Mr B Usman Vs M/S Saibeen Complex Pvt. Ltd. — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2025)

Mr B Usman Vs M/S Saibeen Complex Pvt. Ltd. — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant; the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are confirmed; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Courts below are justified in holding that the plaintiff is the owner of the schedule premises, which is contrary to the oral and documentary evidence?

Court's answer

No error is found in the impugned judgments; both Courts below rightly passed the impugned judgments considering the verbal and documentary evidence, and the substantial question of law is answered in the affirmative, i.e., the Courts below were justified in holding that the plaintiff is the owner of the schedule premises.

Ratio / Principle

Service of the legal notice dated 10.12.2008 terminating the tenancy is held sufficient as per Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the postal cover having been returned with the endorsement 'not claimed'; the defendants did not reply to the notice.

Key takeaways

On DW1's cross-examination admissions that the relationship was one of lessor and lessee and that the lease was not renewed, the defendant has no right to continue in possession of the suit schedule property after the expiry of the lease period and determination of the lease.ratio¶75

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (Ashok S. Kinagi J., 06.06.2025), RSA No. 1252 of 2013 (MON) under S.100 CPC: Second appeal by tenant-defendant (Mr B Usman) against the judgment and decree dated 19.03.2013 in R.A.No.108/2010 (III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mangalore) confirming the ejectment decree dated 01.07.2010 in O.S.No.46/2009 (III Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Mangalore) in favour of landlord M/s Saibeen Complex Pvt Ltd. Sole substantial question of law — whether the Courts below were justified in holding the plaintiff owner of the schedule premises contrary to the oral and documentary evidence — answered in the affirmative; no error found in the impugned judgments. Tenancy at Rs.3,371/- per month; lease not extended; tenant in arrears (Rs.61,278/- till November 2008); termination notice dated 10.12.2008 returned unclaimed, its service held sufficient under S.27, General Clauses Act, 1897; DW1 admitted the lessor-lessee relationship and non-renewal of lease, and the defendant was held to have no right to continue in possession after determination of the lease. Appeal dismissed; judgments and decrees of the Courts below confirmed; no order as to costs; mesne profits at Rs.150/- per day (and Rs.150/- per month from 28.12.2009 till institution, as printed) stand confirmed.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:19543 RSA No. 1252 of 2013

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1252 OF 2013 (MON)

BETWEEN:

MR B USMAN S/O LATE B ABOOBAKKAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT BEJAI NEW ROAD MANGALORE-575001

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. B LETHIF .,ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

M/S SAIBEEN COMPLEX PVT LTD A PRIVATE FLIMITED COMPANY UNCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR M A RAHMAN SAIBEEN COMPLEX, LALBAGH MANGALORE-575004

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. ANANDA ., ADVOCATE)

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 19.03.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.108/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:19543 RSA No. 1252 of 2013

HC-KAR

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 01.07.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.46/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN), MANGALORE.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

ORAL JUDGMENT

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.03.2013 passed in R.A.No.108/2010 by the Learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada and the judgment and decree dated 01.07.2010 passed in O.S.No.46/2009 passed by the III Additional Civil Judge, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada.

For convenience, the parties are referred to

based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the defendant and the respondent was the plaintiff.

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19543 RSA No. 1252 of 2013

HC-KAR

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for ejectment. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property and the suit schedule property was let out to the defendant and Rs.3,371/- was fixed towards monthly rent. The defendant did not pay the rent. The defendant is a chronic defaulter regarding the payment of monthly rent. It is contended that there is a huge arrears of rent due till November, 2008, total amounting to Rs.61,278/-. Hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 10.12.2008, terminating the tenancy of the defendant over the suit schedule property and also sought for the payment of arrears of rent. The said notice was returned with an endorsement stating "not claimed". Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for ejectment.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19543 RSA No. 1252 of 2013

HC-KAR

The defendant filed a written statement,

denying the averments made in the plaint and also denied regarding the issuance of quit notice. It is contended that there is no termination of tenancy as rent of Rs.3,100/was received by the plaintiff on 14.01.2009. There is no cause of action to file a suit. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues.

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is

the absolute owner of suit schedule premises?

2.Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendant was in arrears of rent to the extent of Rs.61,278/-?

3. Whether the plaintiff further proves that a valid quit notice was issued to the defendant?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim mesne profits at the rate of Rs.300/- per day from 28.12.2008 to 09.01.2009 total amounting to Rs.3,900/-?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to future mesne profits?

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:19543 RSA No. 1252 of 2013

HC-KAR

The plaintiff to substantiate its case, its

Managing director, was examined as PW1, examined one witness as PW2 and marked 2 documents as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. In rebuttal, the defendant was examined as DW1 and marked four documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D4. The trial Court, after assessment of the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1 to 3 and 6 in the affirmative, issue Nos.4 and 5 partly in the affirmative. Issue No.7 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed with costs. The defendant was directed to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within four months from the date of this order and also directed the defendant to pay the mense profits at the rate of Rs.150/- per month from 28.12.2009 till the date of institution of the suit and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs.150/- per day from the date of institution of the suit till the date of decree as well as from the date of decree till the date of handing over the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises.

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:19543 RSA No. 1252 of 2013

HC-KAR

The defendant, aggrieved by the judgment and

decree passed in O.S.No.46/2009, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.108/2010 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada. The first appellate Court, after hearing the arguments of both sides framed the following points for consideration.

1. Whether the findings of the lower court that there is a valid quit notice is contrary to the evidence on record?

2. Whether the findings of the lower court that defendant is liable to pay mesne profits at the rate of Rs.150/- per day from 28.12.2009 is contrary to the evidence of defendant?

3. Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court needs interference?

4. What order?

The First Appellate Court, on re-assessing the

verbal and documentary evidence, answered point Nos.1 to 3 in the negative, point No.4 as per the final order. The appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 19.03.2013, confirming the judgment and decree passed in

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19543 RSA No. 1252 of 2013

HC-KAR

O.S.No.46/2009. The defendant, aggrieved by the

impugned judgments, filed this regular second appeal.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendant.

The learned counsel for the defendant submits that the notice to termination of tenancy is not valid as 15 days clear cut notice was not issued as per Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. He submits that the Courts below have committed an error in holding that the plaintiff has terminated the tenancy. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.

This Court admitted the appeal on 30.10.2014 to consider the following substantial question of law:

"Whether the Courts below are justified in holding that the plaintiff is the owner of the schedule premises, which is contrary to the oral and documentary evidence?"

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:19543 RSA No. 1252 of 2013

HC-KAR

Reg. Substantial Question of Law

There is no dispute regarding the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant as a lessor and lessee and the defendant had taken the schedule premises on monthly rent of Rs.3,371/-. The lease period was not extended. The defendant did not pay the rent amount. The defendant is a defaulter. The defendant is in arrears of rent. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 10.12.2008, terminating the tenancy. The said notice postal cover returned with a shara stating "not claimed". Hence, the service of notice on the defendant is held sufficient as per Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The defendants did not reply to the said legal notice.

The plaintiff, in support of his case, marked the documents.

Ex.P1 is the copy of the legal notice

Ex.P2 is the unserved postal cover

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:19543 RSA No. 1252 of 2013

HC-KAR

The plaintiff, also examined one witness as PW2. The examination-in-chief of PW2 is the replica of the examination-in-chief of PW1. On the other hand, the defendant was examined as DW1. Though he reiterated the written statement averments in the examination-inchief, in the cross examination, he admits the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant as a lessor and lessee, and he also admits that the plaintiff has not renewed the lease. The defendant has no right to continue in possession of the suit schedule property, after the expiry of a lease period and determination of the lease.

The trial Court, considering the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant as a lessor and lessee, and the plaintiff has not renewed the lease and he terminated the tenure by issuing a legal notice as per Ex.P1, has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court on re-assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, has rightly held that the suit schedule premises is identified in possession of the

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:19543 RSA No. 1252 of 2013

HC-KAR

defendant under the name and style of M/s.Unique Fancy

and it is identifiable. Both Courts below have rightly passed the impugned judgments, considering the verbal and documentary evidence. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any error in the impugned judgments and accordingly, I answer substantial question of law in the affirmative. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

1. The Appeal is dismissed.

The judgments and decrees passed by the

Courts below are hereby confirmed.

No order as to the costs.

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

RCK

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4