IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2123 OF 2018 (EJE)

BETWEEN:

SRI. SURESH S/O DATTU RAO AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT 984/4, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN K.N.EXTENSION, YESHWANTPURA BENGALURU - 22.

…APPELLANT (BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA G, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIVEK HOLLA, HOLLA AND HOLLA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. D MANJUNATH S/O LATE DEVENDRAN AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS Digitally NO.984/4, 1ST CROSS signed by 1ST MAIN, K.N.EXTENSION RAMYA D YESHWANTHPUR Location: BENGALURU - 22 HIGH SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY LR'S COURT OF KARNATAKA

1(A). SMT. VENILA M W/O LATE MANJUNATH D AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

1(B). KUMARI DHANALAKSHMI S/O LATE MANJUNATH D AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS

1(C). KUMARI DEEPIKA M D/O LATE MANJUNATH D AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS THE LR'S OF RESPONDENT NOS. 1(B) AND 1(C)

BEING MINORS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN THE RESPONDENT NO.1(A)

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. 984/4, 1^ST CROSS, 1^ST MAIN K.N. EXTENSION, YESHWANTHPURA, BENGALURU - 22.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.R. BALARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A TO C))

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.09.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.3014/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

The appeal is filed by the appellant/defendant questioning the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.3014/2013 dated 28.09.2018 by the Court of IX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore (CCH-5), whereby the suit filed for ejectment is decreed directing the appellant/defendant to vacate the suit schedule premises.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. 3. It is stated that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and has given to the defendant on monthly rental basis and defendant has agreed to reside in the suit premises on payment of monthly rentals. But, the defendant had defaulted himself to pay the rent amount. Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file suit against the defendant for ejectment. The defendant has appeared in the suit and filed written statement contending that the plaintiff is the owner of the property and defendant is tenant and there was rental agreement. This is the sum and substance of the pleadings.

4. Based on pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff proves rent agreement dated

12.03.2007 entered between defendant and mother of plaintiff and rent agreement dated 29.09.2010 entered into between defendant and plaintiff?

2. Does he prove defendant has deposit of Rs.10,000/- under rent agreement dated

12.03.2007?

3. Does he prove that defendant has deposited Rs.30,000/- towards security deposit under rent agreement dated 29.09.2010?

4. Does he prove the jural relationship of lessor and lessee in respect of schedule premise?

5. Does he prove defendant is a chronic defaulter in payment of rent is due a sum of Rs.40,000/- under rent agreement dated 12.03.2007 and is due Rs.72,000/- under rent agreement dated

29.09.2010 towards arrears of rent?

6. Does he prove the termination of valid tenancy in respect of schedule premises?

7. Does he entitle for the relief to evict defendant from schedule premises?

8. Does he entitle for damages at the rate of Rs.6000/- per month in respect of schedule premises?

9. Whether defendant proves that his possession has to be protected under Section 53A of TP Act as contended?

10. What order or decree?

5. In support of the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P18. The defendant has got examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.D1 and D2.

6. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record had come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is