Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Helen S D/O Mr Selvaraj K vs Yohan

High Court Of Karnataka|18 December, 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT C.R.P. NO.316/2019 BETWEEN:
MS. HELEN S D/O MR. SELVARAJ K AGED 34 YEARS R/AT NO.14, 3RD CROSS NARAYANAPPA BUILDING KANAKANAGAR R.T. NAGAR POST BANGALORE KARNATAKA STATE- 560032 … PETITIONER (BY SRIYUTHS. NASIR AND YOHAN, ADVs. FOR M/S. DJN LAW CHAMBERS) AND:
SRI. M NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT NO.103 NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL DODDA HULLURAPPA LAYOUT VISHWANATHA NAGENAHALLI BANGALORE-560 032.
… RESPONDENT (BY SRI.NATARAJ, ADV.) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.05.2019 PASSED IN S.C.NO.786/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXXIV ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-7, BANGALORE, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This is tenant’s revision petition under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, 1964 assailing the judgment dated 27.05.2019 passed in S.C.No.786/2018, by which the petitioner is directed to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within two months from the date of the order. Further, the defendant was directed to pay the arrears of rent from the month of May 2018 till she surrenders the suit schedule property to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.5,250/- p.m.
2. The petitioner herein is the defendant and respondent is the plaintiff in S.C.No.786/2018. They would be referred to as they stand before the trial Court.
3. The plaintiff filed suit for ejectment of the defendant and for recovery of arrears of rent/damages from the defendant in respect of the suit schedule property. It is stated that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the residential property bearing No.14, 3rd cross, Narayanappa Building, Kanakanagar, R.T.Nagar Post, Bangalore. At the request of defendant, the plaintiff had let out one portion of house on first floor of the building consisting of single bed room, Hall, Kitchen, attached bath room and toilet, on the agreed rent of Rs.5,000/- p.m. The plaintiff and defendant had entered into a rent agreement on 11.07.2017. The defendant had also paid security deposit of Rs.25,000/- to the plaintiff at the time of entering into the agreement on 11.07.2017. The plaintiff states that there were several complaints from the neighbouring residents with regard to nuisance created by the defendant. The plaintiff states that he got issued a legal notice dated 17.04.2018 to the defendant asking her to quit and vacate the schedule premises. It is also stated that the defendant has not paid the rent.
4. On service of summons, the defendant appeared and filed written statement contending that there is no cause of action for filing the suit. But admitted the tenancy under the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. The defendant stated that the suit is false and frivolous. It is also the allegation of the defendant that the plaintiff refused to give rent receipts for having received the rent from the defendant. Every month, the defendant paid rent to the plaintiff and the plaintiff had not given any receipt. The defendant further states that the defendant had not issued any rent receipts from 11.08.2017. It is also stated that the defendant had not received any notice from the plaintiff.
5. In support of his case, the plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and marked 5 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. The defendant got examined herself as D.W.1 and one document was marked on her behalf as Ex.P6.
6. The trial Court, on consideration of the material on record allowed the suit of the plaintiff and directed the defendant to handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property within two months and further directed the defendant to pay arrears of rent from May 2018 at the rate of Rs.5,250/- p.m. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the defendant is in revision before this Court.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant and learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant would submit that there is no dispute with regard to landlord and tenant relationship. But he submits that the notice issued is defective and notice is not received by the defendant. It is the allegation of the defendant that the plaintiff has filed the present suit by suppressing the material facts. Rent receipts have not been issued by the plaintiff since August 2017. The plaintiff has also issued second notice which is suppressed and not placed before the Court. If the eviction is ordered, the defendant would suffer hardship.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that the revision itself is not maintainable as the petitioner/defendant has failed to deposit the arrears of rent as ordered by the trial Court. He further submits that the defendant is due in a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- towards arrears of rent. He also submits that there is no dispute with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the defendant. The plaintiff got issued legal notice as per Ex.P3 and the notice issued to defendant was returned which is marked as Ex.P3 and Ex.P5.
10. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the only point which falls for consideration is as to whether the impugned judgment suffers from any material or jurisdictional error, so as to call for interference?
11. Answer to the above point would be in the negative and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed for the following reasons:
Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner/defendant was tenant under the respondent/plaintiff from 11.07.2017 on the agreed rent of Rs.5,250/-. Moreover the plaintiff proved the landlord- tenant relationship. The plaintiff got issued legal notice Ex.P3 and the same was issued through RPAD under Ex.P4 by which, the plaintiff terminated the tenancy of defendant. In spite of termination of tenancy, the defendant failed to vacate the suit schedule premises. She is in arrears of rent in a sum of Rs.1,05,000/-. On the other hand the petitioner/tenant in her reply to the notice at Ex.P6 sought time to vacate the suit schedule property.
12. The petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to pay the arrears of rent which she has not paid. Learned counsel for the petitioner on 11.12.2019 took time to pay arrears of rent by 18.12.2019. But, even to this date, the petitioner/ defendant has failed to make any payment towards arrears of rent. The defendant has failed to substantiate her contention of defective notice. Further the contention that the plaintiff had issued second notice is also not proved. If the second notice was issued and the same was received by the defendant, the defendant in her evidence could have placed the same on record. That itself makes it clear that there was no second notice.
13. The defendant/tenant has not made out any ground to interfere with the judgment and decree under challenge. There is no jurisdictional or material irregularity. Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Judges
  • S G Pandit C