M. Kishore vs B.S. Sathyavathi and Others

B.S. Patil, J.

This revision petition is filed challenging the decree passed by the Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, directing defendants - petitioners herein to vacate and handover vacant possession of the petition schedule premises to the plaintiffs -respondents herein and also to pay arrears of rent of Rs. 44,436/- from 01.12.2013 to 30.06.2014 and damages at the rate of Rs. 6,348/- from 30.06.2014 till the date of delivery of suit schedule property.

For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks in the Trial Court.

Plaintiffs filed the suit seeking ejectment of the defendants and directing enquiry into future mesne profits contending inter alia that they were the owners of the schedule property and the defendants were their tenants on a monthly rent of Rs. 6,348/-. It was urged that as the defendants were chronic defaulters in paying the rent and as the suit schedule property was required for their use, they issued legal notice terminating the tenancy of the defendants. The said notice was served on the defendants on 12.06.2014. As an untenable reply was submitted, they were constrained to institute the suit.

Defendants resisted the claim. Defendant No. 2 filed written statement contending inter alia that he was not aware of the fact that plaintiffs were the co-owners of the schedule property. He denied payment of monthly rent and the valid termination of the lease. The arrears of rent as asserted by the plaintiffs was also denied. It was his case that one B.R. Narayanarao was the original owner of the property and he leased the property to his father P. Mangilal during the year 1999 and on the date of lease, his father had paid Rs. 6,00,000/- with Narayanarao. Subsequently, on 22.05.1999, another sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- was paid by the said Sri Mangilal to Sri Narayanarao which was also counter signed by the husband of the 1st plaintiff and the father of 2nd plaintiff by name Sri B.N. Shankara Rao. It was further contended that a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- was later paid to Narayanarao. Thus, in all, Rs. 12,40,000/- was allegedly paid towards lease of the schedule premises to Narayanarao. Parties have adduced their evidence on the basis of their pleadings.

The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that jural relationship of landlord and tenant was established by the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs were able to prove that tenancy was legally terminated by issuing notice in terms of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Thus, a decree was passed directing the tenants to quit and deliver vacant possession and pay the arrears.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiffs failed to establish that they were the exclusive owners of the suit schedule property and as also the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendants. His next contention is that the Court below has erred in not recording a finding regarding the advance amount of Rs. 12,40,000/- paid by the tenant -defendants to Sri B.R. Narayanarao and unless the said amount deposited as advance was accounted for, question of directing eviction of the tenants or for payment of arrears of rent could not arise. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the suit premises has been used for commercial purpose and therefore, it would become very difficult for the defendants to look up for alternative premises and hence, the Court below was not justified in directing eviction.

Learned counsel for the respondents strongly supports the findings recorded by the Court below. He urges that no documents were produced to show that the deposit or payment of advance amount in a sum of Rs. 12,40,000/- had been made. The xerox copies of receipts which were sought to be produced before the Court below were not permitted to be marked and therefore, findings recorded in that regard by the Court below cannot be found fault with. He further contends that only a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- was paid by way of advance and if the arrears of rent due and payable by the tenants are set off against the deposit amount, whatever remains as balance would be paid to the tenants when they vacate and deliver the vacant possession.

Having heard the learned counsel for both parties, I find from the judgment under challenge that the jural relationship of landlord and tenant has been duly established and the findings recorded by the Court below in this regard do not suffer from any illegality. It is borne out from the evidence on record that Sri B.R. Narayanarao was the original owner of the property. He died leaving behind B.N. Shankara Rao. Sri B.N. Shankara Rao is none other than the husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of the 2nd plaintiff. D.W. 1 has admitted in his evidence that defendants paid rent to the plaintiffs till November, 2013. The Court below has found by referring to Ex. P17 - Account Book pertaining to plaintiff No. 1 that it reflected the payment of rent by the defendants and therefore, it was clear that plaintiffs were the land owners and the defendants were the tenants under them, as otherwise, question of paying rent to the plaintiffs by the defendants could not arise. Therefore, it is clear that the defense of the defendants in denying the jural relationship and the status of the plaintiffs as owners of the premises has been rightly rejected.

As regards termination of lease, there is no dispute regarding issue of legal notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy. Notice has been duly served on the defendants. Therefore, no exception can be found for the findings recorded in this regard by the Trial Court.

Insofar as the alleged payment of advance amount of Rs. 12,40,000/- by the defendants, except taking such a contention and making an assertion in the written statement, they have not produced any documents. Plaintiffs have admitted receipt of sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- towards advance amount. They are ready to pay back the balance amount after adjusting the arrears of rent as directed by the Court below. In this view of the matter, I do not find any justification to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Hence, I pass the following order:

"i) Order directing defendants to vacate and handover vacant possession of the suit schedule premises is confirmed.

ii) Direction issued to pay arrears of rent and damages is modified making it clear that the landlord, after deducting the arrears of rent of Rs. 44,436/- from 01.12.2013 to 30.06.2014 and the damages of Rs. 6,348/- per month with effect from 30.06.2014, shall refund balance amount deposited by way of advance at the time of vacation of the premises. Tenant -petitioners are given three months time from today to vacate and handover vacant possession of the premises on condition that they shall continue to pay the damages for the use and occupation of the premises at the rate of Rs. 6,348/- till the vacation of the premises."