premises on 11.03.2020 pursuant to a delivery warrant issued by the Executing Court, the challenge stood confined to the monetary decrees. His contention that a Rs.2,00,000/- security deposit absorbed the arrears failed: no document substantiated it, and DW1 admitted in cross-examination that no document showed the deposit, while also admitting payment of rent at Rs.5,000/- for three months (May-July 2017) before abruptly stopping. Holding the trial court's decree for arrears of rent and mesne profits just and proper and requiring no interference, the High Court dismissed the revision petition as merit-less. No precedent was cited or relied upon; no separate or dissenting opinion.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:44101 CRP No. 102 of 2020

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.102 OF 2020 (SC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. P. GOPAL, S/O PARASURAM SHETTIAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.276, (PORTION IN 1ST FLOOR) BEHIND SRINIVAS THEATRE, 2ND MAIN, GOWDANAPALYA, UTTARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 061.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. RAVI PRAKASH V., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

MR. P. VASU, S/O. PARASURAM SHETTIAR, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDNG AT NO.20, FLAT NO.101, S.V.P. RESIDENCY, GROUND FLOOR, RANGAPPA LANE, CHIKKAMAVALLI, BANGALORE-560 004.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. B.N. KRISHNAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.01.2020 PASSED IN SC.NO.15149/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDL.JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU PARTLY

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:44101 CRP No. 102 of 2020

¶17

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT AND DAMAGES.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Defendant is the revision petitioner challenging

¶24

the decree passed by the 17^th Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCC-21) on 04.01.2020 in SC No.15149/2019.

¶25

Operative portion of the trial court order reads as under:

¶26

"Suit is decreed in part with cost.

¶27

Defendant is directed to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the plaintiff within 30 days from today.

¶28

Plaintiff is entitled for arrears of rent in respect of suit schedule premises amounting to Rs.1,05,000/and for mesne profits @ Rs.5,000/- p.m. from date of filing of the suit till

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44101 CRP No. 102 of 2020

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

the delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule premises.

¶32

On failure of the defendant to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises, the plaintiff is at liberty to get the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises by the process of court.

¶33

Draw decree accordingly."

¶34

Heard Sri.Ravi Prakash for revision

¶35

petitioner. None appears for the respondent.

¶36

Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

¶37

4.1. Plaintiff being the brother of the respondent,

¶38

filed a suit against the defendant for ejectment, arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.1,05,000/- and damages at the rate of Rs.500/- per day from the date of suit till delivery of the vacant possession of the suit property.

¶39

4.2. Plaint averments further revealed that

¶40

plaintiff purchased the residential property bearing No.1, Katha No.31/1, New No.276, situated behind Srinivasa Theatre, 2^nd Main, Gowdanapalay,

¶41

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44101 CRP No. 102 of 2020

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Kadirenahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru, under the registered sale deed from its earlier vendor Smt.Nirmala.

¶44

4.3. Defendant being the brother of the plaintiff, approached the plaintiff for emergency accommodation for a short period in the suit premises consisting of two bedrooms, a hall with attached bathroom and kitchen. Defendant agreed to pay monthly rent of Rs.5,000/from the month of May 2017 and plaintiff agreed for the same. Defendant also paid rents for three months at the rate of Rs.5,000 from May 2017 to July 2017, but abruptly stopped paying the rents.

¶45

4.4. Therefore, a legal notice came to be issued on 01.04.2019 by the plaintiff to the defendant claiming arrears of rent. Despite service of notice, there was no reply nor compliance. Therefore, suit came to be filed.

¶46

Pursuant to the suit summons defendant

¶47

entered appearance through his advocate and filed detailed written statement inter-alia denying the landlord and tenant relationship and also denied that he occupied the premises on monthly rental basis.

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44101 CRP No. 102 of 2020

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Defendant maintained that he had paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintiff as security deposit and he contended that he is ready to vacate the suit property if plaintiff repays a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.

¶51

Learned trial judge conducted the trial and decreed the suit as referred to supra.

¶52

After the impugned order came to be passed, defendant vacated the premises on 11.03.2020 pursuant to the delivery warrant issued by the Executing Court.

¶53

Therefore, the present revision petition is now restricted to decree of payment of arrears of rent in a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- and mesne profit at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit till delivery of the vacant possession.

¶54

Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Ravi Prakash vehemently contended that there was a security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- and therefore there was no arrears of rent as claimed by the plaintiff which

¶55

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:44101 CRP No. 102 of 2020

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

has not been properly considered by the trial Court and therefore question of payment of arrears of rent would not arise, so also grant of Rs.5,000/- per month as mesne profit.

¶58

In the light of the argument put-forth on behalf of the plaintiff, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶59

On such perusal of the material on record, there is no dispute that plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. All that the defendant has maintained is that he had paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as security deposit. To substantiate said contention, there is no document placed on record.

¶60

Further, in the cross-examination of the defendant, he has specifically admitted that he has paid the rents at the rate of Rs.5,000/- for a period of three months. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that defendant paid rents for three months and abruptly stopped from July 2017 onwards.

¶61

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:44101 CRP No. 102 of 2020

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

DW1 also admitted in cross-examination

¶65

that there is no document to show that he had paid security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/-.

¶66

Taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned trial judge not only decreed the suit for ejectment, but also arrears of rent in a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- and sum of Rs.5,000/- per month as the damages from the date of termination of the notice till the vacant possession.

¶67

It is pertinent to note that decree of the trial Court has been executed by filing the execution petition and it was not voluntary act of the defendant. Pursuant to the delivery warrant issued, the vacant possession is obtained by the plaintiff.

¶68

Under such circumstances, decreeing of the suit by the trial Court ordering arrears of rent and the mesne profit at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month is just and proper and requires no further interference in this revision.

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:44101 CRP No. 102 of 2020

¶70

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

Accordingly, the following

¶73

ORDER

¶74

Revision petition is merit-less and hereby

¶75

dismissed.

¶76

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶77

AP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and decree dated 04.01.2020 in SC.No.15149/2019 partly decreeing the suit for ejectment and damages: vacant possession within 30 days, arrears of rent of Rs.1,05,000/- and mesne profits at Rs.5,000/- per month until delivery of vacant possession.¶24
XVII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru · 04.01.2020
Prior proceeding
Plaintiff acquired the residential suit property (No.1, Katha No.31/1, New No.276, behind Srinivasa Theatre, Gowdanapalay, Kadirenahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru) under a registered sale deed from its earlier vendor Smt.Nirmala.¶43
Prior proceeding
Defendant, the plaintiff's brother, sought emergency accommodation in the suit premises and agreed to pay monthly rent of Rs.5,000 from May 2017; he paid rent for May-July 2017 and then abruptly stopped paying.¶44
Prior proceeding
Legal notice dated 01.04.2019 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant claiming arrears of rent; despite service, there was neither reply nor compliance.¶45
Prior proceeding
Plaintiff filed suit against the defendant for ejectment, arrears of rent of Rs.1,05,000/- and damages at Rs.500/- per day from the date of suit till delivery of vacant possession.¶38
Prior proceeding
Pursuant to suit summons, defendant entered appearance through his advocate and filed a detailed written statement denying the landlord-and-tenant relationship and occupation on monthly rental basis.¶47
Prior proceeding
Defendant maintained that he had paid Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintiff as security deposit and was ready to vacate the suit property if the plaintiff repaid that sum.¶50
Prior proceeding
Trial was conducted by the learned trial judge, who decreed the suit in part as per the operative order reproduced in the judgment.¶51
Prior proceeding
After the impugned decree, the defendant vacated the premises on 11.03.2020 pursuant to a delivery warrant issued by the Executing Court; possession passed to the plaintiff through execution, not voluntarily.¶52
Prior proceeding
With possession recovered, the revision petition was confined to the monetary decrees: arrears of rent of Rs.1,05,000/- and mesne profit at Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit till delivery of vacant possession.¶53

Mr P Gopal v. Mr P Vasu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr P Gopal v. Mr P Vasu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ramakrishnappa Vs Shushrusha Nursing Home

Smt.Nikitha a P Vs Sri.S. Ranjith

B C Subramanyam Vs the Commissioner

Sri v Padmanabhaia Vs Sri Kalyan B. Badami

Sri v Surya Prakash Vs Smt. G N Manjula Devi

Smt. Nischitha Shetty M .K @ Nischitha M.K Vs Sri. Udayakumar K S