Mr Ali Jaan Vs Mrs Syeda Sabiha Amjad

MRS. SYEDA SABIHA AMJAD W/O SYED AMJAD PASHA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS REP. BY HER G.P.A HOLDER SYED AMJAD PASHA S/O. LATE SYED PEER PASHA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS NO.112/1, COLES ROAD CROSS FIRST FLOOR, FRAZER TOWN BENGALURU-560 005.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. SYED IFTEKAR AHMED KHURESHI, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.09.2024 PASSED IN OS NO.25263/2023 ON THE FILE OF XIII ADDITIONAL CITY

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:23982 RFA No. 2311 of 2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

Though this appeal is listed for admission, since the decree arises out of an ejectment suit, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

¶24

This appeal is by the defendant/tenant assailing the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2024 passed in O.S.No.25263/2023.

¶25

3. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred

¶26

to as per their rank before the trial Court.

¶27

Upon service of summons, the defendant

¶28

entered appearance and filed a written statement, categorically denying the plaint averments. The defendant

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:23982 RFA No. 2311 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

specifically disputed the jural relationship with the plaintiff, asserting that he was inducted as a tenant by one Syed Zulfikhar Ahmed, to whom he has been paying the monthly rent. On that premise, the defendant contended that the plaintiff has no locus to maintain the present ejectment suit.

¶32

Both parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court answered Issues Nos.1 to 4 in the affirmative. On Issue No.1, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff had successfully established that the defendant was inducted as a tenant under her on a monthly rent of Rs.23,100/- and that the tenancy was validly terminated by issuance of legal notice dated 20.12.2022. On Issue No.2, the Trial Court concluded that the defendant had defaulted in payment of rent and was in arrears to the tune of Rs.4,31,200/-. With respect to Issue No.3, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover mesne profits at the rate of Rs.30,000/-

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:23982 RFA No. 2311 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

per month from January 2023 onwards. Aggrieved by the decree for ejectment and mesne profits, the defendant has preferred the present appeal.

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal, strenuously contended that the plaintiff has failed to prove the existence of a jural relationship of landlord and tenant between herself and the defendant. Drawing the Court’s attention to the plaintiff’s cross-examination, he pointed out that the plaintiff has, in unambiguous terms, admitted that it was Syed Zulfikhar Ahmed who had inducted the defendant as a tenant. He submitted

¶37

that this material admission strikes at the root of the plaintiff’s claim and has been completely overlooked by the Trial Court. Therefore, he contended that the findings recorded by the Trial Court are perverse and warrant interference by this Court.

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:23982 RFA No. 2311 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

It is not in dispute that the plaintiff did not face

¶41

any serious challenge to her ownership or entitlement during the proceedings before the Trial Court.

¶42

Heard learned counsel for the appellant/defendant and learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. Perused the material on record. The following point arises for consideration in this appeal:

¶43

" Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court directing the defendant to vacate and hand over possession and to pay arrears of rent and mesne profits suffers from any perversity warranting interference?"

¶44

Finding on the above Point:

¶45

Although the plaintiff has not produced a formal

¶46

lease agreement to evidence the tenancy, she has relied

¶47

upon other cogent documentary evidence to substantiate her claim. In particular, the plaintiff has placed reliance on the bank statement marked as Ex.P-7, which reflects payment of rent by the defendant through cheques. At

¶48

6 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:23982 RFA No. 2311 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

paragraph 8 of the plaint, the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that the defendant was regularly paying rent through cheques until June 2021, and that these transactions are duly reflected in the said bank statement. Significantly, this specific assertion has not been controverted by the defendant in the written statement. Apart from a general denial of the contents of paragraph 8 of the plaint, the defendant has neither offered any plausible explanation nor specifically disputed the rent transactions reflected in Ex.P-7. The absence of a specific denial in the pleadings, especially in respect of a document as critical as the bank statement showing rent payments, lends credibility to the plaintiff’s version and operates as an implied admission under Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶52

In a suit for ejectment, the burden on the plaintiff is to establish: (i) her ownership over the suit schedule property, and (ii) the existence of a jural relationship of landlord and tenant between her and the

¶53

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:23982 RFA No. 2311 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

defendant. The plaintiff has produced the registered sale deed dated 18.03.1996, marked as Ex.P-2, to establish her ownership. In the absence of a written lease deed, the bank statement Ex.P-7 assumes great significance.

¶56

The said statement corroborates the plaintiff’s specific pleadings and substantiates that the defendant was paying rent directly into her account. Thus, the payment of rent by cheque, as reflected in Ex.P-7, strongly supports the inference that the defendant was inducted by the plaintiff and was paying rent to her. This documentary evidence, when read in conjunction with the uncontroverted pleadings, establishes the jural relationship between the parties.

¶57

In this background, the alleged stray admission

¶58

elicited during the cross-examination of the plaintiff that the defendant was originally inducted as a tenant by one

¶59

Syed Zulfikhar Ahmed does not, by itself, erode the evidentiary value of the documentary evidence placed on record. The admission, even if accepted at face value,

¶60

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:23982 RFA No. 2311 of 2024

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

does not displace the plaintiff’s claim that subsequent rent

¶63

was being paid directly to her, nor does it establish that Zulfikhar Ahmed continued to be the landlord. Once the payment of rent by the defendant to the plaintiff is established through Ex.P-7, the plea of the defendant denying the jural relationship stands substantially weakened. It is well settled that stray statements or isolated admissions in cross-examination, unless consistent with the pleadings or corroborated by other evidence, cannot outweigh clear documentary evidence.

¶64

In the considered opinion of this Court, the Trial

¶65

Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record. The findings recorded on Issues Nos.1 to 3 are based on a proper evaluation of both oral and documentary evidence. In the absence of any substantive rebuttal or contrary evidence led by the defendant, the conclusions of the Trial Court that the plaintiff is the landlady, that the defendant was inducted as a tenant under her, and that the

¶66

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:23982 RFA No. 2311 of 2024

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

defendant has defaulted in payment of rent, do not call for interference.

¶69

Upon a comprehensive re-appreciation of the material on record, including the pleadings, oral evidence, and the documents marked, particularly Ex.P-2 and Ex.P7, this Court finds no infirmity in the findings of the Trial Court on Issues Nos.1 to 3. The conclusions arrived at are

¶70

based on sound reasoning and are supported by uncontroverted material. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered in the Negative .

¶71