Narayanaswamy G Vs Madhav Shanbhag

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:7660 RFA No. 2402 of 2024

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2402 OF 2024 (EJE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NARAYANASWAMY .G SON OF GULLAPPA AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 252 9^TH MAIN, BANASHANKARI 5^TH STAGE BEHIND MARUTHI TEMPLE ROAD HAPPY VALLEY LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 001.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAJU .H, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

MADHAV SHANBHAG SON OF PADMANABHASHANBHAGH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 2-123A KATHYAYANI KRUPA, BIJUR POST KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 224.

¶14

PRABHA SHANBHAGH DAUGHTER OF MADHAVSHANBHAGH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 2 4^TH CROSS, DWARAKANAGAR HOSKEREHALLI, BSK 3^RD STAGE BENGALURU-560 085.

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:7660 RFA No. 2402 of 2024

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

BOTH ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER RAGHAVENDRA SHANBHAGH SON OF MADHAV SHANBHAGH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 2, 4^TH CROSS DWARAKANAGAR, HOSKEREHALLI BSK 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU-560 085.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. NARAYANAN .M.R, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶20

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.02.2024 PASSED IN OS NO.4943/2021 ON THE FILE OF VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU., DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

The captioned appeal is by defendant assailing the judgment and decree in O.S.No.4943/2021 directing the present defendant to hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule premises and pay arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.2,31,000/- and further direction to pay damages at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:7660 RFA No. 2402 of 2024

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

month from the date of suit till handing over vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the plaintiffs.

¶29

For the sake of convenience the parties are

¶30

referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

¶31

The facts leading to the case are as follows:

¶32

The plaintiffs instituted a suit for ejectment contending that the defendant had committed persistent default in payment of rent aggregating to Rs.3,31,485/- and had also caused damage to the leased premises. On these allegations, the plaintiffs sought a decree for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits, and compensation towards

¶33

damages to the property.

¶34

Upon service of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement stoutly denying the plaint averments in toto.

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:7660 RFA No. 2402 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Though the jural relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted, the defendant disputed the quantum of security deposit allegedly paid at the time of induction. It was specifically pleaded that a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-

¶39

had been paid as refundable security deposit and that there were no arrears of rent as alleged. The defendant further averred that the suit was actuated by malice and that the plaintiffs had been threatening forcible dispossession by engaging antisocial elements. On these grounds, dismissal of the suit was sought.

¶40

On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed necessary issues and afforded both parties full opportunity to adduce oral and documentary evidence. To substantiate the termination of tenancy, the plaintiffs examined the GPA holder as PW1 and produced the legal notice dated 17.07.2021 (Ex.P2) along with subsequent notices and other supporting documents, marking in all Exs.P1 to P18. In rebuttal, the defendant examined himself as DW1 and two

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:7660 RFA No. 2402 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

independent witnesses, and produced ten documents marked as Exs.D1 to D10.

¶45

Upon appreciation of the entire evidence on

¶46

record, the Trial Court answered Issue No.1 in the affirmative, holding that the tenancy stood validly terminated. While answering Issue No.2 partly in the affirmative, the Trial Court concluded that the defendant had committed default in payment of rent. However, it did not accept the plaintiffs’ claim of arrears amounting to Rs.3,31,485/- and instead determined the arrears at Rs.2,31,000/-.

¶47

The Trial Court also rejected the defendant’s plea regarding payment of Rs.8,00,000/- as security deposit, finding the same unsubstantiated. Consequently, having held that the tenancy was validly terminated on account of default, the Trial Court decreed the suit, directed the defendant to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule

¶48

6 -

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:7660 RFA No. 2402 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

premises, and awarded damages at the rate

¶52

determined therein.

¶53

This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length. Being the final factfinding Court in the present appeal, this Court has independently re-appreciated and meticulously examined the oral and documentary evidence available on record.

¶54

On such independent assessment, the

¶55

following points arise for consideration:

¶56

"(i) Whether the finding of the Trial Court that

¶57

the defendant committed breach of tenancy conditions and is in arrears of rent to the extent of Rs.2,31,000/- suffers from perversity or illegality warranting interference?

¶58

(ii) Whether the defendant has proved that he paid a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- towards refundable

¶59

7 -

¶60

NC: 2026:KHC:7660 RFA No. 2402 of 2024

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

security deposit at the time of induction into the

¶63

suit schedule premises?

¶64

(iii) Whether the judgment and decree for ejectment, including the award of damages at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of suit till delivery of vacant possession, is vitiated by perversity or calls for modification?

¶65

(iv) What order?"

¶66

Finding on Points (i) to (iii):

¶67

On a deeper scrutiny of the pleadings and

¶68

the evidence on record, it emerges that the existence of jural relationship of landlord and tenant is not in dispute. The defendant has unequivocally admitted the tenancy. Once the relationship is admitted, the lis narrows down to two pivotal aspects, namely: (i) whether the defendant committed default in payment of rent; and (ii) whether such default entitled the

¶69

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:7660 RFA No. 2402 of 2024

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

plaintiffs to terminate the tenancy by issuance of a quit notice.

¶72

Though the defendant, both in the written statement and in the course of trial, asserted that he had paid a sum of �Rs.8,00,000/- towards security deposit at the time of induction into the premises, the said plea remains a mere assertion without proof. The defendant examined himself and two independent witnesses; however, no cogent documentary evidence such as receipts, bank entries, or acknowledgment from the plaintiffs was produced to substantiate payment of such a substantial amount.

¶73

Insofar as the plea relating to payment of Rs.8,00,000/- towards security deposit is concerned, the burden squarely lay on the defendant to substantiate the said assertion. It is not in dispute that the tenancy is contractual in nature and the plea of payment of such a substantial refundable deposit

¶74

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:7660 RFA No. 2402 of 2024

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

constitutes a specific defence set up by the defendant.

¶77

However, except making a bald assertion in the written statement and reiterating the same in oral evidence, the defendant has not produced any cogent documentary evidence such as a receipt,

¶78

acknowledgment, bank transaction record, or any contemporaneous document evidencing payment of Rs.8,00,000/to the plaintiffs. Even the two independent witnesses examined on his behalf have not spoken to any specific transaction or mode of payment so as to inspire confidence in the version put forth by the defendant. In civil proceedings, a plea involving payment of a substantial sum must be established on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities through reliable evidence. In the absence of such proof, the Trial Court was justified in rejecting

¶79

the defendant’s contention regarding the alleged security deposit. Consequently, the said plea does not enure to the benefit of the defendant nor does it dilute

¶80

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:7660 RFA No. 2402 of 2024

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

the plaintiffs’ claim for arrears or their right to seek ejectment.

¶83

The Trial Court, on appreciation of this aspect, has rightly disbelieved the plea relating to the alleged security deposit of Rs.8,00,000/-, and this Court finds no material to take a different view.

¶84

The real controversy, therefore, revolves around the question of arrears and breach. The plaintiffs’ case rests substantially on the testimony of the GPA holder examined as PW1. In the crossexamination, PW1 has fairly admitted that the defendant had paid rent up to March 2020. The agreed monthly rent of Rs.14,000/- is not in dispute. Once it is admitted that rent stood paid up to March 2020, the claim of arrears has to be reckoned from April 2020 onwards.

¶85

The plaintiffs approached the Court asserting that substantial arrears had accumulated. While the

¶86

11 -

¶87

NC: 2026:KHC:7660 RFA No. 2402 of 2024

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

exact computation claimed by the plaintiffs was not accepted in entirety by the Trial Court, the evidence on record clearly demonstrates that rent remained unpaid after March 2020. Significantly, the defendant has not produced convincing material to show that rent was paid subsequent to March 2020. Though NEFT transaction details are marked as Exs.D1 to D5, a careful perusal of these documents does not establish payment of rent corresponding to the period in question. There is no clear correlation between the alleged transfers and the admitted monthly rent liability. In the absence of specific proof demonstrating payment of rent post March 2020, the plea of absence of default cannot be sustained.

¶90

The plaintiffs have further placed on record the legal notice dated 17.07.2021 and subsequent notices terminating the tenancy. These notices have not been successfully impeached. Once default in payment of rent is established and the tenancy is

¶91

12 -

¶92

NC: 2026:KHC:7660 RFA No. 2402 of 2024

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

terminated by issuance of a valid quit notice, the landlord becomes entitled to seek recovery of

¶95

possession.

¶96

The core issue of default stands substantiated through oral and documentary evidence led by the plaintiffs. The defendant has not produced any legally acceptable material to displace the presumption arising from admitted non-payment after March 2020. In this background, the finding of the Trial Court that the defendant was in arrears to the extent of Rs.2,31,000/- cannot be termed as perverse or contrary to evidence. On the contrary, it appears to be

¶97

a balanced determination, as the Trial Court has declined to grant the entire sum claimed by the plaintiffs and has restricted the decree to the amount proved.

¶98

In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Trial Court

¶99

13 -

¶100

NC: 2026:KHC:7660 RFA No. 2402 of 2024

¶101

HC-KAR

¶102

was justified in decreeing the suit for ejectment and directing the defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule premises within the stipulated period. The quantification of arrears at Rs.2,31,000/- is based on proper appreciation of evidence and does not call for interference.

¶103

The future damages fixed at �Rs.15,000/per month from the date of suit till delivery of possession are neither excessive nor arbitrary. Having regard to the admitted monthly rent of Rs.14,000/-, the enhancement by Rs.1,000/towards mesne profits/damages is modest, reasonable, and in consonance with prevailing standards.

¶104

Accordingly, this Court finds no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment and decree. Point Nos. (i) to (iii) are answered in the Negative .

¶105