Court ruled valid termination of tenancy under the Transfer of Property Act due to failure to vacate and non-payment, reinforcing the burden of proof on defendants regarding court fee issues.

JUDGMENT

This appeal by the defendant in O.S.No.4709/2017 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 04.03.2021 passed by the learned LXI City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (for short 'the trial court'), whereby the aforesaid suit filed by the respondents - plaintiffs for ejectment / eviction of the appellant - defendant from the suit schedule premises and other reliefs was decreed by the trial court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondents - plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit for eviction / ejectment of the appellant - defendant from the suit schedule premises and for other reliefs. The said suit was contested by the defendant, who interalia contended that the termination of his tenancy was not valid or proper and the suit for eviction / ejectment was not maintainable and the same was liable to be dismissed.

4. After hearing both the parties, the trial court framed the following issues for consideration:-

" (i) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant was tenant under them?

(ii) Whether the plaintiffs further prove that the tenancy of the defendant is validly terminated as per Section 105 and 106 of Transfer of Property Act?

(iii) Whether the defendant further proves that the suit of plaintiff is not properly valued and Court fee paid is sufficient?

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of ejectment of the defendant as prayed for?

(v) What decree or order?"

5. The plaintiff No.2 examined himself as PW-1 and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked on their behalf. PW-1 was partly cross-examined by the defendant and having not been cross- examined further, the trial court proceeded to hear the arguments of both sides and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendant. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court, appellant -defendant is before this Court by way of the present appeal.

6. The following points arise for consideration in the present appeal:-

" (i) Whether the trial court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had validly terminated the tenancy of the defendant under them in respect of the suit schedule premises?

(ii) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court warrants interference in the present appeal?"

Re-Point Nos.1 and 2:-

7. Both these points being interlinked, they are taken up together for consideration.

7.1 A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the trial court has taken into account the statutory notice at Ex.P2 dated 13.01.2017 issued by the plaintiffs to the defendant in compliance with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The trial court has also noted that apart from the fact that the defendant did not cross-examine PW-1 (plaintiff No.2) in full, the unimpeached, uncontroverted and unchallenged oral and documentary evidence on record coupled with the fact that the defendant did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence to rebut the defence of the plaintiffs and consequently, the plaintiffs had lawfully terminated the tenancy of the defendant under them and were entitled to a decree for eviction / ejectment. So also, the trial court answered issue No.3 in favour of the plaintiffs by coming to the conclusion that the suit had been properly valued and the court fee paid was sufficient. While rendering the said findings, the trial court held as under:-

"6. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff PW-1 was examined and got marked in all five documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5. PW-1 was partly cross-examined and thereafter even though sufficient opportunity was given for the cross- examination of PW-1, Defendant has not argued the mat