Sri.Rangaswamy N.M. Vs Sri.D.K.Srinivas

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:42734 CRP No. 192 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.192 OF 2025 (SC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI RANGASWAMY N.M. S/O SRI. MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT GROUND FLOOR NO.46, 2ND MAIN, KATHRIGUPPE VILLAGE BSK-III STAGE BENGALURU-560 085

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI DEVARAJ A S, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI.D.K.SRINIVAS S/O SRI KALASEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT 1^ST FLOOR, NO.46 2^ND MAIN, KATHRIGUPPE VILLAGE BSK-III STAGE BENGALURU -560085

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI RAMESHA.M.N, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF SMALL CAUSES COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.01.2025 PASSED IN SC.NO.1765/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND ACJM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.

¶17

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:42734 CRP No. 192 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Heard Sri Devaraj A.S., learned counsel for the revision

¶23

petitioner and Sri Ramesha M.N., learned counsel for respondent.

¶24

Defendant in S.C.No.1765/2018 is the revision petitioner, challenging the decree of ejectment passed in the said small causes suit.

¶25

Operative portion of the order of the trial Court reads as under:

¶26

“The Suit of the Plaintiff is partly decreed with costs.

¶27

The defendant is hereby directed to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within two months from the date of this order.

¶28

Further the defendant is directed to pay arrears of rent of Rs.55,000/- and enhanced rent from July 2018 onwards and further directed to pay damages.

¶29

In the event of failure of the defendant to deliver the vacant possession of schedule property and paying arrears of rent the plaintiff is at liberty to get delivery of vacant possession of the schedule property and recover the arrears of rent and damages by due process of law.

¶30

Draw decree accordingly.”

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:42734 CRP No. 192 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for

¶35

disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

¶36

4.1. Plaintiff filed suit in respect of immovable property, bearing number 50-48-49, BBMP Ward No. 163, Kathriguppa Municipal No.46 (old No.50-48), PID No.50-359-46, measuring east to west 50 feet, north to south 20 feet, in all measuring 5 square feet building (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’), contending that defendant is the tenant under the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs.5,500/- and there was a security deposit in a sum of Rs.50,000/-.

¶37

An oral rental agreement came into existence in this regard on 02.06.2016. The tenancy is 11 months tenancy, commencing from 02.06.2016 for a period of 11 months, i.e., upto May 2017.

¶38

It was also agreed that if the defendant continues to occupy the premises beyond the 11 months, he should be treated as an illegal occupation.

¶39

When plaintiff demanded monthly rent, at that juncture, defendant and his wife assaulted the plaintiff and his

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42734 CRP No. 192 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

wife in the month of July 2017. Therefore, wife of the plaintiff lodged a complaint against the defendant and his wife and police after thorough investigation filed charge sheet against the defendant and his wife, which is pending before the Court in C.C.No.1294/2017.

¶43

When there was no compliance to the demand of rent, defendant told that the rents can be adjusted in the security deposit of Rs.50,000/-. Thereafter, legal notice came to be issued. The said notice was dated 17.07.2018, whereby the termination of tenancy has taken place and despite the same, defendant continued to occupy the premises and therefore, sought for decree of ejectment.

¶44

Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant appeared before the Court and filed detailed written statement denying the plaint averments in toto and contented that suit is vexatious, frivolous and not maintainable. Defendant also denied the landlord and tenant relationship.

¶45

He further contented that there was no agreement to pay Rs.50,000/- as the security deposit and sum of Rs.5,500/- as monthly rent.

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42734 CRP No. 192 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

On the contrary, defendant contended that there was a lease agreement executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant on 15.07.2016, wherein he has agreed to allow the defendant to being in possession of the suit property for a period of three years on receipt of Rs.5,50,000/- by the wife of plaintiff which has been suppressed and a wrong suit came to be filed.

¶49

Defendant also contended that the fraud played by the plaintiff was complained to the police and police after thorough investigation has filed the charge sheet against the plaintiff and his wife which is now pending in C.C.No.20965/2019. Thereafter, the defendant sought for dismissal of the suit as he is in possession of the property by virtue of the lease deed executed by the plaintiff.

¶50

Learned trial judge allowed the parties to place their evidence on record.

¶51

Plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and placed on record six documents which are exhibited and marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6, comprising of certified copy of the sale deed dated 09.02.2015, water bill and electric bills, true copy of the

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:42734 CRP No. 192 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

statement of account, legal notice dated 17.07.2018, postal cover with acknowledgment, postal receipt, khatha certificate and khatha extract.

¶56

As against the evidence placed on record by the plaintiff, defendant got examined himself as D.W.1 and two witnesses namely, Sharmila K.S., and T. Nagarathna as D.W.2 and D.W.3.

¶57

On behalf of the defendant, as many as 38 documents were placed on record comprising of, pay slips of the defendant, bank passbook of the defendant, spot mahazar, FIR in Crime No.210/2018, complaint dated 01.07.2018, charge sheet, seizure mahazar, anticipatory bail application, legal notice, postal receipt, R.P.A.D., another legal notice, postal receipt and acknowledgment, endorsement issued by C.K.Achukattu Police Station, BESCOM receipts, complaint dated 02.07.2021, lease agreement dated 15.07.2016, charge sheet, FSL report, sale deed dated 17.06.2015, deposition of the wife of plaintiff in C.C.No.1048/2019, order dated 11.09.2023 in W.P.20244/2023.

¶58

7 -

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:42734 CRP No. 192 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

On conclusion of recording of evidence, learned trial

¶62

Judge heard the arguments of the parties in detail.

¶63

Thereafter, took note of the fact that under Ex.P4 legal notice, the tenancy was duly terminated as contemplated under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and defence put forward by the defendant could not be taken into consideration as admittedly the lease agreement marked at Ex.D.33 dated 15.07.2016 did not confer any right, title or interest for the defendant to remain in the property and passed the order of ejectment.

¶64

Being aggrieved by the same, defendant is before this court in this revision petition on the following:

¶65

The impugned order of the court below is opposed to cannons of law, facts and circumstances of the case, as such, it is liable to reversed and set-aside.

¶66

The impugned order of the court below is illegal, perverse, vexatious besides being speculative, as such, it is liable to be reversed and set-aside.

¶67

The court below has erred in passing the impugned order, when the respondent herein failed to make out the ingredients of provisions of section under section 8 and 9, section 8(1) (2) and 9 and schedule clause (4) of the Karnataka small causes court act -

¶68

8 -

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:42734 CRP No. 192 of 2025

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

1964 as such, the impugned order of the court below is illegal and without jurisdiction of court below.

¶72

 The court blow has erred to consider Ex.D1 D 38 produced by the petitioner herein, wherein, non examination of material evidence, without discussion of said exhibits and this vital aspect has not been considered by the court below and passed the impugned order illegally.

¶73

 The petitioner submit that, in order to check the financial capacity of the respondent and his wife behind criminal intention in narrating oral agreement, even after receipt of the Rs.5,50,000/under said lease agreement dated 15.07.2016, why they are adamantly denying the execution of leased even after FSL report against the respondent and his wife, what are the sources to purchased the two properties in the Bangalore as claiming that the respondent is a B.A graduate, working in a school as teacher and his wife is a home maker, with great effort during pendency of the suit secured the sale deeds one is Ex.P-1 and another one is Ex.D- 37 sale deed dated 17.06.2023, and one lease agreement dated 11.09.2015 filed IA for call for record i.e. income tax returns, loan documents etc the said IA also rejected. It is not discussed in the impugned order as such it is not a speaking order, as such liable to be rejected.

¶74

The court below erred in relaying upon the decision referred by the petitioner herein, when in fact the

¶75

9 -

¶76

NC: 2025:KHC:42734 CRP No. 192 of 2025

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

case on hand the above decisions are not discussed a). 2016 (1) KCCR 181. b).AIR 2009 sc 2544. <).2016 (1) KCCR 73. d). 2015 AIR SCW 6475. E).ILR 2004 KAR 98. F)2001 (6) Kar.L.J.575.

¶79

 it is respectfully submitted that, 2016 (1) KCCR 181, it is about mandatory notice under section 106 of the TP ACT, the present case, the plaintiff initially played fraud on the defendant as well as the Hon'ble trail court, even it is noticed to court below and put equation to the Pw-1, address mentioned in the exhibit P4 and the address mentioned in the E P4(a) are different, in exhibit no.4 it is mentioned as "2^nd main", in ex p 4 (a) it is "1^st main" shara made in the exhibit P4(a) as "no such person" when that being a case notice under section 106 of TP act not issued, under this ground the case of the plaintiff is not maintainable, but the trail court not considered this aspects.

¶80

 The petitioner submit that, ILR 2004 KAR 98 held that the requirement as contemplated under section 8 AND 9 of the Karnataka small causes court act - 1964(B) section 8(1) (2) and 9 and schedule clause (4) "jurisdiction of small causes courts" and "civil courts"-'suit for possession' and 'suit for ejectment' filed ejectment and possession suit held which court have jurisdiction to try held in suit for possession small causes court jurisdiction is excluded and in the suit for ejectment the small causes court jurisdiction is included.

¶81

10 -

¶82

NC: 2025:KHC:42734 CRP No. 192 of 2025

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

The Karnataka Small Cause Court Act 1964 Karnataka Act No.9/64- section 8 (1) (2), 9 and schedule clause (4) suit for ejectment and suit for possession- distinguishable feature held- under the Karnataka rent act 1961 'tenant' has been defined under section 29 (n) (ii) to include a person in possession of premises after the termination of tenancy and his relationship with his land lord continues to be that of a land lord and tenant or lessor or lessee. But under the general law it is not so, i.e. after the determination of tenancy the tenant become a person in authorized occupation of premises' and the land lord cannot resort_to rent acts for recovery of possession, but has to file only a suit or possession' like any other ordinary suit.

¶85

 transfer of property act section 111- quit notice issued- if a tenant does not vacate the premises even after determination of the lease under section 111, the suit will not continue to be that of a `tenant’ which is otherwise the case of tenants governed the right of lessor is only to file a suit for possession to recover the premises by approaching the ordinary civil court and not the rent courts. All the point with regarding explained elaborately in the said ruling at par no.1 to 12, but the court below has not been discussed the jurisdiction point; as such the order of the court below is liable to be set aside. Where in this case, land lord and tenant relationship is not proved, oral rent agreement not proved, then lease agreement, charge sheet FSL report is not

¶86

11 -

¶87

NC: 2025:KHC:42734 CRP No. 192 of 2025

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

discussed, as such the plaintiff has to approach the civil court to get the possession and also even otherwise, the impugned order of the court below is contrary to the material available on records such, the impugned order is liable to be reversed and setaside.

¶90

It is respectfully submit that, to right over the claim and interest in the schedule property and to entitled for the refund of the security amount, hence the impugned order passed by the trial court is liable to be quashed.

¶91

The court below has erred in passing the impugned order on presumption and surmise which is contrary to the evidence and the documents produced by the parties to the petition, as such, the impugned order of the court below is without application of mind and it is liable to be reserved and set- aside.

¶92

The impugned order of the court below is contrary to the evidence, material available on record and has passed the impugned order without application of mind, as such, it is liable to be reversed and setaside.

¶93

The court below has failed to appreciate in accordance with law, the evidence and the documents produced by the petitioner herein and without discussing judgment/rulings produced by this petitioner and passed the impugned order in a vague manner, as such, the impugned order is not a speaking order as contemplated under law.

¶94

12 -

¶95

NC: 2025:KHC:42734 CRP No. 192 of 2025

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

The court below has erred in coming to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant is not proved, similarly the plaintiff has not proved his oral agreement, even though the defendant proved his lease agreement through charge sheet and FSL report, annexure E And F the court below not discussed about lease agreement, charge sheet and FSL report as such, the impugned order is liable to be reversed and set-aside.

¶98

It is submitted that, the Trial Court, erred incoming to the conclusion that, the Hon'ble Court has taken into consideration that the plaintiff had require to bonafide use for vacating the premises, that is not in a question, for vacating the premises, certainly the defendant vacate the premises if the plaintiff refund the security amount, instead of directed the plaintiff to refund of the security amount, doing so, the Hon'ble court erred in passing the orders is totally illegal and contrary to law and opposed to the principles of natural justice.

¶99

It is the case of the defendant that, both husband and his wife colluded each together and executed the lease agreement put in signatures of the both of them, witness side and owner side, and played fraud on the petitioner to refund of the amount and the transaction took place between the petitioner and his wife and the respondent. When that being the case, the order passed by the trail court is totally illegal and contrary to law.

¶100

13 -

¶101

NC: 2025:KHC:42734 CRP No. 192 of 2025

¶102

HC-KAR

¶103

Even otherwise, the authenticity and admissibility of the document of the lease agreement in FSL report is admitted, and the petitioner is poor man for in survival his life, they have came to the Bangalore but on the contrary these type of Land Lords in the society in non-refundable amount to the defendant where they will stand, this aspects has not considered by the court below.

¶104

The appellant respectfully craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to raise additional grounds in support of their case in the above petition at the time of arguments.

¶105

It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the trial court does not discloses the said aspect and has passed the impugned order without application of mind.

¶106

It is submitted that, when the claim put forward by the petitioner, is legal and the order of the trial court is totally ilegal, contrary to law and without application of mind.

¶107

The petitioners submit that, on the basis of impugned order. If the Plaintiff/Respondent is succeeded in doing so, the Petitioner will sustain irreparable loss, damage and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money. On the contrary, no hardship or inconvenience will be caused to the Respondent, if the interim order is granted.

¶108

14 -

¶109

NC: 2025:KHC:42734 CRP No. 192 of 2025

¶110

HC-KAR

¶111

The Petitioner has no other alternative or efficacious remedy except to approach this Hon'ble court for set aside the impugned order dated 21.01.2025.”

¶112

Sri Devraj A.S., learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that the defendant is interested in vacating the suit property if sum of Rs.5,50,000/- is returned to the defendant.

¶113

Sri M.N. Ramesha, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent flatly denies the receipt of Rs.5,50,000/and he contends that the decree of ejectment needs to be confirmed.

¶114

Having heard the arguments of both sides this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶115

On such perusal of the material on record, Ex.P4 is the termination notice. Admittedly there is no reply to Ex.P4. The defence taken by the defendant is that he is a lessee and not a tenant. In other words, the defendant has questioned the landlord and tenant relationship though at one breath he says

¶116

15 -

¶117

NC: 2025:KHC:42734 CRP No. 192 of 2025

¶118

HC-KAR

¶119

that landlord is the lessor and he is a lessee vide Ex.D.33 lease agreement dated 15.07.2016.

¶120

Under the circumstances, learned trial Judge took into consideration the effect of Ex.D.33 vis-a-vis Exhibit D4.

¶121

There is a specific plea by the plaintiff that there was a security deposit in a sum of Rs.50,000/- and monthly rent was Rs.5,500/- which was paid for some time and thereafter abruptly it was stopped. On questioning the conduct of tenant in this regard, defendant and his wife misbehaved and assaulted the wife of the plaintiff which resulted in filing of a criminal case which is now pending in C.C.No.1294/2017.

¶122

It is also contention of the plaintiff that the defendant told the plaintiff to adjust the arrears of rent in the security deposit and thereafter, plaintiff issued Ex.P4 and terminated the tenancy.

¶123

The defence that was taken by the defendant is that there is a lease agreement vide Ex.D33, where under defendant has paid sum of Rs.5,50,000/-. Same was denied by the plaintiff.

¶124

16 -

¶125

NC: 2025:KHC:42734 CRP No. 192 of 2025

¶126

HC-KAR

¶127

The said agreement was referred to the Forensic Science Laboratory and report is in favour of the defendant. If the amount paid by the defendant to the wife of the plaintiff, the defendant can recover the said amount in accordance with law.

¶128

At any rate, the lease agreement for a period of three years that too unregistered and for want of proper stamp duty, cannot be countenanced in law to uphold the defence. Therefore, ignoring the said lease agreement by the trial Court and directing the eviction of the defendant from the premises cannot be faulted with.

¶129

It is also to be noted that whenever a tenant denies the relationship of landlord and tenant, it is settled principles of law that the defendant shall vacate the premises and thereafter establish the right in respect of the suit property and seek restitution of the possession by resorting to Section 144 CPC.

¶130

Reserving such liberty for the defendant, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of ejectment passed by the learned trial Judge cannot be faulted with.

¶131