Samyuktha Systems & Software Ltd. Vs M/S Shri Chitrapur Math

SAMYUKTHA SYSTEMS & SOFTWARE LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.6-C, 6^TH FLOOR, CHITRAPURA BHAVAN, 15^TH CROSS, 8^TH MAIN MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-55 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON SMT. SHOBHANA S. RAO., MAJOR WIFE OF SRI. J.S. RAO PRESENTLY RESIDENT OF NO.803, SHRI CHITRAPURA HOUSING SOCIETY, 15^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE - 55

¶14

... APPELLANT

¶15

(BY SRI. D.R. RAVI SHANKAR, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HARISH KUMAR C, ADVOCATE A/W SRI. ACHINTH A. SARVESH, ADVOCATE AND SRI. RISHI .S. CHUGH, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

M/S. SHRI CHITRAPUR MATH 132, 15^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE - 55, A PUBLIC TRUST

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:53966 RFA No. 1013 of 2010 C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010 RFA No. 1014 of 2010

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUSTS ACT, REPRESENTED STANDING COMMITTEE, SRI. N. MURALIDHAR

¶22

M/S. LADDAR CONSULTANCY SERVICE PVT. LTD, HEAD OFFICE 27/2-A, RAMESHWARAM ROAD, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 017, ALSO AT BRANCH OFFICE AT CHITRAPUR BHAVAN, 5^TH FLOOR, OFFICE NO.5 D NO. 68, 8^TH MAIN, MALLESWARAM BANGALORE-55 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI RAMANAN, V CHITRAPUR BHAVAN, 5^TH FLOOR OFFICE NO.5 D NO. 68, 8^TH MAIN, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE - 560 055

¶23

... RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. SRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 V/O DT.2/2/15, NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W)

¶25

THIS R.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:26.02.2010 PASSED IN O.S.7776/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND RECOVERY OF ARREARS OF RENT.

¶26

IN R.F.A.NO. 1004/2010

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

SAMYUKTHA SYSTEMS & SOFTWARE LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.6-C, 6^TH FLOOR, CHITRAPURA BHAVAN, 15^TH CROSS, 8^TH MAIN MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-55 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON SMT. SHOBHANA S. RAO., MAJOR WIFE OF SRI. J.S. RAO PRESENTLY RESIDENT OF NO.803, SHRI CHITRAPURA HOUSING

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:53966 RFA No. 1013 of 2010 C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010 RFA No. 1014 of 2010

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

SOCIETY, 15^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE - 55

¶32

... APPELLANT

¶33

(BY SRI. D.R. RAVI SHANKAR, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HARISH KUMAR C, ADVOCATE A/W SRI. ACHINTH A. SARVESH, ADVOCATE AND SRI. RISHI .S. CHUGH, ADVOCATE)

¶34

AND:

¶35

M/S. SHRI CHITRAPUR MATH 132, 15^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE - 55, A PUBLIC TRUST REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUSTS ACT, REPRESENTED STANDING COMMITTEE, SRI. N. MURALIDHAR

¶36

M/S ORCHIDSOFT INDIA P LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.OLD NO.33, NEW NO.41, SHANKARA PARK, BANGALORE - 560 004

¶37

... RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI. SRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 V/O DT.28/10/10, NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W)

¶39

THIS R.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:26.02.2010 PASSED IN O.S.7775/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND RECOVERY OF ARREARS OF RENT.

¶40

IN R.F.A.NO. 1014/2010

¶41

BETWEEN:

¶42

M/S. SAMYUKTHA COMPUTER SERVICES PVT. LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE

¶43

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:53966 RFA No. 1013 of 2010 C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010 RFA No. 1014 of 2010

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.6-C, 6^TH FLOOR, CHITRAPURA BHAVAN, 15^TH CROSS, 8^TH MAIN MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-55 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON SMT. SHOBHANA S. RAO., MAJOR WIFE OF SRI. J.S. RAO PRESENTLY RESIDENT OF NO.803, SHRI CHITRAPURA HOUSING SOCIETY, 15^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE - 55

¶46

... APPELLANT

¶47

(BY SRI. D.R. RAVI SHANKAR, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HARISH KUMAR C, ADVOCATE A/W SRI. ACHINTH A. SARVESH, ADVOCATE AND SRI. RISHI .S. CHUGH, ADVOCATE)

¶48

AND:

¶49

M/S. SHRI CHITRAPUR MATH 132, 15^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE - 55, A PUBLIC TRUST REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUSTS ACT, REPRESENTED STANDING COMMITTEE, SRI. N. MURALIDHAR

¶50

... RESPONDENT

¶51

(BY SRI. SRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶52

THIS R.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:26.02.2010 PASSED IN O.S.7777/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND RECOVERY OF ARREARS OF RENT.

¶53

THESE R.F.AS. HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 19.11.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶54

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:53966 RFA No. 1013 of 2010 C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010 RFA No. 1014 of 2010

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

CAV COMMON JUDGMENT

¶57

The appellant in these appeals being defendant No.1 in OS.Nos.7776/1998, 7775/1998 and 7777/1998 on the file of the learned XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred as to 'the Trial Court' for short), is impugning the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2010, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for possession and for arrears of rent and directing defendant No.1 to vacate the premises and to hand over the vacant possession to the plaintiff within

¶58

four months from the date of judgment and also to pay the arrears of rent and continue to pay the periodical rent.

¶59

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.

¶60

Brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiff filed the suit OS.No.7776/1998 before the Trial Court against the defendants seeking vacant possession of Schedule-B property and for arrears of rent and other dues i.e., a sum of Rs.58,772/- with interest at 18% per annum till realisation and also to pay periodical rent during the pendency of suit. Schedule-B attached to the plaint describes 1,870 sq.feet of

¶61

6 -

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:53966 RFA No. 1013 of 2010 C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010 RFA No. 1014 of 2010

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

office space identified as No.6-C on the 6^th floor of the multi storied building, Chitrapurbavan situated at No.68 (old No.742), 8^th Main Road, Malleshwaram (hereinafter referred to as 'the schedule property'). Schedule-A attached to the plaint describes the entire piece and parcel of their land, bearing Corporation No.68 (old No.742) situated at 15^th cross of which Schedule-B property is a portion.

¶65

It is the contention of the plaintiff that it is a Charitable Institution as defined under Hindu Charitable and Endowments Act. It is a Public Religious Trust registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act, having its Central Office at Shiralikkanara, Uttar Kannada District and it also has a branch at Bengaluru. The plaint is signed by the authorized signatory.

¶66

It is stated that the provisions of Karnataka Rent

¶67

Control Act is not applicable to the premises as the plaintiff is a Charitable Trust. Defendant is a Private Limited Company incorporated under Company Act, 1956, of which, Smt.Shobana Rao is the Managing Director and is representing the Company.

¶68

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:53966 RFA No. 1013 of 2010 C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010 RFA No. 1014 of 2010

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

The plaintiff contended that it is the absolute owner

¶71

in possession of Schedule-A property. During 1980, the plaintiff formed a scheme for construction of commercial complex in the portion of property, comprising of office premises and parking space. Accordingly, the construction was completed on Schedule-A.

¶72

Defendant was intending to open an office at Bengaluru and approached the plaintiff for providing the office space. The plaintiff agreed for the same. A lease deed dated 19.03.1991 was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant creating a lease for a period of 45 years in respect of Schedule-B property. As per the terms of lease, defendant was to pay an advance amount of Rs.4,57,500/- at the rate of Rs.250/- per Sq.ft, being interest free advance, which is not refundable on expiry of the lease period. Defendant agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs.1.20/- per Sq.ft, totaling to Rs.2,244/- per annum. Defendant agreed to pay the same, quarterly in advance amounting to Rs.561/- per quarter. There

¶73

was an agreement to increase the rate of rent by 10% once in five years. If the defendant commits default in payment of rent

¶74

8 -

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC:53966 RFA No. 1013 of 2010 C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010 RFA No. 1014 of 2010

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

for over six months, the plaintiff is entitled to re-enter the premises and the defendant was duty bound to hand over the possession of the premises.

¶78

It is contented by the plaintiff that as per clause 4 of part-B of the lease deed, the defendant was also liable to pay maintenance and service charges for every month as computed in respect of the leased premises. The failure on the part of the defendant to pay such charges within the end of calendar month would attract penal interest at 15% per annum and he is also liable for eviction.

¶79

It is contented that the defendant is a chronic defaulter in payment of rent and maintenance charges right from the beginning. As on 31.08.1998, the defendant was in arrears of a sum of Rs.58,772/-. The plaintiff made repeated requests to pay the arrears and to pay the rent regularly. The defendant vide its letters dated 31.12.1997 - Ex.P10 and 09.01.1998 - Ex.P12 while admitting that there are arrears of rent and other dues, promised to pay all the arrears in monthly instalments of Rs.20,000/- each. But the defendant has not made any payment pursuant to the promise made.

¶80

9 -

¶81

NC: 2025:KHC:53966 RFA No. 1013 of 2010 C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010 RFA No. 1014 of 2010

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

The plaintiff contended that the defendant started showing hostile attitude without paying the arrears, and therefore, the plaintiff got issued the legal notice dated 10.06.1998 - Ex.P17, terminating the lease, demanding the arrears of rent, and seeking delivery of vacant possession of Schedule-B property. The said notice was served on the defendant on 12.06.1998. The defendant has neither replied nor complied with the demands made therein. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for possession, arrears of rent and other dues. During pendency of this suit, M/s Orchidsoft India Private Limited is impleaded as defendant No.2.

¶84

Defendant No.1 appeared before the Trial Court and filed the written statement admitting that it has entered into a lease agreement with the plaintiff under the lease deed dated 19.03.1991 in respect of Schedule-B property for a period of 45 years. The rate of rent and other terms as stated by the plaintiff is also admitted. It is contented that as per the terms of lease deed, which was for a period from 12.10.1988 to 11.10.2033, the lessee was given an option for extension of period for another 45 years, subject to the terms and

¶85

10 -

¶86

NC: 2025:KHC:53966 RFA No. 1013 of 2010 C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010 RFA No. 1014 of 2010

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

conditions mutually agreeable within one year prior to expiry of the lease, subject to executing a fresh lease deed. Defendant admitted that, in case of failure to pay the rent along with interest as agreed, the lesser is entitled to terminate the lease and exercise the right of re-entry. It is contented that the defendant has paid rent of Rs.16,572/- as part payment through cheque dated 25.05.1996 and the same is acknowledged by the plaintiff. Therefore, it is contented that the averments made in the plaint that the defendant has not made any payment towards rent is denied.

¶89

It is contented that one Shri. J.S. Rao, the Managing Director of defendant - Company was associated with the Mutt since 1979 in both housing and commercial complex of Chitrapur Mutt. He was the retired Commissioner of Income Tax Department and he was the brain behind various projects undertaken by the plaintiff. Therefore, it is contented that the defendant - Company is not only a lessee, but also part of the plaintiff's Mutt.

¶90

The defendant admitted that as per clause 4 of part-B of the lease agreement, he is liable to discharge all

¶91

11 -

¶92

NC: 2025:KHC:53966 RFA No. 1013 of 2010 C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010 RFA No. 1014 of 2010

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

cesses, taxes, outgoings such as electrical, water and sanitation charges, expenses of routine maintenance including painting, whitewashing, lift, lighting and other items of common services, or repairs or renewals of proportional taxes or any other taxes, that may be levied from the Government or local authority, and contented that the defendant is maintaining the schedule property and paying all the dues promptly, as per the lease agreement.

¶95

The defendant admitted that, he is liable to pay the maintenance of the complex as regards to common utility services. However, he contends that there are in all 30 lessees of which, the defendant is occupying only one portion. Therefore, the monthly maintenance amount will have to be shared by all the 30 lessees. It shall be calculated on actual expenditure incurred. The plaintiff has to give the account as to the actual expenditure incurred towards maintenance. He has not given accounts with regard to the same. Under such circumstances, the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant is due to a sum of Rs.1,06,671/- is denied. As regards arrears of maintenance as contented by the plaintiff, it is contented

¶96

12 -

¶97

NC: 2025:KHC:53966 RFA No. 1013 of 2010 C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010 RFA No. 1014 of 2010

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

that the defendant is maintaining his portion of the premises by paying all charges. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff towards arrears of maintenance is totally arbitrary and baseless.

¶100

The defendant has denied the authority of the VicePresident of the Standing Committee to file and maintain the suit. The defendant contended that, he is liable to pay rent of Rs.443/- per quarter which is less than Rs.500/- and therefore, the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is also contented that the statutory notice as required under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, was not issued. Hence, the suit is not maintainable. Therefore, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.

¶101

Defendant No.2 also filed a written statement contending that the suit against it is not maintainable, as no relief is claimed against it. Pursuant to an advertisement in an English daily newspaper, defendant No.2 had approached defendant No.1 seeking tenancy in respect of Schedule-B property. A lease deed dated 05.02.2004 was executed and defendant No.2 paid the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as refundable interest free deposit and agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs.15

¶102

13 -

¶103

NC: 2025:KHC:53966 RFA No. 1013 of 2010 C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010 RFA No. 1014 of 2010

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

per Sq.ft., The lease period was for 33 months. Defendant

¶106

No.2 paid the rent to defendant No.1 promptly. It is also contented that after the lease period, defendant No.2 vacated and handed over the possession of the lease schedule property to defendant No.1 on 31.10.2006. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit against it.

¶107

On the basis of these pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

¶108

"1) Whether Sri. N Muralidhar is competent to file this suit on behalf of Shri.Chitrapur Math, Bangalore?

¶109

2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants breached the terms of lease agreement?

¶110

3) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is in arrears of rent and other dues amounting to Rs.528,772/- as on the date of the suit?

¶111

4) Whether the plaintiff proves that it terminated that tenancy of the defence in accordance with law?

¶112

5) Whether the suit is barred under Section 21 of Rent Control Act?

¶113

6) What decree or order?"

¶114

The plaintiff examined PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to 19 in support of its his contention. Defendants

¶115

14 -

¶116

NC: 2025:KHC:53966 RFA No. 1013 of 2010 C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010 RFA No. 1014 of 2010

¶117

HC-KAR

¶118

examined DWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.D1 to 95 in support of their defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, answered issue Nos.1 to 5 in the affirmative and decreed the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for, directing defendant No.1 to vacate Schedule-B premises and handover the vacant premises to the plaintiff within four months from the date of judgment and also to pay arrears of rent upto date, while dismissing the suit against defendant No.2.

¶119

Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 has preferred RFA.No.1013/2010.

¶120

The plaintiff has filed similar suits in OS.Nos.7775/1998 and 7777/1998 in respect of two other premises which are described in Schedule-B, referring to the lease deed with similar terms and seeking vacant possession and arrears of rent from the defendant.

¶121

The defendant has appeared before the Trial Court and filed written statements taking similar defence. The Trial Court framed similar issues and after referring to the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties, proceeded to pass

¶122

15 -

¶123

NC: 2025:KHC:53966 RFA No. 1013 of 2010 C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010 RFA No. 1014 of 2010

¶124

HC-KAR

¶125

the impugned judgments, which are challenged in

¶126

RFA.Nos.1004/2010 and 1014/2010.

¶127

Since the contentions of parties in all these suits and the appeals are one and the same and the parties are also common, all the three appeals are taken up for common discussion.

¶128

Heard Sri. Sridhar Prabhu, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records.

¶129

Learned advocate on record for the appellant even though present before the Court has not addressed his arguments inspite of granting sufficient opportunity. However, finally he requested the Court to proceed with the matter with liberty to file written submissions. Accordingly, written arguments of the appellant with list of authorities is filed.

¶130

Learned counsel for the appellant filed the written submission admitting execution of three lease deeds in respect of the premises which are the subject matter of three suits before the Trial Court. By re-iterating the terms of lease

¶131

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:53966 RFA No. 1013 of 2010 C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010 RFA No. 1014 of 2010

¶132

HC-KAR

¶133

agreement, he contended that the claim of the plaintiff regarding arrears of rent and maintenance is baseless. It is contended that when the arrears of maintenance are not calculated or apportioned by the plaintiff, he was not entitled for any such relief.

¶134

Learned advocate has highlighted the amount that was due towards rent and contended that the defendant had paid a sum of Rs.2,66,906/- where the amount payable towards rent was only Rs.46,220/-. Therefore, it is contended that since the defendant has paid the excess amount towards rent, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. It is re-iterated that the plaintiff without computation of amount towards maintenance could not have claimed the same from the defendant. According to the defendant, the plaintiff has levied the maintenance charges arbitrarily and thus he is not entitled for the same. It is also contended that the plaintiff has not formed an 'association of lessees' to claim maintenance which disentitles him from claiming any amount towards the same.

¶135

Learned advocate contended that as per the calculation made in the written arguments, no amount is due

¶136

17 -

¶137

NC: 2025:KHC:53966 RFA No. 1013 of 2010 C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010 RFA No. 1014 of 2010

¶138

HC-KAR

¶139

towards rent and the plaintiff has not claimed the maintenance on any specific grounds. He refers to various clauses in the documents that are exhibited on his behalf to deny the claim of the plaintiff. It is contended that the Trial Court and First Appellate Court have not taken into consideration the oral and documentary evidence placed on record in a proper perspective and thus arrived at a wrong conclusion. Hence, prays for allowing the appeals in the interest of justice.

¶140

Learned counsel for the respondent - plaintiff opposing the appeals contended that the three premises described in the plaint before the Trial Court were leased in favour of the defendant, subject to the terms of lease deed. Defendant in categorical terms admitted the ownership and jural relationship between plaintiff and itself. The defendant has also admitted that there are arrears of rent and issuance of notice for termination of tenancy. The contention of the defendant that he has maintained his portion of the premises and not liable to pay the maintenance charges cannot be accepted for the simple reason that, he himself admits that he

¶141

18 -

¶142

NC: 2025:KHC:53966 RFA No. 1013 of 2010 C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010 RFA No. 1014 of 2010

¶143

HC-KAR

¶144

is liable to contribute the maintenance of common area and common amenities enjoyed by him.

¶145

Learned counsel further contended that the lease deed dated 19.03.1991 is an admitted document and it is marked as Ex.P18. This lease deed is signed by Sri.Muralidhar the Vice -President of the Standing Committee. When said Sri.Muralidhar in his capacity as Vice-President of Standing Committee signed the lease deed Ex.P18, the defendant could not have questioned his authority to sign the plaint. The other defence taken by the defendant are baseless and they are against the terms of lease deed, which is an admitted document.

¶146

Learned counsel also contended that the defendant had written various letters addressed to Sri.Muralidhar, either seeking indulgence by granting time for payment of arrears of rent and also seeking permission to sublet the premises. Under such circumstances, the defendant could not have disputed his authority.

¶147

Learned counsel further contended that when defendant categorically admitted that, there are arrears of rent

¶148

19 -

¶149

NC: 2025:KHC:53966 RFA No. 1013 of 2010 C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010 RFA No. 1014 of 2010

¶150

HC-KAR

¶151

and maintenance charges and he defaulted in complying with

¶152

the terms of lease deed, he is liable for eviction. He further contended that even though defendant No.2 is impleaded contending that defendant No.1 has sublet the premises in its favour, the Trial Court formed an opinion that such subletting was after the termination of lease and the said finding is not challenged by the plaintiff.

¶153

Learned counsel further contended that Ex.P11 is

¶154

the letter which proves that the cheque referred to by defendant No.1 in the written statement was dishonored. Ex.P15 is the letter written by defendant No.1 admitting the arrears of rent, various other letters i.e., Exs.P10 to 12, 14 to 16 were also written by him and none of these documents are disputed. Exs.P7 and 8 are the statement of bills. Ex.P9 is the ledger extract. Ex.P17 is the notice addressed to defendant No.1. When the defendant categorically admits violation of the terms of lease deed, he cannot be permitted to squat over the property. The Trial Court after appreciation of the materials on record, arrived at a right conclusion. Therefore, there are no

¶155

20 -

¶156

NC: 2025:KHC:53966 RFA No. 1013 of 2010 C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010 RFA No. 1014 of 2010

¶157

HC-KAR

¶158

grounds to entertain the appeal. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the appeals.

¶159

In light of the rival contentions taken by both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶160

"Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court suffers from perversity or illegality and calls for interference by this Court?"

¶161

My answer to the above point in the 'Negative' for the following:

¶162

REASONS

¶163

The plaintiff had filed three suits i.e., OS.Nos.7775/1998, 7776/1998 and 7777/1998 against the defendant for possession and for arrears of rent. The defendant filed the written statement admitting the relationship between the parties. It is also admitted that he has entered into a lease deed dated 19.03.1991 in respect of the scheduled property for a period of 45 years, agreeing to pay the rent and maintenance charges. He also admits that on his failure to pay the rent, he was liable to pay interest.

¶164

21 -

¶165

NC: 2025:KHC:53966 RFA No. 1013 of 2010 C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010 RFA No. 1014 of 2010

¶166

HC-KAR

¶167

The defendant has denied the authority of VicePresident who signed the plaint and filed the suit. Interestingly, the defendant has issued several letters addressed to the very same Vice-President. Exs.P10 to 16 are various letters produced by the plaintiff which were written by the defendant. When the defendant admits that he was tenant under the plaintiff who executed the lease deed as per Ex.P18, which was signed by N Muralidhar, who was none other than the VicePresident of the Mutt, who signed the plaint representing the Mutt, the defendant could not have taken a defence denying the authority of the very same N Muralidhar to represent the Mutt while filing the suit. This shows again the conduct of defendant in taking untenable defence only with an intention to deny the rightful claim of the plaintiff and to squat over the property indefinitely.

¶168

The plaintiff examined PW.1 as its witness. He was cross-examined at length on four different dates of hearing. But nothing has been elicited from the witness. On the other hand, it is suggested to the witness that, N Muralidhar, who signed the plaint and represented the Mutt was in-charge of the

¶169

22 -

¶170

NC: 2025:KHC:53966 RFA No. 1013 of 2010 C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010 RFA No. 1014 of 2010

¶171

HC-KAR

¶172

administration of Bengaluru Mutt. This suggestion was admitted by PW.1. It is also suggested to PW.1 that Ex.P1 - Power of Attorney was executed by the Mutt in favour of PW.1, and the said N Muralidhar, who represented the Mutt. Therefore, it is clear that the defendant is inconsistent in taking his defence, as in the written statement he denies the authority of N Muralidhar to represent the Mutt. But while cross-examining PW.1, he categorically admits his authority. The letters Exs.P10 to 16 written by defendant to the plaintiff discloses that, he is not in fact disputing the authority of N Muralidhar, who signed the plaint. The question arises as to why the defendant is taking such inconsistent plea. It is obviously with an intention to drag on the matter and to hoodwink the Court.

¶173

Ex.P1 is the Special Power of Attorney executed the Matadhipathi of the Mutt in favour of in favour of N.Muralidhar, the Vice-President and PW.1 - Suresh K Savanal to represent the Mutt in the suits that were filed before the Trial Court by examining himself as PW.1.

¶174

A strange contention was taken in the written statement that the Managing Director of the defendant

¶175

NC: 2025:KHC:53966 RFA No. 1013 of 2010 C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010 RFA No. 1014 of 2010

¶176

23 -

¶177

HC-KAR

¶178

Company was associated with him since 1979 and he was the brain behind various projects and hence the defendant was not a lessee, but he was part of plaintiff’s Mutt. When defendant categorically admits execution of the lease deed dated 19.03.1991 in respect of the schedule property by agreeing to pay the rent and the maintenance charges, this contention taken by the defendant cannot be accepted even for a moment. That shows the conduct of the defendant in disowning its liability to pay the rent as well as the maintenance charges. Such contention taken by the defendant assumes importance in the light of the contention taken by the plaintiff that the defendant was in arrears of rent. It is pertinent to note that the defendant in the written statement while categorically admitting the lease deed even refers to Clause 'B' (4) where he was liable to discharge various payments including the routine maintenance charges towards painting, white washing, lift, lighting and towards common service etc,.

¶179

Even though, it is contented by the defendant that

¶180

he was not in arrears of either rent or maintenance, it is his specific contention that he is maintaining the schedule property

¶181

24 -

¶182

NC: 2025:KHC:53966 RFA No. 1013 of 2010 C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010 RFA No. 1014 of 2010

¶183

HC-KAR

¶184

which is in his actual possession. It is not the contention of the defendant he has paid the maintenance towards common area including the lift and electricity charges. But on the other hand, it is his contention that the plaintiff should have given an account of actual expenditure by producing the documents and dividing the total expenses incurred by 30 lessees, and then only the defendant was liable to pay the amount. Unfortunately, that was not the term of lease deed agreed between the parties. On the other hand, the defendant categorically undertook to pay the maintenance charges as demanded by the plaintiff.

¶185

Interestingly, the defendant has never raised any dispute calling upon the plaintiff to give account of the maintenance charges demanded by him. On the other hand, he kept quiet without paying the maintenance charges, which shows the conduct of the defendant only to deny legal right of the plaintiff, who is required to maintain the common area by paying electricity, water charges, maintenance of lift, white

¶186

wash and keep the premises in a habitable condition. Such claim made by the plaintiff cannot be termed as either illegal or

¶187

25 - NC: 2025:KHC:53966 RFA No. 1013 of 2010 C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010 RFA No. 1014 of 2010

¶188

HC-KAR

¶189

baseless, when the defendant has never raised any dispute by issuing notice to the plaintiff, calling upon him to explain the basis for such claim of maintenance. When the defendant agreed to pay the maintenance charges as per the terms of lease deed, he is estopped from taking up untenable defence in the written statement.

¶190

It is pertinent to note that Exs.P7 and 8 are the bills sent by the plaintiff. Ex.P9 is the ledger extract. None of these documents were disputed by the defendant regarding the outstanding dues of Rs.58,772/- that was payable by the defendant till the end of December, 1998.

¶191

A strange defence was taken by the defendant that he is maintaining his portion of the building i.e., the schedule premises and therefore, he is not liable to pay any other amount. This contention is against the terms of lease deed - Ex.P18. Moreover, admittedly, the legal notice as per Ex.P17 was issued to the defendant, but there is no reply to the same.

¶192

It is pertinent to note that the defendant examined one J.S Rao as DW.1 and filed the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief which runs into 31 pages. Many irrelevant

¶193

26 -

¶194

NC: 2025:KHC:53966 RFA No. 1013 of 2010 C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010 RFA No. 1014 of 2010

¶195

HC-KAR

¶196

facts are deposed in this affidavit which has no basis whatsoever. The contentions which were never taken by the defendant in the written statement were stated in the affidavit, which cannot be taken into consideration for any reason.

¶197

During cross-examination of DW.1, he states that he had paid the maintenance charges under protest, as the details of maintenance charges were not provided by the plaintiff. But he had not called upon the plaintiff to furnish such details, and he has also not produced any material to show that he has paid the maintenance charges under protest or that, he has raised objection in that regard with the plaintiff. When DW.1 was further cross-examined about the letters, he is said to have written to the plaintiff by raising objections. He categorically stated that "I am not finding any letters written by me objecting the plaintiff's claim". This again shows the conduct of the defendant in raising baseless and false defenses. The witness further categorically admits that, he had not paid the amount as claimed by the plaintiff. Witness pleads his ignorance as to what was the amount that was paid by him towards maintenance. Even though he states that such

¶198

27 -

¶199

NC: 2025:KHC:53966 RFA No. 1013 of 2010 C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010 RFA No. 1014 of 2010

¶200

HC-KAR

¶201

payments were referred to in his various letters, he failed to identify any of the letters that are produced before the Court. The cross-examination of this witness discloses that even though he claims payment of the rent and the maintenance upto date, the witness was unable to lay his hands on any of the documents produced by him to substantiate his contention.

¶202

It is pertinent to note that the defendant has taken a contention that he had issued few cheques to the plaintiff towards arrears of rent and maintenance. During crossexamination, he categorically admits that two such cheques issued by him were subsequently withdrawn. He admits the letter Exs.P10 and 12 written by him to the plaintiff. It is the specific contention of the plaintiff that even after Ex.P10, the defendant has not paid any amount. Even though, such suggestion is denied by DW.1, no materials are placed before the Court to substantiate his contention regarding payment of the arrears of rent and maintenance.

¶203

The plaintiff produced Ex.P9 copy of the ledger extract to show the arrears of maintenance charges that is due from the defendant. They also produced Exs.P7 and 8 to

¶204

28 - NC: 2025:KHC:53966 RFA No. 1013 of 2010 C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010 RFA No. 1014 of 2010

¶205

HC-KAR

¶206

substantiate their contention regarding the arrears of maintenance from the defendant. These documents were never disputed by the defendants while cross examining PW.1. Ex.P10 is the letter addressed by the defendant to the Chairman of the plaintiff's Mutt. There is reference to the letter written by N Muralidhar and also the telephonic discussions held by the defendant with the said N Muralidhar, who is none other than the person who signed the plaint. As per letter dated 31.12.1997 the defendant offering to pay monthly instalment of Rs.10,000/- for January, 1998, Rs.20,000/- for February, 1998 and so on and requesting the plaintiff Mutt to treat cheque No.217157 dated 15.07.1987 for Rs.19,235/- as cancelled and to return back the same. Ex.P12 is again the letter written by the defendant to the plaintiff regarding payment due to the plaintiff towards maintenance charges, where the defendant has offered to pay Rs.20,000/- by 17.01.1998 towards the outstanding dues against return of the cheque referred to above and undertaking to pay every month Rs.20,000/towards the arrears. There is again a request to cancel the two post-dated cheques issued in favour of the plaintiff, with a

¶207

29 -

¶208

NC: 2025:KHC:53966 RFA No. 1013 of 2010 C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010 RFA No. 1014 of 2010

¶209

HC-KAR

¶210

request not to present the same for encashment, as there is no sufficient funds in the Bank to honour the cheque.

¶211

It is contented that the defendant had issued a

¶212

cheque for Rs.16,572/- dated 25.05.1996. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the cheque was dishonored and returned. Ex.P11 is the document produced by the plaintiff to evidence that the cheque issued by the defendant towards payment of arrears of rent was not honored. It is not the contention of the defendant that even thereafter, he paid the amount towards arrears of rent.

¶213

Ex.P11 is the letter dated 02.01.1998 address to the Mutt, regarding the payment that is due to the plaintiff, requesting for grant of some more time to make payment of Rs.19,235/- covered under the cheque referred to above, again promising to pay the amount in instalments and informing that

¶214

they are making efforts to raise funds from financial institutions. Ex.P13 is the letter addressed by the plaintiff to the defendant dated 04.01.1994 informing it that legal notice was issued on 05.05.1993 asking to pay the arrears of rent and maintenance charges and also stating that only Rs.16,703/-

¶215

NC: 2025:KHC:53966 RFA No. 1013 of 2010 C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010 RFA No. 1014 of 2010

¶216

30 -

¶217

HC-KAR

¶218

was paid by the defendant. There is reference to several assurances given by the defendant and highlighting that an amount of Rs.60,194.90/- was due i.e., Rs.9,147.54/- towards the arrears of rent and Rs.51,047.36/- towards maintenance charges. Ex.P14 is one more notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant dated 25.01.1997, again there is reference to arrears of rent and maintenance charges as agreed under the lease deed and asking the defendant to quit and vacate the schedule premises on his failure to pay the rent as well as the arrears of maintenance. Ex.P15 is the reply given by the defendant to the plaintiff dated 13.06.1997 again assuring to settle all the outstanding arrears and also referring to issuance of post-dated cheques to settle all dues and requesting to withdraw the quit notice. Ex.P17 is the notice to quit dated 10.06.1998 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. Again referring to pay arrears of rent and maintenance and asking the defendant to vacate the premises by terminating his tenancy.

¶219

Ex.P18 is the copy of lease deed dated 19.03.1991

¶220

entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant. Interestingly, the plaintiff's Mutt was represented by one Sri. M

¶221

31 -

¶222

NC: 2025:KHC:53966 RFA No. 1013 of 2010 C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010 RFA No. 1014 of 2010

¶223

HC-KAR

¶224

Umanath Rao, Chairman of Sub-Committee of Standing Committee and the very same N. Muralidhar, the member of Sub-Committee of the Standing committee, who is signatory to the plaint. This document is an admitted document and the defendant is bound by the terms of lease deed. As per Clause4 of the lease deed, the defendant has agreed to pay and discharge all the cesses, taxes, outgoings such as electrical, water and sanitation charges, expenses of routine maintenance including painting, white washing, lift, lighting and other items of common services, repairs, renewals, professional taxes or any of other taxes that may be levied resulting from the use of the premises. Defendant has agreed to pay maintenance and service charges etc., promptly on the due date that is before the end of the calendar month and agreed to pay penal interest at 15% per annum on the amount that was kept due.

¶225

When defendant in unequivocal terms agreed to pay the maintenance apart from the rent, he cannot be permitted to raise untenable defence, that too, when under various letters referred to above, he unconditionally undertook to pay such arrears. The letters also disclose that the defendant had issued

¶226

32 - NC: 2025:KHC:53966 RFA No. 1013 of 2010 C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010 RFA No. 1014 of 2010

¶227

HC-KAR

¶228

cheques towards payment of the arrears of rent and maintenance, but later requested not to present the same for encashment and had requested to return the same.

¶229

Even though, the defendants examined DWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.D1 to 95, learned counsel for the appellant has not drawn the attention of the Court to any of these documents in support of his contention, highlighting as to why those documents were relied on by the defendants.

¶230

Even though, learned counsel to the appellant has never addressed his arguments and sought for permission to file his written submission and has filed a detailed submission running into several pages, a strange contention is taken by the appellants that the appellants have already paid the amount in excess of the amount stipulated in the lease dead to the plaintiff and contended that there is no basis for the plaintiff to claim the maintenance charges on the ground that lease deed Ex.P18 do not contain any such provision for computation of the maintenance.

¶231

I have referred to various letters written by the defendant addressed to the plaintiff promising to pay the

¶232

33 -

¶233

NC: 2025:KHC:53966 RFA No. 1013 of 2010 C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010 RFA No. 1014 of 2010

¶234

HC-KAR

¶235

amount that was due, including the maintenance charges and issuance of cheques, and withdrawing the same as there was no balance in the bank account. But the defendant has never raised a contention that the plaintiff has to compute the maintenance charges that is payable by the defendant in a particular manner. It is only when the suit is filed, such contention was taken by the defendant, which cannot be entertained. If at all, it was the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff is levying maintenance charges arbitrarily, it could have been mentioned in any of the correspondences referred to above. There is no explanation by the defendant as to why for such a long period he has not demanded the plaintiff to give accounts of such maintenance charges in any of the correspondences, but he requested the plaintiff to accommodate to pay the maintenance charges in instalments.

¶236

The defendant has contended that the plaintiff deliberately failed to form an association and unilaterally levied the maintenance charges without providing any basis. Even though, PW.1 was cross-examined in that regard, he categorically stated that it was the duty of the lessees to form

¶237

34 -

¶238

NC: 2025:KHC:53966 RFA No. 1013 of 2010 C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010 RFA No. 1014 of 2010

¶239

HC-KAR

¶240

an association which they have not made. On the other hand,

¶241

the maintenance charges for the common area was borne by the plaintiff.

¶242

Admittedly, there were common areas referred to in Clause-4 of the lease deed - Ex.P18 for which the defendant agreed to pay the maintenance charges as referred to above.

¶243

The lease deed does not mandate the plaintiff to form an association or to provide account of the maintenance charges to the defendant, even otherwise the defendant never demanded the plaintiff either to form such an association or to provide the accounts. Under such circumstances, the contention raised by the defendant in the written submission cannot be accepted. The defence taken by the defendant in the written submission is not supported either by oral or documentary evidence.

¶244

Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on the decision in Charanjit Singh Vs Kehar Singh¹ , to contend that the admissions will have to be unambiguous, clear and unconditional. The admission of facts is to be very clear from

¶245

1 2006 SCC Online Del 578

¶246

35 -

¶247

NC: 2025:KHC:53966 RFA No. 1013 of 2010 C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010 RFA No. 1014 of 2010

¶248

HC-KAR

¶249

records. It cannot be left to the interpretative determination by the Court, unless it is supported by any evidence. This position of law is very well settled and the same cannot be disputed.

¶250

He also referred to the decision in Chandradhar

¶251

Goswami and others Vs Gauhati Bank Ltd.,² to contend that no person can be charged with liability merely on the basis of entries in books of account, even where such books of account are kept in the regular course of business. The facts and circumstances in the said case are entirely different when compared to the facts of the present case. Here the terms of agreement between the parties are reduced into writing in the form of lease agreement. Execution of lease agreement is admitted by the defendant. He has also admitted that he is liable to pay maintenance to the plaintiff. Even though, the defendant has taken a contention that such maintenance was not quantified or apportioned between other lessees or that the plaintiff has not formed the 'association of lessees' to enable them to maintain common area, there are no such terms in the

¶252

lease agreement agreed between the parties. The discussions held above disclose that the defendant has not raised his little

¶253

2 1966 SCC Online SC 255

¶254

36 -

¶255

NC: 2025:KHC:53966 RFA No. 1013 of 2010 C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010 RFA No. 1014 of 2010

¶256

HC-KAR

¶257

finger requesting the plaintiff to give him the accounts regarding maintenance. Under such circumstances, the decision relied on cannot be made applicable to the facts in the present case.

¶258

He also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) by LRs. Vs Bishun Narain Inter College and Others³ to contend that once it is found that inspite of deficiency in pleadings and the parties knew the case and proceed to trial on those issues by producing evidence, it would not be open to the parties to raise the question of absence of pleadings in the appeal. The pleadings of the parties before the Trial Court are entirely different from the grounds that are urged by the parties in the appeal. When the defendant has never raised the plea before the Trial Court, cannot be permitted to be raise before this Court in the second appeal.

¶259

He also placed reliance on Smt Sumitra Bai Vs P Siddesh and another⁴ in support of his contention that weakness of the defendant's case would not strengthen the

¶260

3 (1987) 2 SCC 555

¶261

4 ILR 2014 KAR 1311

¶262

37 -

¶263

NC: 2025:KHC:53966 RFA No. 1013 of 2010 C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010 RFA No. 1014 of 2010

¶264

HC-KAR

¶265

plaintiff's case. The plaintiff will have to prove his contention by placing cogent materials. This position is also not disputed as the same is well settled.

¶266

In view of the discussions held above, I am of the opinion that the defendant was in arrears of rent and also in arrears of maintenance that was payable to the plaintiff, and moreover his tenancy was terminated by issuing a valid notice to quit. Therefore, he is liable to be evicted. When admittedly the defendant is in arrears of rent and maintenance charges, he has no right to be in possession of the schedule property.

¶267

I have gone through the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. It has taken into consideration all the materials on record and has arrived at a right conclusion. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Hence, I answer to the above point in the 'Negative' and proceed to pass the following:

¶268

ORDER

¶269

The *appeals are dismissed with cost.

¶270

*corrected vide chamber order dated 09.03.2026

¶271

NC: 2025:KHC:53966 RFA No. 1013 of 2010 C/W RFA No. 1004 of 2010 RFA No. 1014 of 2010

¶272