Back
K. NATARAJAN
M. Bhaskar, S/o. Late H Mare Gowda – Appellant
Versus
D. R. Shivanna, S/o. Late Ramanna – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(K. Natarajan, J.)
This appeal is filed by the appellant/ defendant under Section 96 of CPC., for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the VII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-19), in O.S.No.7633/2013 dated 27.06.2015, for having decreed the suit of the plaintiff and directing the defendant to pay the rent of Rs.1,30,582/- with 12% interest per annum from the date of the suit till its realisation.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the respondent and appellant.
3. The rank of the parties before the Trial Court is retained for the sake of convenience.
4. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the plaintiff was the owner, and the defendant was the tenant under the suit premises of plaintiff, situated at first floor, 7th main, 4th stage, Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore. He was a tenant from 05.08.2010 to 29.06.2012. He was paying the monthly rent of Rs.8,600/- +400 towards water charges + 100 towards maintenance charges, totally Rs.9,100/- per month. Later he was default of payment of rent for two months and later a notice was issued and tenancy was terminated by the plaintiff. Accordingly, notice was issued on 26.03.2011 an
A subsequent suit for arrears of rent is maintainable if it arises from a different cause of action than a prior suit for possession, even if the claim is mischaracterized as rent instead of damages.
The foundational facts and cause of action must remain unchanged for res judicata to apply, and the earlier adjudication must have been on merits.
A party cannot assert ownership via a sale deed if the seller has previously conveyed the property, and tenancy termination must follow proper notice.
Suit for possession and suit for claiming damages for use and occupation of property are two different causes of action.
The court affirmed that a tenant's agreement to revised rent constitutes acknowledgment of arrears, and failure to provide evidence for a full settlement negates defenses regarding non-payment.
A tenant cannot challenge the ownership of the landlord while concurrently asserting adverse possession; such defenses are mutually exclusive under established legal principles.
Mesne profits can only be claimed from the date of the eviction decree, not from the date of filing the suit, as possession remains lawful until the decree is passed.
Possession can be decreed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC when there is an admission of tenancy, despite disputes over rent or security. Lack of evidence supporting claims weakens the tenant's position.
Res Judicata – Rule of res judicata does not strike at root of jurisdiction of Court trying subsequent suit – It is a rule of estoppel by judgment based on public policy.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
