Dismissed¶61

Abhyudaya Educational Trust v. B. K. Gowda

Karnataka HC14 Nov 2025RFA/1974/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (DB: D K Singh & Tara Vitasta Ganju), RFA No. 1974 of 2017, Abhyudaya Educational Trust v. LRs of B.K. Gowda — ejectment decree upheld; damages/mesne profits computed on agreed rent plus hire charges for fittings and fixtures; termination of tenancy by Section 106 Transfer of Property Act notice; appellate review limited to hire-charges component of damages; appeal dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant; the Trial Court decree for ejectment and damages/mesne profits (admitted monthly rent plus hire charges) stands; no order as to costs. ¶61

Abhyudaya Educational Trust Vs B. K. Gowda — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:46747-DB RFA No. 1974 of 2017

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1974 OF 2017 (RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

ABHYUDAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MR. M. KRISHNA, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 208, GROUND FLOOR, WESTMINSTER COMPLEX, NO.13, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. S GANESH SHENOY., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

B. K. GOWDA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.,

¶15

SMT. REVATHI GOWDA, W/O. LATE B.K. GOWDA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,

¶16

DR. ARATHI GOPAL D/O. LATE B. K. GOWDA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶17

R/AT NO.485/2, 9TH MAIN, 11TH CROSS, J. P. NAGAR, 2ND PHASE, BENGALURU-560 078.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:46747-DB RFA No. 1974 of 2017

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SRI. ADARSH GOWDA S/O. LATE B. K. GOWDA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT APARTMENT NO.G-3, SNS VILLA, 24, LAVELLE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 011.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. M SHIVAPRAKASH., ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. V.KRISHNA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶24

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:31.8.2017 PASSED IN OS.NO.6890/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU., DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶29

This appeal has been filed under Section 96 of the

¶30

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the appellant, who was

¶31

the defendant, impugning the judgment and decree dated

¶32

31.08.2017 passed in O.S.No.6890/2013 by the XXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:46747-DB RFA No. 1974 of 2017

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred

¶37

to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

¶38

The defendant/Institution was the tenant of the schedule property. The rent was being paid @ of Rs.53,793/- per month for the property, besides hire charges of Rs.23,908/- per month, towards fittings and fixtures for which separate agreement was entered into between the wife of the plaintiff-Smt Revathi Gowda and the defendant.

¶39

The suit was filed for ejectment and damages/mesne profits. The learned Trial Court has decreed the suit for ejectment and directed the defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the schedule premises to the plaintiffs within three months from the date of decree and also granted damages at the admitted monthly rent at Rs.53,790/- plus the hire charges of Rs.23,908/- per month, till the date of handing over vacant possession.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:46747-DB RFA No. 1974 of 2017

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Notice dated 06.05.2013 was issued under Section

¶44

106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, terminating the tenancy and requiring the defendant to hand over vacant possession in terms of Ex.P.3 stating that occupation in

¶45

the premises beyond 01.06.2013 onwards would be unauthorized. The defendant did not comply with the said notice as stated above.

¶46

In this regard, learned counsel for the

¶47

appellant/defendant submits that in compliance of the impugned judgment and decree, vacant possession of the schedule premises had been handed over as per the appellant on 21.06.2013.

¶48

Learned counsel for the defendant submits that he does not dispute the damages at the admitted monthly rent of Rs.53,790/-, but submits that hire charges of Rs.23,908/- could not have been granted by the Trial Court, inasmuch as no separate suit was filed by the wife of the plaintiff claiming arrears of hire charges. He

¶49

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46747-DB RFA No. 1974 of 2017

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

therefore, submits that he is confining his submission to that extent and for deletion of the amount awarded for hire charges from the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

¶52

We have considered the submission advanced by learned counsel for both the parties.

¶53

The only point that arises for our consideration is as to "Whether the learned Trial Court has awarded hire charges or learned Trial Court has assessed the damages/mesne profits for not vacating the premises after having received notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act i.e., 01.06.2013, and the defendant had over stayed for a period of 4-1/2 years. Considering the impugned judgment and decree, we find that the trial Court has only assessed the damages/mesne profit on the

¶54

basis of the agreed rent and hire charges. It is not in dispute that defendant was liable to pay the hire charges for using the fitting and fixtures. We also take note of the

¶55

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:46747-DB RFA No. 1974 of 2017

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

fact that no separate amount has been awarded for hire

¶59

charges, but while calculating the damages, both the amounts have been taken together. We therefore, do not find there is any error committed by the learned Trial

¶60

Court.

¶61