IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9^th DAY OF APRIL 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

R.F.A.No.172 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

1. M/s. Vijayamala Engineering Works,

and

2. M/s. Technomat

Both are R/at No.1036, Sadviche,

5^th Block, Rajajinagar,

Bangalore-560 010

Rep. by its Managing Partner

Sri. B.S.Shetty. ..Appellants

(By Sri. G.Papi Reddy, Advocate)

AND:

M/s. Eskay Heat Transfer Pvt. Ltd.,

Plot No-444 & 445,

12^th Cross, IV Phase,

Peenya Industrial Area,

Bangalore-560 058

Rept. by its Director,

Sri. S.N.Shetty. ...Respondent

This Appeal is filed under Order XLI Rule 1 read with

Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, praying to Call for the

entire records from the Court of the XIX Additional City Civil

and Sessions Judge (CCH-18) in O.S.No.6519/2014 and to set

aside the judgment and decree dated:18.11.2016 passed by

RFA.No.172/2017

2

the learned XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, at

Bangalore City, (CCH-18) in O.S.No.6519/2014 and dismiss the

suit of plaintiff as prayed by the Appellants/Defendants in the

written statement and grant such other relief or reliefs as this

Hon9ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances

of the case, including award of costs of the proceedings

throughout to meet the ends of justice.

This

Appeal

having

been

heard

through

Physical

Hearing/Video

Conferencing

Hearing

and

reserved

on

01.04.2021 coming on for pronouncement of Judgment this

day, the Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The present respondent as a plaintiff in the Court of

learned XIX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City

(CCH-18), (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `trial Court9),

had instituted a suit in O.S.No.6519/2014, against the present

appellants arraying them as defendants for recovery of money

of a sum of `4,20,515/- with interest thereupon at 18% p.a.

from 13.5.2014 till realisation.

2. The summary of the case of the plaintiff in the trial

Court was that the plaintiff-Company had entered into a Lease

Agreement with defendants on 01.03.2016 with respect to an

industrial shed bearing No.B-76 and one more Lease Agreement

dated 18.12.2006 in respect of another shed bearing No.B-75,

both situated at 2^nd Cross, Peenya Industrial Estate, 1^st Stage,

RFA.No.172/2017

3

Bengaluru. Under the agreements, the plaintiff had given a

security deposit of `5 lakhs in respect of shed bearing No.B-75

and another sum of `3,50,000/- in respect of shed bearing

No.B-76, which security deposits were refundable without

interest at the time of plaintiff vacating the property. The lease

period was for six years extendable by four more years with a

clause for enhancement at the rate of 10% for every two years.

After occupying the sheds, the plaintiff spent more than `1 lakh

for each shed for painting and repairing of the building. The

plaintiff also invested huge amount for its business. The

defendants being greedy to get more money, enhanced the rent

for every two years than the agreed enhancement. It also

pressurised the plaintiff to vacate and hand over the sheds.

Ultimately,

the

plaintiff

vacated

both

the

premises

on

31.01.2014 and handed over the vacant possession of both the

sheds to the defendants, represented by its Managing Partner.

At that time, the Managing Partner of the defendants personally

inspected the sheds and satisfied himself about the good

condition of the sheds and agreed to repay the security amount

after deducting the balance rent and TDS. However, the

defendants sent a letter to the plaintiff dated 15.02.2014,

RFA.No.172/2017

4

mentioning that it had not only deducted the rent and TDS,

but, also the cost of colour wash, paint and damages for the

building repair cost, etc., Thus, the defendants had deducted

`2 lakhs per shed, which