Dismissed¶81

Smt Mumtaz Unnisa v. G R S Ravishankar

Karnataka HC16 Jul 2025RSA/948/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru; RSA No. 948 of 2025 (RES-); decided 16 July 2025 by Justice H.P. Sandesh; tenants' second appeal against judgment and decree dated 21.04.2025 of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tumakuru in R.A.No.74/2024 (cross-appeal R.A.No.83/2024); subjects: termination of tenancy, arrears of rent Rs.1,50,000/-, damages/mesne profits Rs.30,000/- per month till realisation, Ex.P1 termination notice, Ex.P5 reply, Ex.P4 postal acknowledgment, admission-stage dismissal under Section 100 CPC; held: tenancy legally terminated, arrears and damages upheld, no substantive question of law; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; the main appeal was dismissed and any pending interlocutory application stands dismissed as not surviving for consideration. ¶81

Smt Mumtaz Unnisa Vs G R S Ravishankar — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; the main appeal was dismissed and any pending interlocutory application stands dismissed as not surviving for consideration.

¶81

Issue for consideration

Whether the tenancy of the defendants/appellants was validly terminated in accordance with law, as answered by the First Appellate Court in Point No.3, notwithstanding the contention that no agreement or document was produced by the plaintiff. +2 more

¶58

Court's answer

Termination of the tenancy was legal: notice was issued as per Ex.P1, reply given as per Ex.P5 and postal acknowledgment produced as Ex.P4; there being no dispute as to ownership or tenancy, no error was committed by the Trial Court in ordering recovery of possession and payment of arrears, and the First Appellate Court rightly granted damages from the date of suit.

¶71

Ratio / Principle

Ownership and the existence of tenancy are undisputed; DW1 admitted in cross-examination that rents were not paid from September 2019; the Trial Court rightly computed arrears at Rs.1,50,000/- but erred in rejecting the damages claim, which the First Appellate Court correctly allowed.

¶68

Key takeaways

There are no grounds to admit the appeal or to frame substantive questions of law; the second appeal is dismissed.ratio¶80

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC (High Court of Karnataka, H.P. Sandesh, J.) - recovery of possession and arrears of rent - ownership and jural relationship of landlord and tenant undisputed; DW1 admitted in cross-examination that rents were unpaid from September 2019 - termination of tenancy by legal notice (Ex.P1) with reply (Ex.P5) and postal acknowledgment (Ex.P4) held lawful - Trial Court's arrears award of Rs.1,50,000/- upheld; its refusal of damages corrected by First Appellate Court awarding Rs.30,000/- per month from date of termination till realisation - no grounds to admit the appeal or frame substantive questions of law - appeal dismissed at admission stage; pending I.As dismissed.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:26471 RSA No. 948 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 948 OF 2025 (RES-)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. MUMTAZ UNNISA W/O LATE T S KHALEEM ULLA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶10

REHAMATHULLA S/O LATE T S KHALEEM ULLA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶11

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AZMATH ULLA S/O LATE T S KHALEEM ULLA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶13

HIDAYATH ULLA

¶14

S/O LATE T S KHALEEM ULLA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶15

TANZIL ULLA T K S/O LATE T S KHALEEM ULLA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶16

THE APPELLANTS ARE R/AT 6^TH MAIN ROAD, 2^ND CROSS, G C R COLONY, TUMAKURU 572101.

¶17

…APPELLANTS

¶18

(BY SRI. ANANDEESWARA D R.,ADVOCATE)

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:26471 RSA No. 948 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

AND:

¶22

G R S RAVISHANKAR S/O G R SAMBASHIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO. 86, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, TUMKURU TOWN, 572101

¶23

…RESPONDENT

¶24

(BY SRI KASHYAP N NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶25

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.04.2025 PASSED IN R.A.NO.74/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TUMAKURU AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned

¶30

counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:26471 RSA No. 948 of 2025

¶32

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff/

¶35

respondent before the Trial Court that the rent agreed is payable per month is Rs.30,000/- and the tenancy is commencing from first day of every calendar month. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property and defendants have approached the plaintiff and requested to lease out the suit schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs.30,000/-. It is also the specific contention of the plaintiff that defendants have agreed to pay the electricity charges also. The rent agreement was dated 14.08.2019 and defendants promised that they will vacate and hand over the suit schedule property on or before 31.01.2020 but they failed to vacate the same and the defendants have promised the plaintiff that they will pay a sum of Rs.72,000/- as damages per month. But the defendants have not vacated the scheduled premises within a stipulated time and requested for four months’ time to vacate the scheduled property and same is endorsed on the rental agreement dated 14.08.2019 and assured the

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:26471 RSA No. 948 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

plaintiff that they will vacate the suit schedule property on 30.04.2020. Inspite of it, they did not vacate the same and also did not pay the rent. Hence, filed the suit for the recovery of possession as well as claiming arrears of rent of Rs.1,50,000/- from September 2019 to January 2020.

¶40

The defendants appeared and filed the written statement denying the plaint averments and stated that the monthly rent was enhancing from time to time from agreement dated 02.08.2012 and the defendants are continuing in possession of the suit schedule property and also paid enhanced rent of Rs.36,000/- up to date and lease period is for five years and as per the agreement, four years is remaining. But the plaintiff has not produced the agreement in order to show the same and created a new document. Even though the defendants have paid up to date rent to the plaintiff, the plaintiff suddenly issued the notice for evicting and hence, filed a suit in O.S.No.308/2020. Defendants are in due of three months rent to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is in the habit of

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:26471 RSA No. 948 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

collecting the rent by cash in the business place by the defendants and never entered into an agreement on 14.08.2019.

¶45

The Trial Court having considered the averments made in the plaint and written statement, formulated the Issues and also Additional Issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession and also arrears of rent of Rs.1,50,000/- but not awarded any damages and answered the Issue No.3 as negative, however, answered Issue No.4 as partly in the affirmative holding that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief partly and additional Issue No.1 is answered as affirmative in coming to the conclusion that defendants’ tenancy was terminated legally and answered Additional Issue No.2 as negative in coming to the conclusion that the defendants have not proved that the tenancy is for a period of five years and the same is

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:26471 RSA No. 948 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

still subsists since the defendants have not placed any material before the Court.

¶50

The Trial Court having considered both the oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that the defendants have also admitted the tenancy as well as rent of Rs.36,000/- but the claim made by the plaintiff is only Rs.30,000/- per month and arrears also claimed based on rent of Rs.30,000/- for five months of rent i.e., Rs.1,50,000/-. Even in the cross examination of DW1, he categorically admitted that rents are not paid from September 2019, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that arrears of rent is Rs.1,50,000/- and ordered to vacate the premises within three months.

¶51

Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed by the plaintiff in R.A.No.74/2024 regarding nonconsideration of damages is considered and tenant also filed an appeal in R.A.No.83/2024. The and First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in both the

¶52

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:26471 RSA No. 948 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

appeals taken note of the material on record and comes to the conclusion that no dispute with regard to the tenancy is concerned and there is a clear admission in this regard and also there is a clear admission on the part of defendants that they were paying a rent of Rs.36,000/per month but claim was made by the plaintiff is only Rs.30,000/- and arrears also claimed based on the said rent. Having considered the same, in paragraph 33, First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that no hesitation to hold that defendants are liable to pay the arrears of rent as claimed by the plaintiff and also a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month from the date of termination of the tenancy till realisation as damages as the possession of the defendants after termination of the tenancy becomes unlawful and allowed the appeal of the landlord and dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant.

¶55

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed before this Court. The learned counsel for the appellants would vehemently

¶56

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:26471 RSA No. 948 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

contend that the reasoning given by both the Courts is erroneous particularly, the answer given by the First Appellate Court in Point No.3 holding that termination of the tenancy is in accordance with law even though there was no agreement and document was produced by the plaintiff and dismissed R.A.No.83/2024 filed by the appellant and hence, matter requires reconsideration admitting the same and framing substantive questions of law.

¶59

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for

¶60

the respondent would contend that no dispute with regard to the jural relationship between the parties as well as the arrears of rent. The counsel would submits that though there was an admission of rent of Rs.36,000/- by the defendants, the Trial Court restricted the same to Rs.30,000/- since the plaintiff pleaded the rent at the rate of Rs.30,000/- and hence, the Trial Court committed an

¶61

error and the same has been set righted in the appeal directing to pay the rent that is the admitted rate of rent

¶62

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:26471 RSA No. 948 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

by the appellants of Rs.36,000/-. Hence, it does not require any interference.

¶66

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶67

the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record, there is no dispute with regard to the ownership

¶68

as well as tenancy is concerned and there was an existence of tenancy and defendants pleaded tenancy from 2012. It is the case of the plaintiff that he had agreed to pay rent of Rs.30,000/- and DW1 categorically admitted that rents are not paid from September 2019. When such admission was given, Trial Court rightly pointed out the arrears of rent is Rs.1,50,000/- but committed an error in rejecting the claim of damages. But the First Appellate Court considered the plea of both the parties wherein the defendants admitted rate of rent is Rs.36,000/- and the First Appellate Court in view of the claim made by the plaintiff as sum of Rs.30,000/- for arrears as well as the rent claimed, taking note of termination of the tenancy, the defendants have to bound to pay the rent what has

¶69

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:26471 RSA No. 948 of 2025

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

agreed and after the termination of tenancy in continuing the premises in the very same property becomes unlawful and hence, allowed the same. When there is no dispute with regard to the ownership as well as tenancy is concerned and also the fact that rents are not paid and the same is admitted in the cross examination of DW1, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court and both the Courts have taken note of the fact that the termination of tenancy is legal. With regard to the termination of the tenancy also, legal notice was issued as per Ex.P1 and reply also given in terms of Ex.P5 and postal acknowledgment is produced as Ex.P4. When such notice was given terminating the tenancy, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in granting the order for recovering the possession and as well as payment of arrears of rent but committed an error in granting the damages but the First Appellate Court right granted the same from the date of suit. Hence, there is no grounds to

¶72

NC: 2025:KHC:26471 RSA No. 948 of 2025

¶73