IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.326 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
K.T. Krishna Shetty S/o Sri. Thimma Shetty, Aged about 41 years, Residing at:71/1549, 4th Cross, Nagappa Block, Devaiah Park, Srirampura, Bengaluru – 560 021.
Presently residing at:
House No.3085, 2nd Cross Road, ‘C’ Block, Gayathrinagar, Bengaluru – 560 021. … Petitioner (By Sri. B.C. Guru, Advocate for M/s. Guru Associates) AND:
Sri. T.S. Lakshmanagowda S/o late Sri. T.C. Subbegowda, Aged about 62 years, Residing at No.50, 1st Main Road, G.D. Park Extension, Vyalikaval, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru – 560 003. … Respondent (By Sri. K.S. Mallikarjunaiah, Advocate for C/R) **** This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Court Act against the judgment and decree dated 12.04.2018 passed in SC No.1883/2017 on the file of the IV Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru decreeing the suit for ejectment.
This Civil Revision Petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER The Revision Petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this Revision Petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the judgment dated 12/04/2018 passed by the Court of Small Causes at Bangalore by which the Trial Court has directed the eviction of the petitioner from the suit schedule premises, directing him to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/- to the Respondent.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of this revision petition are that the Respondent is a landlord and absolute owner of the property in question. A portion of the suit Schedule property was let out by the Respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.2,350/- to the petitioner under a Rent Agreement dated 02/09/2014.
4. It is the case of the Respondent that the petitioner is in arrears of rent for the period from 01/03/2016 to 02/11/2017. Despite notice being served, the petitioner - defendant did not tender the rent. Accordingly, by a notice dated 04/10/2017, the tenancy of the petitioner was terminated and he was called upon to deliver the vacant possession of the said premises. However, the petitioner failed to do so.
5. Upon the filing of the suit seeking a relief of eviction and arrears of rent, the Trial Court vide its impugned judgment dated 12/04/2018 decreed the suit of the Respondent and directed the petitioner-defendant to handover the vacant possession of the said premises and to pay the arrears of rent which has been fortified at Rs.90,000/-.
6. When the matter is taken up today, the learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to the findings recorded by the Trial Court at internal page 9, para 10 of the impugned judgment and submitted that as per the findings recorded by the Trial Court, the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- as additional advance and spent a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards repair and renovation of the suit schedule premises and therefore the Trial Court grossly erred in directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/- as arrears of rent to the Respondent.
7. It is further submitted that the petitioner has vacated the premises on 06/06/2018. However, the learned counsel for the Respondent while inviting the attention of the Court to paragraph 10 submitted that in fact, if para.10 is read in its entirety, it could be seen that in the earlier portion of the paragraph, the Trial Court has held that the defendant has not produced any documentary evidence to prove that he has spent a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for repairs and renovation of the suit schedule property.
8. He has also argued that subsequently the defendant has not led any evidence to show that he has paid the rent to the Respondent.
9. I have considered the submission made on both sides. The relevant portion of the impugned judgment referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner The relevant portion of the findings recorded by the Trial Court reads as hereunder:-
The defendant has further contended that he has spent Rs.1,00,000/- for repairs and renovation of the suit schedule property to prove this also he has not produce any documentary evidence. Apart from that the defendant has to obtained permission of the plaintiff for repairs and renovation of the suit schedule property….
… The defendant has agreed to pay the rent as per Ex.P2 and he has failed to prove that he has only agreed to pay the rent and he has also proved that he has paid the additional advance amount Rs.50,000/-. The defendant further proved that he has spent Rs.1,00,000/- for repair and renovation of the suit schedule premises ”
10. I find substantial force in the submission of the learned counsel for the Respondent that if the findings of the Trial Court in its judgment at para 10 is read in its entirety, it is evident that in earlier portion of the judgment, the Trial Court has held that the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence to prove that he has spent a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for repairs and renovation of the suit schedule premises. It has further been held in the latter portion of the judgment that there is nothing on record to disbelief the evidence of PW1 with regard to the arrears of rent. However, contradictory findings have been recorded by the Trial Court as referred supra, without recording any reasons.
11. Therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. The impugned judgment is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner herein is directed to handover the Keys to the Respondent within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today, before the court of small causes.
12. The Trial Court is directed to decide the issue with regard to arrears of rent by a speaking order within a period of one month from today after hearing the parties.
Accordingly, the Revision Petition is disposed of.
BMV* Sd/- JUDGE