Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V. SRISHANANDA
Malini Reddy – Appellant
Versus
H M Malleshappa – Respondent
ORDER :
V SRISHANANDA, J.
Heard Sri Anupam Agarwal for the petitioners. None appears for the respondent.
2. Defendants in SC No. 1026/2020 are the revision petitioners, challenging the judgment and decree passed in the said case, directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.1,62,000/- within one month from the date of decree with interest @ 9.5% p.a. from the date of suit till realization.
3. Facts in the nutshell, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:
Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money against the defendants by contending that plaintiff is in business of providing security services and as per request of the defendants, security services were provided to the premises at Ajay Plaza from June 2015.
4. It is further contended that there was delay in payment of security charges and defendants were irregular. Despite repeated demands, defendants did not regularize the payment of service charges. In the month of September 2009, defendants promised that they will clear all the pending dues after selling the premises. But they failed to do so.
5. It is also contented that a legal notice was issued on 18.05.2020 demanding the service charge
The onus of proof lies with defendants to substantiate non-payment claims, which they failed to meet, thus affirming the lower court's decree for the plaintiff's recovery.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of securing the interest of the appellants and the need for proper adjudication of claims and counter-claims before the arbitrator.
Trial courts can direct payment of undisputed rents during pendency of eviction proceedings, while burdens of proof for claims made remain with the relevant parties.
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.
The power of attorney's lack of formal exhibition does not invalidate a suit initiated by its holder if inferential authority is established, and the tenant's non-payment of charges warrants eviction....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the defendant to hand over possession and pay outstanding dues due to default in payment as per the sub-license agreement.
Valid service of notice under S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act confirmed despite additional numbering; mere mention of a second address does not invalidate notice.
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
