2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 57683
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.727 OF 2022 (POS)
BETWEEN :
SRI.M.KANTILAL JAIN
S/O LATE MITTALAL
AGED 53 YEARS
PROPRIETOR
M/S. AMARAJYOTHI PAPER CO.,
NO.125/9/1, BALAJI COMPLEX
SULTANPET, BENGALURU-560053.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.C.VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV.)
AND :
SRI.R.ASHOK
S/O LATE M.C.RANGANNA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT NO.124, 7TH MAIN
AVALAHALLI, B.D.A EXTENSION
3RD STAGE, BANASHANKARI
BENGALURU-560050.
&RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.LEKHA CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. FOR
SRI.RAGHURAM CADAMBI, ADV.)
THIS R.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.10.2021
PASSED IN O.S.NO.570/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE LXVII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU,
PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR POSSESSION.
THIS R.F.A COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Appeal by the defendant, challenging the judgment
and decree passed by the 67th Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge (CCH-68), Bengaluru in O.S.No.570/2021
on 30th October 2021 whereby suit of the plaintiff came to
be decreed and an order of ejectment was passed directing
the defendant from vacating and deliver the vacant
possession to the plaintiff within three months from
October 30, 2021 and also directed the defendant to pay a
sum of Rs.13,000/- p.m., towards arrears of rent from May
2018, till the filing of the suit.
2.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment in
O.S.No.570/2021. The defendant though served with the
notice, did not appear before the Trial Court and did not
file
written
statement
within
the
stipulated
time.
Thereafter, the Trial Court considered the materials placed
on record by the plaintiff and formulated the following
points for consideration:
3
1.
Whether the plaintiff proves that he has
duly terminated the tenancy of the
defendant
over
the
suit
schedule
property?
2.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the
reliefs sought for?
3.
What Order or Decree?
3.
Taking note of the evidence placed by the
plaintiff in the form of affidavit and the documents placed
on behalf of the plaintiff, recorded the findings on points
No.1 and 2 in the affirmative and decreed the suit of the
plaintiff.
4.
Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant
has filed the present appeal on the following grounds:
The impugned judgment and decree passed
by the court below is opposed to law, facts
and evidence in the case.
The court below has failed to consider both
oral and documentary evidence in proper
perspective and has failed to draw proper
4
inferences from admitted and proved facts
and those inferences drawn by the court
below are erroneous.
The court below has committed serious
error in not providing sufficient opportunity
to the appellant to file written statement
and set up his defence so that he could
have cross-examined PW-1 and produced
documents and substantiated his defence in
the suit. Due to Covid-19 situation the
appellant could not contact his counsel, give
instructions to file written statement and
cross
examine
PW-1.
The
denial
of
opportunity to the appellant has resulted in
miscarriage of justice.
The respondent filed the suit for ejectment
of the appellant from the suit schedule
property.
The
period
of
tenancy
has
expired. The respondent does not have
interest to renew the tenancy of the
appellant. The appellant continued to be in
possession of the premises without lawful
authority. The appellant did not keep the
premises in good and tenantable condition,
kept under lock and key since several
5
months, premises required for his personal
use and occupation, failed to pay rentals,
appellant failed to keep up his promise of
vacating the premises and dodged the
respondent. The appellant submits that the
respondent failed to provide basic amenities
such as water, electricity etc., and thereby
the appellant was forced to keep the
premises under lock and key. Thus the suit
involved important issues, which could not
be agitated due to denial of opportunity to
the appellant.
The suit was filed on 21.1.2021, the
evidence was commenced on 5.10.2021 and
the entire period was spent in Covid-19
situation and the court proceedings was
seriously affected, the clients were not
allowed and even counsel were not allowed
to enter the court premises and in that
period only the suit was decided. Even the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Hon'ble
Court extended the period of limitation up
to 3.10.2021 considering the pandemic
situation. The lower court failed to extend
the said benefit to the appellant.
6
By the impugned judgment and decree, the
appellant is directed to vacate the premises
within a period of three months and to pay
arrears of rent with interest. Irreparable
loss and injury would be caused to the
appellant if the impugned judgment and
decree I not set