Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 2813
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI, MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA, JJ
G. Devaki W/o Dr. Yoganand H.s – Appellant
Versus
Mohsin S/o Salamsab Arab – Respondent
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100234 OF 2022 (POS) C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100294 OF 2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI. K.L PATIL, ADV
For the Respondent: SRI. S.S. NIRANJAN, ADV FOR R1 TO R7
The court affirmed the validity of the landlord-tenant relationship and ruled the counter claim for specific performance was barred by limitation under the Specific Relief Act.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16(c) - Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 54 - Ejectment and recovery of rent - Plaintiff, as landlord, filed suit against tenant for ejectment and arrears of rent, claiming Rs.36,90,000/- for 82 months - Defendant denied tenancy and claimed specific performance of alleged sale agreement - Court found plaintiff validly terminated tenancy and defendant's counter claim barred by limitation - Court confirmed trial court's judgment. (Paras 10, 26, 28)
(B) Tenancy - Relationship between landlord and tenant - The court affirmed the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship based on evidence and admissions made by the defendant. (Paras 22, 23)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent against the defendant, who claimed a sale agreement existed between them. The defendant failed to pay rent and did not comply with termination notices. The trial court decreed the suit in part, ordering the defendant to vacate and pay arrears.
Findings of Court:
The trial court found the plaintiff had established her ownership and the defendant's tenancy, and the counter claim for specific performance was barred by limitation.
Issues: The main issues were whether the defendant was a tenant, whether the tenancy was validly terminated, and whether the counter claim for specific performance was maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiff proved the tenancy and valid termination, while the defendant failed to establish her counter claim due to limitation.
Result: Both the Appeals are dismissed.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
These two appeals arise out of the judgment dated 01.02.2022 passed in O.S.No.2/2018 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their ranking before the trial court. The appellant was the defendant and the respondents were the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff.
3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of these regular first appeals are as follows:
4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant, for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent and mense profit. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property bearing Plot No.6, Sy.No.59/B, consisting of the ground floor, first floor and the second floor, situated at APMC, Ishwar Nagar, P.B.Road, Amargol, Hubballi. The defendant is a tenant in possession of the suit property on monthly tenancy under the lease agreement dated 01.03.2010 for 11 months. Initially, the rent of the premises was Rs.20,000/-per month for the ground floor and the first floor and an additional rent of Rs.25,000/- per month concerning the second floor. The defendant agreed to pay security deposit of Rs.20,00,000/- concerning the second floor and to pay a total rent of Rs.45,000/- per month. The defendant failed to pay the rent regularly. The defendant did not pay the security deposit as agreed. The plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 03.03.2014, terminating the tenancy of the defendant. The defendant gave evasive reply on 07.04.2014 and sought six months to pay the arrears of rent and the security deposit. Despite granting six months, the defendant did not obey her promise. The defendant is in arrears of rent from 01.03.2011 to 31.12.2017 i.e., 82 months, at the rate of Rs.45,000/- per month, amounting Rs.36,90,000/-. The plaintiff restricts her claim for recovery of arrears of rent for 3 years. The plaintiff contended that the suit property is required for bonafide use and occupation of her sons. The plaintiff again issued a legal notice dated 02.03.2017 by terminating the tenancy and also calling upon the defendant to pay the arrears of rent. The defendant did not comply with the notice. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent and mense profit. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.
5. The defendant filed a written statement denying the entire averments made in the plaint, and also denied the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant as the landlord and the tenant, and there is no cause of action to file the suit. It is the defense of the defendant that the husband of the plaintiff, namely, Mohsin Arab as a GPA holder of the plaintiff agreed to sell the schedule property by executing a sale agreement dated 29.06.2010 for valuable consideration of Rs.22,00,000/-, by receiving part consideration amount of Rs.20,24,500/- on various dates. The defendant was/is always ready and willing to pay the balance consideration amount of Rs.1,75,000/-. The defendant has invested a huge amount and installed machines and generators etc. It is contended that respectable persons in the locality interfered in the matter and in the presence of the elders, the plaintiff agreed to repay the earnest money of Rs.20,24,500/-, Rs.15,00,000/- spent for the construction of the showroom and Rs.8,00,000/- for the construction of the second floor, and Rs.9,50,000/- towards the installation of generator etc. She agreed to pay Rs.57,74,500/-. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.
6. The defendant sought a counter claim for specific performance of the contract seeking direction to the plaintiff to receive the balance consideration amount and execute the registered sale deed, and an alternative prayer of refund of earnest money of Rs.20,25,000/-.
7. The plaintiff filed a rejoinder to the counter claim denying the counter claim of the defendant. It is also denied that the
