In a month-to-month commercial tenancy without a written agreement, a notice sent via registered post to the correct address is presumed served, and part-payment of rent during litigation constitutes an acknowledgment of the landlord-tenant relationship and liability for arrears.

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.11.2023 PASSED IN OS NO.3086/2020 ON THE FILE OF LXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU., DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is filed by the defendants assailing the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2023 passed in O.S.No.3086/2020 on the file of the LXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-66), whereby the defendants are directed to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises and also directed to pay arrears of rent of ₹1,82,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per month. The learned Judge has also held that the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profit at the rate of ₹10,000/- per month from the date of suit till vacating and handing over suit schedule premises.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

3. Facts leading to the case are as under;

The plaintiff instituted a suit seeking relief of ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profit contending that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule premises and that she had inducted defendant No.1 as tenant in respect of the ground floor shop, wherein defendant No.1 is running a hotel under the name and style of "Kabab Souq". The plaintiff specifically asserted that the tenancy commenced in January 2006 on a monthly rent of Rs.2,500/- with an advance amount of Rs.25,000/- for a period of 11 months. The plaintiff specifically pleaded that there was no written agreement between the parties and that the tenancy was purely oral. The plaintiff also asserted that as per oral understanding between the parties, the rent was periodically enhanced from January 2007 onwards and as such, the monthly rent was fixed at Rs.10,000/- per month with effect from January 2017.

4. The plaintiff contends that defendant No.1 committed default in payment of rent from January 2017 onwards, thereby accumulating arrears quantified at ₹4,19,000/-. It is his specific case that, in view of the persistent default, a legal notice dated 05.11.2019 was issued terminating the tenancy in accordance with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, “TP Act”), calling upon the defendant to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule premises within 60 days from the date of receipt of notice. The plaintiff asserts that the notice was duly dispatched to the permanent address of defendant No.1 in Kerala and was served. Despite service, the defendant neither complied with the demand nor issued any reply controverting the allegations. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to institute the present suit seeking ejectment and recovery of arrears.

5. The defendants entered appearance and filed written statement contesting the claim. While denying the alleged enhancement of rent, defendant No.1 contended that the lease was for a fixed term of 24 months commencing from 07.01.2006. He further asserted that he had paid a security deposit of ₹3,00,000/- at the inception of tenancy and therefore, questioned the legality and validity of the notice purportedly issued under Section 106 of the "TP Act". The defend