Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 36645
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2192 OF 2023 (EJE)
BETWEEN:
RATHANCHAND PUROHITH ALIAS H RATHANCHAND PUROHITH S/O LATE HARJIJI PUROHITH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS NO.297/A, CLOTH MERCHANTS NO.891, UMA TALKIES ROAD MYSURU-570009 …APPELLANT (BY SRI CHALAPATHY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SRINIVAS S V. ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT N. KANTHA W/O RAMACHANDRA Digitally signed by DEVIKA M AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS Location: HIGH R/A D.NO.302, ‘LAVANYA’
COURT OF VI MAIN, 7TH CROSS KARNATAKA III STAGE, GOKULAM MYSURU-560002
2. SMT N DEVIKA ALIAS SUVARNA W/O PUTTARAJU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS D.NO.286, GAYATHRIPURAM II STAGE MYSURU-570019
3. SMT. N UMADEVI W/O A N SELVANANDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS D.NO.6, PUTTARANGANNA LAYOUT SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU-560020
4. SMT. N MANORAMA W/O LATE C RAMALINGAM AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS D.NO.4793, 16TH MAIN VIJAYANAGAR MYSURU-570017
5. SMT. N SHAMALA, W/O N BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS D.NO.205, 8TH MAIN, II STAGE HEBBAL NEAR HAMPI CIRCLE MYSURU-570016
6. SRI R VINAY KUMAR S/O RAMACHANDRA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS NO.159, G-FLOOR
1ST MAIN, IV CROSS LOWER PALACE ORCHARDS BENGALURU-560080
7. SMT N MADHU ALIAS MAHADEVI W/O RAMACHANDRA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS NO.159, G-FLOOR
1ST MAIN, IV CROSS LOWER PALACE ORCHARDS BENGALURU-560080 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI Y K NARAYANA SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1, R6 & R7)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.08.2023 PASSED IN R.A.NO.194/2022 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court that the defendant is a tenant of suit schedule property as per the terms of settlement recorded in the appeal RFA Nos.809/2002 and 910/2002 before the Hon’ble high Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, wherein it was ordered that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the arrears of rent and draw the rent if any deposited by the defendant in the Court. The defendant had filed HRC No.29/1982 seeking permission to deposit the rent. On 28.09.1982, an order was passed by the Court permitting the defendant to deposit the rent but till date the plaintiff has not received any intimation regarding the deposit of the rent to the Court in O.S.No.276/1983. Even in R.F.A.No.809/2002 on the file of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, the defendant had filed similar application and permission was granted for depositing the rent.
3. It is also contended that the rate of rent payable is Rs.200/- per month. Originally the lease of schedule premises had been made by father of plaintiff Nagendrappa in favour of defendant through agreement of lease dated 12.06.1977, now the said premises is under the co-ownership of plaintiffs and right of recovering the rent and possession of the premises by plaintiff is being recognised in R.F.A.No.809/2002 by the High Court and plaintiff did not receive any intimation regarding deposit of rent by defendant, thereby the said fact enables the plaintiff to terminate the lease of defendant. The defendant has not paid rent from 10.03.1984 and schedule premises is let out for commercial uses, measuring more than 40 square meters i.e., east to west 17 feet and north to south 11 feet. The plaintiff had issued termination notice to the defendant on 14.07.2010 terminating the tenancy of defendant from 01.07.2010 commencing on the midnight of 31.07.2010 and inspite of receipt of notice by defendant he has neither paid the rent nor vacated the schedule premises.
4. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the defendant is liable to pay arrears of rent from 10.03.1984, the plaintiff is confining his claim of right from 18.02.2008, as such the defendant is liable to pay rent from 10.02.2008 to 31.07.2010. In the agreement of lease, it is specified that in case defendant commits default in payment of rent, he shall pay rent at the rate of Rs.220/- per month, the claim of rent comes to Rs.6,490/-. Apart from that, the defendant is also liable to pay mesne profit at Rs.5,000/- per month from 01.08.2010, as such, on the date of filing of the suit, the defendant is liable to pay mesne profit or damage for the use and occupation in a sum of Rs.30,000/-, thereafter as on the date of suit, the defendant is liable to pay a total claim of Rs.36,490/- apart from vacating the schedule premises. Hence, the suit is filed for the relief of ejectment against the defendant.
5. After service of summons, the defendant appeared through his counsel and filed written statement except admitting that he is tenant in respect of suit schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs.220/- having taken the same from late B Nagendrappa and paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- as advance as per the lease agreement dated 12.06.1977 and denied other averments of the plaint. It is also contended that as per the directions of the competent Courts during the pendency, the defendant had filed a petition in HRC No.29/1982 on 20.08.1982 and deposited the rent to the tune of Rs.41,420/-. In addition to this, the defendant had also paid property tax which plaintiff was liable to pay in respect of the suit schedule property to the tune of Rs.12,111.70. It is also contented that plaintiffs have issued notice dated 27.11.2007 on the similar grounds and the same was replied through reply notice dated 06.12.2007 narrating the facts mentioned above, hence, the legal notice dated 14.05.2010 was issue
