IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR C.R.P. NO.21 OF 2013 (SC) BETWEEN:
MR.K.V.PRASHANTH, S/O.K.VISHNUMURTHY RAO, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.10/1, LAKSHIMINARAYANA COMPLEX, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560052. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.VEERESHA KUMAR SIRASALI, ADVOCATE - ABSENT) AND:
1. SMT.SAVITHA SREE HARSHA, W/O SREE HARSHA K.C., AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.A-13, DEVI CHAMBERS, BUND GARDEN ROAD, PUNE – 411011.
2. SMT.V.L.VIJAYA LAKSHMI, W/O.V.R.L.MOORTHY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NO.9/15, VELLAR STREET, TALUK OFFICE ROAD, HOSUR – 635 109. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIJAYA KUMAR PRAKASH, ADV.
FOR R2 – ABSENT, R1 SERVED) ***** THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 03.12.2012 PASSED IN S.C.NO.1088/2010 ON THE FILE OF VI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXXI ACMM, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed for setting aside the order dated 03.10.2012 passed in S.C. No.1088/2010 by the VI Addl. Judge Small Causes Judge (SCCH-2), Bangalore.
2. This matter is at the stage of admission. Both counsel for the petitioner and respondents have remained absent.
3. The facts briefly stated are that the petitioner was a tenant under the respondent No.1 since May 2006 in respect of a residential house. The petitioner was inducted as a tenant during May 2006, he had paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- by way of cheque bearing No.525371 drawn on Karnataka Bank as security deposit which was agreed to be refunded to the petitioner on handing over the vacant possession of the residential premises. On 25.04.2010, the petitioner vacated and handed over the possession of the said premises to one V.R.L.Moorthy, namely the father of respondent No.1 who is the husband of respondent No.2. They promised to return the security deposit amount of Rs.15,000/-. Despite several requests, they did not return the security deposit amount. As such, a legal notice was issued. When the defendants did not pay the amount or reply to the legal notice, the petitioner filed small causes case which was numbered as S.C. No.1088/2010 for recovery of amount along with interest at 24%. The petitioner led the evidence and got marked the documents as Exhibit-P1 to P8. The court below dismissed the suit of the petitioner holding that there is no entry in the passbook to show that the petitioner has paid Rs.15,000/- to the respondents. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the revision petition.
4. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed for the following reason:
5. That Exhibit-P2 which is the rent agreement dated 01.05.2008 executed by defendant No.2 as Power of Attorney holder of defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff, discloses that the lessee namely the petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- through cheque bearing No.525371 drawn on Karnataka Bank, as security deposit, which shall be refundable at the time of handing over the vacant possession of the schedule premises to the lessor. But, as per clause 10 of the agreement, on expiry of 11 months period, the lessee shall quit and deliver the vacant possession to the lessor and the lessor shall simultaneously refund the deposit amount of Rs.15,000/- without interest to the lessee. But, in exhibit-P8, which is the passbook, there is no entry to show that Rs.15,000/- is paid to the general power of attorney holder of defendant No.1. There are only entries regarding the rents at Rs.1,315/- received by defendant No.1. Under these circumstances, there is no proof for payment of the security deposit amount, said to have been given by the plaintiff.
6. No grounds are made out in the appeal memo to prove that the findings given by the Court below are erroneous. As such, there are no valid reasons to admit the petition.
7. Hence, this petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SJ