Dismissed¶88

Sri Pramod Jain v. Sri Ganapathi C Bakale

Karnataka HC21 Aug 2025RFA/2637/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court RFA No.2637/2024 (EJE), Justice K.S. Hemalekha, 21.08.2025: burden of proving rival tenancy lies on defendant; bank-statement transfers (Ex.D8, Rs.16,950/-) insufficient to prove landlord-tenant relationship; belated partition suit (O.S.No.24/2021) by alleged landlord treated as fabricated defence; ejectment decree for arrears Rs.5,33,000/- and damages Rs.13,000/- p.m. confirmed; appeal dismissed under Sec. 96 CPC; Wilson Garden, Bengaluru property.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant; the trial court's judgment and decree dated 13.08.2024 stands confirmed. ¶88

Sri Pramod Jain Vs Sri Ganapathi C Bakale — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant; the trial court's judgment and decree dated 13.08.2024 stands confirmed.

¶88

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for ejectment?

¶61

Ratio / Principle

The defendant's special plea of tenancy under D.W.2 (Gopal Krishna S Bakale) was not established by cogent evidence; the timing of D.W.2's partition suit strongly indicates the defence was created with D.W.2's help to defeat the plaintiff's lawful claim, and until that suit culminates in a decree the plaintiff's ownership remains unimpeached.

¶66

Key takeaways

Ex.D.8, even taken at face value, does not show the transferred amount was rent nor prove any landlord-tenant relationship between the defendant and D.W.2; the document does not advance the appellant's case and was rightly disregarded by the trial court.ratio¶80
The admissions of D.W.1 and D.W.2 coupled with the registered documents produced by the plaintiff prove that the defendant, inducted as tenant by the plaintiff, is in arrears of rent; the plea of handing over possession to D.W.2 is unsupported and an afterthought that cannot displace the plaintiff's proved case.ratio¶85

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular First Appeal (Sec. 96 CPC) by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 13.08.2024 of the LVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in OS No.3159/2021 decreeing ejectment with arrears of rent of Rs.5,33,000/- (Jan 2018 - May 2021) and damages of Rs.13,000/- p.m. till possession. The defendant pleaded he was tenant not of the plaintiff but of one Gopal Krishna S Bakale (D.W.2), to whom he allegedly handed back possession on 15.09.2021, corroborated by Ex.D8 (bank statement showing a transfer of Rs.16,950/-). D.W.2 had filed a partition suit O.S.No.24/2021 (Ex.D.13) only in 2021. Holding: the special plea required cogent proof; D.W.1's admissions fixed the agreed rent at Rs.13,000/- p.m., the inconsistent figure of Rs.13,500/- and Ex.D8 lacked credibility and did not evidence any tenancy with D.W.2, whose belated partition suit indicated a manufactured defence; pending its culmination the plaintiff's ownership stood unimpeached. The admissions of D.W.1 and D.W.2 with the registered documents proved the plaintiff's landlordship and arrears. Appeal dismissed; trial decree confirmed. (Coram: K.S. Hemalekha, J.; decided 21.08.2025.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:32581 RFA No. 2637 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶8

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2637 OF 2024 (EJE)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. PRAMOD JAIN S/O. MANAK CHAND JAIN AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.A 205 WILSON MANOR APARTMENTS 13^TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN BANGALORE - 560 030

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI: BHARATH L., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SRI. GANAPATHI C BAKALE AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.16/1, NEW NO.36/2 9^TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN BENGALURU - 560 027 ALSO R/AT NO.56, J.K. ROAD VINAYAKANAGAR, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI: GAJENDRA S., ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.08.2024 PASSED IN OS.NO.3159/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE LVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:32581 RFA No. 2637 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

The present Regular First Appeal is preferred by the defendant assailing the judgment and decree dated 13.08.2024 passed in OS No.3159 of 2021 on the file of the LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-57) (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' for short).

¶25

By the judgment and decree, the Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff against the defendant for eviction, arrears of rent and damages. The trial Court directed the defendant to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the schedule property, pay arrears of rent of Rs.5,33,000/- for the period from January 2018 to May 2021, and further pay damages of Rs.13,000/- per month till delivery of possession.

¶26

Brief facts of the plaintiff's case are that:

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:32581 RFA No. 2637 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property, having purchased the same from one N Lakshminarayana through a registered sale deed dated 23.08.2010, followed by rectification deed dated 21.09.2010. The Katha and tax receipts stand in his name. The plaintiff let out the suit property to the defendant under a rental agreement executed in the month of November 2014, for 11 months with security deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- and a monthly rent of Rs.13,000/- payable on or before 5^th of every calendar

¶30

month. The tenancy was orally extended from time to time. The defendant has not paid rent since January 2018. Despite repeated oral demands and service of a legal notice dated 05.09.2020 demanding arrears of rent of Rs.3,25,000/- and calling upon him to vacate, defendant failed to comply. The plaintiff and his family members are residing in rental premises and are in bonafide need of the suit property.

¶31

The defendant denied the landlord-tenant

¶32

relationship with the plaintiff. He contends that the

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:32581 RFA No. 2637 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

plaintiff is a stranger to him, and that he had taken the suit property on lease from Gopal Krishna S Bakale (D.W.2) under an agreement, having paid a security deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- in cash and rent by cheques to him. It is pleaded that defendant vacated the premises on 15.09.2021 and handed over possession to Gopal Krishna S Bakale after receiving refund of the deposit. Hence, there are no arrears due and the plaintiff cannot claim eviction or rent.

¶36

The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1, marked documents at Exs.P1 to P13 and during the crossexamination of D.W.2, Exs.P13 and P14 were marked. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1, marked documents at Exs.D1 to D11, one witness was examined as D.W.2 and marked through him Exs.D12 and D13.

¶37

The trial Court upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property having

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:32581 RFA No. 2637 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

purchased the same under the registered sale deed dated 23.08.2010, proving ownership. The Trial Court further observed that though defendant has contended that D.W.2 Gopal Krishna S Bakale is the owner of the suit property and he has leased the property on monthly rental of Rs.13,000/- by receiving securing deposit of Rs.1,50,000/the Court found that there was no reliable evidence to believe the same. The plaintiff has established that he has let the suit property in favour of the defendant on rental basis, and the defendant was in arrears of rent since 2018, and consequently decreed the said suit.

¶41

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶42

appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶43

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that the trial court has totally fallen in error in decreeing the suit. It is urged that the plaintiff has not produced any document to establish the

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:32581 RFA No. 2637 of 2024

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

existence of a landlord-tenant relationship between parties. When the respondent-plaintiff has taken a specific stance that there was a rental agreement entered into between himself and the appellant for leasing the schedule property, absence of such an agreement is fatal to the

¶47

plaintiff's case and the trial court failed to appreciate this legal infirmity. It is argued that the specific stand of the appellant-defendant consistently taken in the written statement is that he was never a tenant under the respondent-plaintiff, but was inducted as a tenant by one Gopal Krishna S Bakale (examined as D.W.2). It is his case that he had paid a security deposit of Rs.1,50,000/in cash and rents from time to time to the said Gopal Krishna S Bakale, and this fact is corroborated by Ex.D.8, the statement of account of the appellant, showing the payments made. However, this vital piece of evidence has been completely overlooked by the trial Court. The learned counsel further submits that the appellant has already vacated the schedule premises on 15.09.2021 and

¶48

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:32581 RFA No. 2637 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

handed over the possession of the same to the said landlord Gopal Krishna S Bakale, upon refund of the security deposit by way of cash. This defence, having raised at the earliest in the written statement, was supported by production of Exs.D.1 and D.2. It is therefore, contended that the finding of the trial Court that the defendant is in illegal occupation and liable for arrears is perverse, contrary to evidence, and liable to be set aside.

¶51

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff would submit that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property, having purchased the

¶52

same under a registered sale deed dated 23.08.2010, followed by a rectification on deed dated 21.09.2010. The defendant was inducted as a tenant in November 2014 under a rental agreement having paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards security deposit and agreed to pay Rs.13,000/-p.m., as rent.

¶53

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:32581 RFA No. 2637 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

It is further submitted that the reliance placed by the appellant on D.W.2, namely Gopal Krishna S Bakale is wholly misconceived. D.W.2 is only the cousin brother of plaintiff and has set up a rival claim by filing a partition suit. That aspect is a matter to be adjudicated in the said partition proceedings and cannot dilute the ownership and possession of the plaintiff under the registered documents presently standing in his favour. Unless and until such partition suit culminates in a decree, the plaintiff's title and rights as landlord cannot be displaced. The learned counsel further contends that when the defendant has set up a special plea that he is a tenant under Gopal Krishna S Bakale and not under the plaintiff, the burden squarely rests on him to prove the same by cogent and convincing evidence. Except for producing Ex.D.8 (Bank statement) and examining D.W.2, no documentary evidence has been adduced to prove a tenancy arrangement with D.W.2. Mere transfer of some amounts into the account of D.W.2 cannot establish the creation of tenancy. The manner in

¶56

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:32581 RFA No. 2637 of 2024

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

which the trial court has considered the entire evidence, the same does not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶59

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶60

parties, the only point that arises for consideration is

¶61

"whether the Trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for ejectment?"

¶62

Undisputed fact is that the plaintiff has purchased the property bearing No.16/1, BBMP assigned Municipal No.16/1, situated at 9^th cross, Wilson Garden, Hombegowda Nagar, Ward No.145, Old Ward No.62, Bangalore, measuring to an extent of East to West 40 ft. and North to South 20 ft., in all measuring 800 Sq. Fts. It is also not in dispute that in the schedule property, the defendant occupied the premises as tenant. The case made out by the defendant is that the defendant is a tenant but not under the plaintiff but under Gopal Krishna S Bakale and he has been paying rent to the Gopal Krishna S Bakale, further he has vacated the schedule property by

¶63

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:32581 RFA No. 2637 of 2024

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

handing over the same to his landlord Gopal Krishna S Bakale.

¶66

The special plea made by the defendant has to be established by cogent evidence. He has examined D.W.2 the said Gopal Krishna S Bakale. It is significant that D.W.2 filed a partition suit O.S.No.24/2021, Ex.D.13, only in the year 2021, long after the plaintiff had purchased the property in 2010 and let it out in 2014. From 2014 to 2021, there was no challenge to the plaintiff's title or his status as a landlord. The timing of the suit, coupled with the defendant's plea that he is tenant under D.W.2, strongly indicates that the defence was created with the help of D.W.2, to defeat the plaintiff's lawful claim. Until the partition suit culminates in a decree, no right accrues to D.W.2 and the plaintiff's ownership remains impeached.

¶67

D.W.1 in his cross-examination has stated as under:

¶68

11 -

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:32581 RFA No. 2637 of 2024

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

"�ಾನು ಪ�� ಂಗಳ� �ಾ�ಾ ಆ� � ೆ ರೂ.13,000/- �ೆ ೂಡು� � ೆ ಎಂದ# $ಾ%ಯು ರೂ.13,500/- �ೆ ೂಡು� � ೆ ಎಂದು ನು(ಯು)ಾ�#ೆ . ಜನವ, 2018 ,ಂದ �ಾನು �ಾ/�ೆ �ಾ�ಾ ಆ� � ೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ4 5ಾ(�ೆ ಯನು6 7ೕ(ಲ: ಎಂದ#ೆ ಸ,. $ಾ% ಮುಂದುವ,ದು �ಾನು �ೆ ೂೕ<ಾಲಕೃಷ 5ಾಕAೆ �ೆ 5ಾ(�ೆ 7ೕಡು� � ೆ ೕ�ೆ ಎಂದು ನು(ಯು)ಾ�#ೆ . �ೋ<ಾಲಕೃಷ@ 5ಾಕAೆ �ಾ�ಾ ಆ� � ೆ BಾCೕಕ#ೆಂದು )ೋ,ಸಲು �ಾಖEೆಗಳನು6 Fಾಜರುಪ(�ಲ: ಎಂದ#ೆ ಸ,. �ಾನು �ೋ<ಾಲಕೃಷ@ 5ಾಕAೆ ಯವರ �ೆಳ�ೆ 5ಾ(�ೆ�ಾರ�ಾG�ೆ ೕ�ೆ ಎಂದು )ೋ,ಸಲು 5ಾ(�ೆ ಕ#ಾರನು6 Fಾಜರುಪ(�ಲ: ಎಂದ#ೆ ಸ,. �ಾ�ಾ ಆ� � ೆ BಾCೕಕ#ೆಂದು )ೋ,ಸಲು �ಾಖEೆಗಳನು6 Fಾಜರುಪ(�ಲ: ಎಂದ#ೆ ಸ,. �ಾನು �ೋ<ಾಲಕೃಷ@ 5ಾಕAೆ ಯವರ �ೆಳ�ೆ 5ಾ(�ೆ�ಾರ�ಾG�ೆ ೕ�ೆ ಎಂದು )ೋ,ಸಲು 5ಾ(�ೆ ಕ#ಾರನು6 Fಾಜರುಪ(�ಲ: ಎಂದ#ೆ ಸ,. �ಾ�ಾ ಆ� � ೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ4 HದುIJ ಚLM� Nಲ:ನು6 �ಾ�ೇ ಕಟು4� � ೆ ೕ�ೆ ಎಂದ#ೆ ಸ,. ಸದ, HದುIJಚLM� NOನC: �ಾ/ಯು �ಾ�ಾ ಆ��ಯ BಾCೕಕ ಎಂದು ನಮೂ�ಾG�ೆ ಎಂದ#ೆ ಸ,. �ೋ<ಾಲಕೃಷ@ 5ಾಕAೆ �ಾ�ಾ ಆ� � ೆ BಾCೕಕರು ಎಂದು �ಾನು ಈವ#ೆ�ೆ QಾವR�ೇ �ಾಖEೆಗಳನು6 �ೋ(ಲ:. �ಾ�ಾ ಆ��ಯ 5ಾ(�ೆ�ಾರ�ಾG �ಾನು �ಾIS ಉಪUೕGಸು� � ೆ ೕ�ೆ ಎಂದ#ೆ ಸ,. �ಾನು Vದಲು �ಾಸ Bಾಡು��ದ ಮ�ೆWಂದ �ಾIS ನ �ಾ�ಹಕ�ಾG ಬದEಾವYೆ Bಾ(�ೊಳZಲು �ಾ�ಾ ಆ��ಯ HAಾಸ 7ೕಡಲು �ಾ�ಾ ಆ� � ೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ4 [ಾ)ಾ 5ಾ(�ೆ ಕ#ಾರು 7ೕ(�ೆ ೕ�ೆ ಎಂದ#ೆ ಸ,. 5ಾ(�ೆ ಕ#ಾ,ನ \ೊ)ೆ �ಾ�ಾ ಆ��ಯ ಉ)ಾ�#ೆಯನು6 7ೕ(�ೆ ಎಂದ#ೆ ಸ,ಯಲ:. ಸದ, 5ಾ(�ೆ ಕ#ಾ, ಪತ�ದC: �ಾ/ಯು BಾCೕಕ�ೆಂದು ನಮೂದು BಾಡEಾG�ೆ ಎಂದ#ೆ ಸ,."

¶72

(Emphasis supplied)

¶73

12 -

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:32581 RFA No. 2637 of 2024

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

The further cross examination of D.W.1 reads is as under:

¶77

"ಜನವ, 2018 ,ಂದ ಇC:ಯವ#ೆ�ೆ �ಾನು �ಾ�ಾ ಆ� � ೆ 5ಾ(�ೆ �ೆ ೂl4ಲ ಎಂದ#ೆ ಸ,ಯಲ:. $ಾ% ಮುಂದುವ,ದು ನ�ೆ ಂಬm 2021 ರC: �ಾ�ಾ ಆ��ಯನು6 �ಾನು [ಾC Bಾ(�ೆ ಎಂದು ನು(ಯು)ಾ�#ೆ . �ಾನು �ಾ�ಾ ಆ��ಯನು6 [ಾC Bಾ( $ಾn/ೕನವನು6 �ಾ/�ೆ 7ೕ(�ೆ ೕ�ೆ ಎಂದು ಸುಳ�Z $ಾ% Fೇಳ�� ೆ ೕ�ೆ ಎಂದ#ೆ ಸ,ಯಲ:."

¶78

(Emphasis supplied)

¶79

Perusal of the cross examination of D.W.1

¶80

indicates that he has categorically admitted that the agreed monthly rent was Rs.13,000/-. However, in his deposition, he attempted to vary the figure by stating it was Rs.13,500/-, and further sought to rely upon Ex.D8, which reflects a transfer of Rs.16,950/- to the account of D.W.2. The said inconsistency, coupled with the admitted rate of rent, clearly shows that the defendant's version lacks credibility. Ex.D.8, even if accepted on face value, does not establish that the amount transferred was towards rent, nor does it prove that any landlord-tenant relationship existed between the defendant and D.W.2.

¶81

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:32581 RFA No. 2637 of 2024

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

The document therefore does not advance the case of the appellant and was rightly disregarded by the trial court.

¶84

The trial Court has carefully weighed the oral and documentary evidence. The admissions of D.W.1 and D.W.2 coupled with the registered documents produced by

¶85

the plaintiff clearly prove that the defendant who was inducted as a tenant by the plaintiff is in arrears of rent. The contention that the possession was handed over to D.W.2 is unsupported by any credible material. The defence is after thought and cannot displace the plaintiff's proved case.

¶86