Dismissed¶13

Mrs Dipti Soni v. Sri N Manjunath

Karnataka HC5 Feb 2026RFA/2691/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ejectment decree upheld; monthly tenancy terminated by quit notice; unrepresented-by-evidence tenant's non-filing of written statement treated as admission; jural relationship landlord-tenant established; successor landlord deriving title under registered gift deed; Sec. 96 CPC appeal against O.S.No.5608/2024 dismissed; no precedent discussed.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant; the Regular First Appeal was dismissed as devoid of merits, leaving the trial court's ejectment decree intact. ¶13

Mrs Dipti Soni Vs Sri N Manjunath — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant; the Regular First Appeal was dismissed as devoid of merits, leaving the trial court's ejectment decree intact.

¶13

Issue for consideration

Point (i): Whether the judgment and decree dated 09.10.2025 passed in O.S.No.5608/2024 directing the defendant/tenant to hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule premises suffers from perversity or illegality? +1 more

¶6

Court's answer

In the absence of any rebuttal or challenge (no written statement, no cross-examination), the pleadings and evidence of the plaintiff remained wholly unimpeached and uncontroverted; facts pleaded and proved, if not specifically denied or challenged, stand admitted.

¶56

Ratio / Principle

The jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties stands clearly established; the defendant's prayer for time to vacate amounted by necessary implication to an admission of tenancy and acknowledgment of the plaintiff's status as landlord.

¶62

Key takeaways

The tenancy being a monthly tenancy, the plaintiff was legally entitled to terminate it by quit notice; the quit notice satisfied the statutory requirement and clearly conveyed the intention to determine the tenancy.ratio¶69
With the plaintiff's status as landlord and the jural relationship undisputed, the termination of tenancy stands duly proved and the plaintiff is entitled to recover vacant possession from the defendant.ratio¶73
Point No.(i) is answered in the 'Negative': the judgment and decree dated 09.10.2025 in O.S.No.5608/2024 does not suffer from perversity or illegality.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular First Appeal under Sec. 96 CPC by the unsuccessful defendant/tenant against the judgment and decree dated 09.10.2025 of the XL Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City in O.S.No.5608/2024, which decreed the landlord's suit for eviction and recovery of arrears. The defendant had entered appearance and filed vakalath but neither filed a written statement nor cross-examined the plaintiff (P.W.1), leaving the plaint case wholly uncontroverted. The Court held: (a) the jural relationship of landlord and tenant stood clearly established, the defendant's request for time to vacate amounting by necessary implication to an admission of tenancy; (b) the monthly tenancy, created by the plaintiff's father (who died in 2024) and succeeded to by the plaintiff under a registered gift deed, was legally terminable by quit notice, and the notice served satisfied the statutory requirement; (c) with chronic rent default and the premises kept locked uncontroverted, the termination stood duly proved and the plaintiff was entitled to vacant possession. Framed point on perversity/illegality of the decree answered in the negative; appeal dismissed.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:6903 RFA No. 2691 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2691 OF 2025 (RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MRS. DIPTI SONI W/O ARVIND PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT NO.238/2, 1^ST FLOOR NANJUNDESHWARA PALACE VARSHA RUTHE ROAD BENGALURU-560 019.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. VARUN JAYAKUMAR PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI. N. MANJUNATH S/O LATE H. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO.72/1B, H.K. COMPLEX HANUMANTHAPPA COMPUND NEXT TO SBI, JARAGANAHALLI J.P NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 078.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS .K.B.S, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 9.10.2025 PASSED IN OS NO.5608/2024 ON THE FILE OF XL ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:6903 RFA No. 2691 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EVICTION AND RECOVERY OF ARREARS.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

Captioned appeal is by the unsuccessful defendant/tenant assailing the ejectment decree

¶26

rendered by the trial Court in O.S.No. 5608/2024.

¶27

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

¶28

The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal, in brief, are as follows:

¶29

The plaintiff/landlord instituted a suit for ejectment against the defendant/tenant, specifically pleading that the tenancy was a monthly tenancy for a lease period of 11 months on a rent of Rs.40,000/- per month. It was averred that the lease was executed during the lifetime of the plaintiff’s father, late

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:6903 RFA No. 2691 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Muniyappa. The plaintiff further pleaded that the defendant had kept the suit schedule premises under lock and key and had committed default in payment of rent for a continuous period of six months preceding

¶34

the filing of the suit. In view of the said default, a legal notice was issued terminating the tenancy. Despite service of quit notice, the defendant failed to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises, which constrained the plaintiff to institute the present ejectment suit.

¶35

On receipt of summons, the defendant

¶36

entered appearance through counsel and filed vakalath,

¶37

but did not choose to file a written statement or contest the suit. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and produced the title documents along with a copy of the legal notice dated 10.04.2024 to demonstrate statutory compliance and valid termination of tenancy. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence or contest by the defendant, the Trial Court,

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:6903 RFA No. 2691 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

by judgment and decree dated 09.10.2025, decreed the suit and directed the defendant/tenant to hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule premises within a period of two months.

¶41

During the course of hearing of the present appeal, this Court expressed its prima facie view that the defendant/tenant does not have any sustainable defence on merits. At that stage, the learned counsel appearing for the defendant sought indulgence of this Court by submitting that the tenant was willing to vacate the premises, provided reasonable time was granted. However, on the subsequent date of hearing, the learned counsel for the defendant submitted that he had no further instructions. Accordingly, the matter was taken up for final hearing.

¶42

Having carefully examined the pleadings, the evidence on record, and the judgment and decree impugned, the following points arise for consideration:

¶43

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:6903 RFA No. 2691 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

"(i) Whether the judgment and decree dated 09.10.2025 passed in O.S.No.5608/2024 directing the defendant/tenant to hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule premises suffers from perversity or illegality?

¶47

(ii) What order?"

¶48

Finding on Point No.(i)

¶49

This Court has meticulously examined the

¶50

entire material placed on record by the plaintiff. On a careful and closer scrutiny of the pleadings and the evidence, it clearly emerges that a monthly tenancy was created in favour of the defendant during the lifetime of the plaintiff’s father. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff’s father died in the year 2024. The plaintiff traces his right, title and interest to the suit schedule property through his father under a registered gift deed. After stepping into the shoes of the original landlord, the plaintiff issued a quit notice to the defendant/tenant specifically alleging that the

¶51

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:6903 RFA No. 2691 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

defendant had committed chronic default in payment of

¶55

rent and had kept the suit schedule premises under lock and key for a considerable period of nearly one year.

¶56

The said averments made in the plaint are fully supported by the oral evidence of the plaintiff and the documentary evidence placed on record. Significantly, the defendant, despite having entered appearance through counsel, neither filed a written statement nor chose to cross-examine the plaintiff. In the absence of any rebuttal or challenge, the pleadings and evidence of the plaintiff have remained wholly unimpeached and uncontroverted. It is a settled principle that facts pleaded and proved, if not

¶57

specifically denied or challenged, stand admitted.

¶58

Even after the filing of the present appeal, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the defendant/tenant clearly indicate that the jural

¶59

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:6903 RFA No. 2691 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

relationship between the parties is not in dispute. At

¶62

the first instance, the defendant sought indulgence of this Court by praying for reasonable time to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises. Such a submission, by necessary implication, amounts to an admission of tenancy and acknowledgment of the plaintiff’s status as landlord. In this background, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the existence of a jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties stands clearly established.

¶63

In view of the admitted and uncontroverted

¶64

material on record demonstrating that the defendant is a chronic defaulter in payment of rent and has kept the premises locked for a substantial period, this Court finds that the plaintiff was fully justified in terminating the tenancy by issuing a quit notice in accordance with law.

¶65

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:6903 RFA No. 2691 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

Be that as it may, the plaintiff’s case rests

¶68

on a simple and undisputed legal foundation. The tenancy in question was a monthly tenancy created by the plaintiff’s father in favour of the defendant. Upon the death of the original landlord, the plaintiff, as the son and successor-in-interest, stepped into the shoes of the landlord and acquired the jural right to continue, determine, or terminate the tenancy. The plaintiff has further established that he derives title under a registered gift deed executed by his father, thereby fortifying his locus to maintain the ejectment proceedings.

¶69

The tenancy being a monthly tenancy, the plaintiff was legally entitled to terminate the same by issuance of a quit notice. The quit notice issued to the defendant satisfies the statutory requirement and clearly conveys the intention to determine the tenancy. In the absence of any challenge to the validity of the quit notice and in view of the defendant having neither

¶70

¶71

NC: 2026:KHC:6903 RFA No. 2691 of 2025

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

disputed the plaintiff’s status as landlord nor the jural relationship, the termination of tenancy stands duly proved. Consequently, the plaintiff is entitled to seek recovery of vacant possession from the defendant.

¶74

Accordingly, point no.(i) is answered in the ‘Negative’.

¶75

Finding on Point No.(ii):

¶76