IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1633 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

1. THE DIRECTOR (REGION)

NATIONAL SAMPLE SURVEY ORGANISATION REGIONAL OFFICER,5^TH FLOOR E AND F WING, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 034

2. THE SENIOR SUPDT NSSO (FOD)

NO.1241 POORNAPRAGNA 1^ST STAGE HEBBAL MYSURU 16

3. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF STATISTICS AND PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION, SARDAR PATEL BHAVAN, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI 01 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. D BASAVARAJA.,ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA AND:

Location:

R RAGHAVENDRA RAO, HIGH COURT OF S/O LATE V RAMASWAMY KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT 516/1, AKASHAYA, 1ST FLOOR

8^TH CROSS,VINAYA MARG SIDDARTHA NAGAR MYSORE …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.PALLAVA R.,ADVOCATE)

THIS RSA FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.04.2025 PASSED IN RA.NO.251/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSUSU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.09.2017 PASSED IN OS.NO.204/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYSURU.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by defendant nos.1 to 3, the Union of India and one of its department namely Ministry of Statistics and Programme implementation, National Sample Survey Organisation, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 05.09.2017 passed by the 1^st Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru, in O.S. No.204 of 2013, which is affirmed by the Judgment & Decree dated 29.04.2025 passed by the 5^th Addl. district Judge, Mysuru in R.A No. 251 of 2017.

2. The parties shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendants.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows.

3.1 Plaintiff is the landlord and the defendants are the tenants. Plaintiff filed a suit for eviction seeking arrears of rent and damages against the defendants for use and occupation of the rental demised property. It is the case of plaintiff that by agreement dated 01.09.2002, defendants 1 and 2 had taken the suit premises for use and occupation of defendant no. 2 as a tenant under the plaintiff. The term of the lease was 5 years commencing from 01.09.2002 with a rate of rent agreed initially as ₹ 7,200/- per month. It was also agreed that after expiry of the three years, there would be an annual enhancement of rent not exceeding 8%. It was also agreed between the parties that the lessee shall take action so far as practicable for renewal of the lease within six months after the expiry of the term.

3.2 It is further case of the plaintiff that the lease term came to an end on 31.08.2007 and no fresh lease agreement was executed though the defendants 1 and 2 continued to occupy and use the premises. It was further stated that defendants 1 and 2 have not cleared the electricity and water bills in respect of the suit schedule premises and they have also not surrendered the keys of the premises to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was willing to renew the lease by increasing the rent to ₹ 16,000/- per month at the rate of 8% per annum escalation. But, since the defendants did not make use of the opportunity to renew the lease and pay arrears of rent, the plaintiff got issued a notice of termination of tenancy to the defendant No.1 on 08.11.2012. Despite which, the suit premises was not vacated and left with no alternative, the plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against the defendants/tenants.

3.3 Upon service of summons, the defendants appeared, filed their written statement and contested the matter denying the averments made in the plaint and took up a plea that on the expiry of the lease agreement on 31.08.2007, plaintiff has given a written undertaking to accept the rent fixed by the Central Public Works Department ('CPWD' for short) or the rent demanded by him, whichever was less, and after the assessment made by CPWD, the rent was fixe