Sri Umesh Kumar, Vs Smt. N Meena @ Meenakshi

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:30624 RFA No. 915 of 2023

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 915 OF 2023 (EJE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI UMESH KUMAR, S/O SRI C V JOSHI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/A HIG NO.3, AGRAHARA, DASARAHALLI EXTENSION, K H B COLONY, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI KIRAN V RON., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SMT. N MEENA @ MEENAKSHI, W/O SRI V VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/A NO.622, 2^ND STAGE, 2^ND BLOCK, NARAYANA NAGAR, DODDAKALLASANDRA, BENGALURU – 560 062.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SMT. SOHANI HOLLA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.02.2023 PASSED IN OS NO.3997/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE LXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALORE DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:30624 RFA No. 915 of 2023

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

The present Regular First Appeal is preferred by the plaintiff, assailing the correctness and legality of the judgment and decree dated 04.02.2023 passed in O.S.No.3997/2016, by the LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’ for short). By the impugned judgment and decree, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

¶22

Brief facts:

¶23

Suit is one for possession, recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.1,36,000/- for the period of 01.03.2014 to 15.04.2016 at the rate of Rs.6,500/- per month, direction to pay damages at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month for the unauthorized occupation from 16.04.2016 till the delivery of vacant possession, award costs and other consequential reliefs.

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:30624 RFA No. 915 of 2023

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

The case of the plaintiff is that, he is the absolute owner of the suit property. The defendant was inducted as a tenant on 01.03.2014 at a monthly rent of Rs.6,500/-. At inception of tenancy, the defendant has paid a sum of Rs.70,000/- by two cheques for a sum of Rs.35,000/- each as refundable security deposit, payable at the determination of the tenancy, without interest. Further, a lease agreement dated 01.03.2014 was prepared by the plaintiff on stamp paper and handed over to the defendant for signature. The defendant requested to retain the same to obtain her husband’s approval (who was residing at Hyderabad). Despite repeated request, the defendant failed to return the lease agreement. Nevertheless, the possession of the suit property was delivered and the defendant entered as a tenant under the plaintiff.

¶28

The defendant became a chronic defaulter in

¶29

payment of rent. Till date, only Rs.20,000/- has been paid (credited on 04.09.2014 to the plaintiff's bank account).

¶30

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:30624 RFA No. 915 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

The defendant is in arrears of Rs.1,36,000/- from the inception of the tenancy upto March-2016. The plaintiff issued a quit notice calling upon the defendant to vacate premises on or before 30.04.2016 and to pay the arrears of rent. The defendant neither complied with the notice nor vacated the premises. Consequently, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages.

¶33

Defendant filed her written statement inter alia denying the plaint averments. The defendant admitted that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property. The defendant claims that she was inducted not as a tenant but as a licensee in possession under an agreement of sale executed on 01.03.2014.

¶34

As per her version, the total sale consideration was Rs.36,00,000/-, she asserts to have paid Rs.9,00,000/- as an advance payment at the time of execution of the sale agreement. The defendant alleges that the original sale deed was retained by the plaintiff

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:30624 RFA No. 915 of 2023

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

under the pretext of securing additional witness signature and that the plaintiff allegedly handed over only a photocopy of the said agreement to the defendant. It is stated that the defendant on repeated requests by the plaintiff, has made additional payments of Rs.20,000/- on 04.09.2014 and Rs.18,100/- on 11.10.2014. But according to the defendant it is towards the sale consideration amount.

¶38

Before the trial Court, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1, marked documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. On the other hand, the defendant examined herself as DW.1, marked documents as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2.

¶39

The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff primarily on the ground that there was no written document evidencing the landlord and tenant relationship. It held that the plaintiff failed to establish tenancy, as the alleged lease deed dated 01.03.2014 was not produced in evidence, and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to recovery of possession, arrears of rent or damages. The

¶40

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:30624 RFA No. 915 of 2023

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

trial Court placed weight upon the defendant's plea that she was in possession of the suit property under an agreement of sale dated 01.03.2014, having allegedly paid Rs.9,00,000/out of the total consideration of Rs.36,00,000/-. It is concluded that the defendant's possession could not be termed unauthorized so long as the alleged agreement subsisted.

¶43

Heard learned counsel Sri Kiran V. Rao, appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel Smt. Sohani Holla, appearing for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶44

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the defendant has categorically admitted that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property. Further, it is submitted that the plaintiff’s specific case is that a lease deed dated 01.03.2014 was prepared, typed, and signed by the plaintiff, and handed over to the defendant for her signature. The defendant wrongly retained the document without returning it. This is clearly pleaded at para No.5 of

¶45

7 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:30624 RFA No. 915 of 2023

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

the plaint. The trial Court erred in ignoring this pleading and holding that the tenancy was not proved merely because the signed document was not produced.

¶49

It is submitted that in para No.3 of the written statement, the defendant set up a case that she was an agreement holder under an agreement of sale dated 01.03.2014 and that she has paid Rs.9,00,000/- as part of the sale consideration. Further, it is submitted that the defendant did not produce the alleged agreement of sale or any supporting receipts, to indicate that there was an alleged payment of Rs.9,00,000/- by the defendant to the plaintiff. The burden was on the defendant to prove her specific defence, which she failed to discharge. Thus, the trial Court completely misdirected itself by discarding the plaintiff's consistent case of tenancy.

¶50

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent argues that she was not a tenant but an agreement holder, inducted into possession under an agreement of sale dated 01.03.2014. She had paid Rs.9,00,000/- as

¶51

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:30624 RFA No. 915 of 2023

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

part sale consideration, and further amount of Rs.20,000/on 04.09.2014 and Rs.18,100/- on 11.10.2014. The payment of Rs.20,000/- was not towards the rent but part of financial transactions connected with the sale agreement. It is contended that in the absence of a written lease deed, no landlord and tenant relationship can be inferred.

¶54

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is:

¶55

“Whether the trial Court was justified in holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove the jural relationship of landlord and tenant?”

¶56

The plaintiff’s case was that the defendant was

¶57

inducted as a tenant into the suit schedule property on 01.03.2014 at monthly rent of Rs.6,500/- and had paid a sum of Rs.70,000/- as refundable security deposit. The case of the defendant is that while, admitting that the plaintiff was the absolute owner of the suit property, denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. She set up

¶58

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:30624 RFA No. 915 of 2023

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

a special plea that she was inducted into possession as an

¶61

agreement holder under an agreement of sale dated 01.03.2014, under which, she has allegedly paid a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- towards the total sale consideration of Rs.36,00,000/-. According to her, possession was

¶62

delivered in part performance of this agreement, and therefore, she was not a tenant but an agreement holder. When the defendant takes a specific plea, namely that she is in possession as an agreement holder under the agreement of sale dated 01.03.2014, the burden squarely lies upon her to prove such plea. It is well settled that a party who asserts a specific case must substantiate it by leading cogent evidence, failing which the case of the other side stands established.

¶63

In the present case, the defendant has not produced the alleged agreement of sale, either in original or in copy, nor has she produced any evidence to establish payment of Rs.9,00,000/- as part sale consideration. There are no receipts, bank entries or corroborative

¶64

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:30624 RFA No. 915 of 2023

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

witnesses to support this assertion. Hence, the plea of agreement remains wholly unsubstantiated.

¶67

The Apex Court in the case of Biswanath Agarwalla Vs. Sabitri Bera and Others¹ (Biswanath Agarwalla) , placed reliance by the appellant’s counsel, has observed that even if a landlord in a given case is unable to establish the strict relationship of landlord and tenant, yet if he is able to prove his general title to the property, he would nonetheless be entitled to a decree on the strength of such title. The Apex Court, while considering

¶68

Radha Devi Vs Ajay Kumar Sinha² (Radha Devi) , accepted the principle that a landlord is entitled to obtain a decree of eviction on basis of his general title, even if the relationship of landlord and tenant is not proved in the strict sense.

¶69

In the present case, the defendant though has not admitted tenancy in the written statement, however

¶70

1 (2009) 15 SCC 693

¶71

2 (1998) 2 BLJR 1061

¶72

11 -

¶73

NC: 2025:KHC:30624 RFA No. 915 of 2023

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

has set up a specific plea of agreement of sale. The specific plea has not been proved that she was inducted into possession under an agreement of sale dated 01.03.2014, under which she claims to have paid a sum of Rs.9,00,000/as earnest money out of the total consideration of Rs.36,00,000/- and no credible evidence has been established to prove the agreement of sale or to establish the alleged payment of Rs.9,00,000/-. In the absence of such proof, the specific plea must fail.

¶76

It is also relevant to note that while defendant has referred to payments of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.18,100/made to the plaintiff, she has sought to explain them as being part of the alleged sale transaction. This bare assertion without any documentary foundation, do not inspire confidence. Even assuming for a moment that an agreement of sale was executed on 01.03.2014, the defendant has not taken any steps to enforce the same by instituting a suit for specific performance, which raises a strong inference that the plea of agreement of sale was

¶77

12 -

¶78

NC: 2025:KHC:30624 RFA No. 915 of 2023

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

raised only to resist eviction. Therefore, the plaintiff having proved his general title, the defendant having failed to substantiate her specific plea, the trial Court was not justified in dismissing the suit for possession.

¶81

The respondent has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of K. Gopala Reddy (Deceased) By L.Rs. Vs. Suryanarayana and Others³ (K. Gopala Reddy). The decision placed by the respondent is distinguishable and not applicable to the present facts. As the defendant’s claim of an agreement of sale with a Rs.9,00,000/- earnest amount payment cannot stand without a documentary proof, and such claims do not relieve her of the burden to pay rent if she cannot substantiate her ownership or transaction.

¶82

The findings recorded by the trial Court are contrary to law and evidence and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is

¶83

3 LAW(KAR) -2003-11-86

¶84

13 -

¶85

NC: 2025:KHC:30624 RFA No. 915 of 2023

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

answered in favour of the appellant and this Court pass

¶88

the following:

¶89

ORDER

¶90

i. The Regular First Appeal is hereby allowed .

¶91

ii. The judgment and decree dated 04.02.2023 passed in *O.S.No.3997/2016 on the file of LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is hereby set aside .

¶92

iii. Defendant is directed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property within three months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶93

iv. The question of mesne profits to be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings.

¶94

Sd/-

¶95

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶96

AT

¶97

List No.: 1 Sl No.:79

¶98

*Corrected vide chamber order dated 24.09.2025

Sri Umesh Kumar, v. Smt. N Meena @ Meenakshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Umesh Kumar, v. Smt. N Meena @ Meenakshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Anjinappa Vs Sri.C. Ramesh

K. Rangaswamy Vs Smt. H.T. Sundari

Sri H Swamy Vs Smt. Renu Tiwari

Renukamma Vs B. C. Muralidhar

Suma Manjunath Vs Manjunath B G

Smt Bindu S Vs Sri. Harsha S K