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.489 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
1. Kumari Spoorthi.R Court D/o Ravindra.R Aged about 31 years.
2. Sri Ravindra.R., S/o Ranganatha Raok Aged about 64 years Petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are residing at No.5, Vinayaka Layout Teachers Layout Road Vidyaranyapura Bengaluru-560097. … Petitioners (By Sri. Vijaya Kumar.K., Advocate) AND:
1. Sri B L Nanjunda Gupta S/o B.N.Lakshmikantha Setty, Aged about 49 years.
2. Smt M R Vani W/o Nanjunda Gupta Aged about 39 years.
Respondents No.1 and 2 are Residing at No.22, N.T.I.Layout, Vidyaranyapura Main Road, Bengaluru-560097. … Respondents (By Sri. Jayavelu.N., Advocate) **** This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Court Act against the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2018 passed in S.C.No.351/2016 on the file of the II Addl. Judge and XXVIII ACMM Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru decreeing the suit for vacant possession.
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, preferred under Section 18 of the Small Causes Court Act, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the judgment dated 28/07/2018 passed by the II Additional Small Causes Judge and ACMM at Bengaluru in S.C.No.351/2016 by which the Trial Court has decreed the suit for eviction as well as for arrears of rent.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of this revision petition are that the Respondents are the owners of the property in question. The aforesaid property was let out to the petitioner under a Tenancy Agreement for 11 months from 20/02/2015 @ Rs.8,250/- per month.
4. It is the case of the Respondents that the tenancy of the petitioner was terminated with effect from 20/01/2016 and thereafter the suit was filed seeking the relief of eviction as well as arrears of rent which was quantified at Rs.15,000/-. The defendants 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed their Written Statement and the Defendant No.2 examined himself as Defendant Witness No.1.
5. The Trial Court in its impugned judgment held that the plaintiffs have been able to prove the jural relationship of landlord and tenant and the tenancy of the petitioners has been validly terminated.
6. Further while dealing with the issue with regard to the arrears of rent in para.12, internal page 12, it was held by the Trial Court that since the defendant No.1 has not stepped into the witness box and nothing was elicited in the cross-examination from the mouth of the plaintiffs to prove that they are due of any rent, therefore, there is nothing to disbelieve that the petitioners - defendants are in arrears of rent. Accordingly, the suit filed by the Respondents was decreed.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners while inviting the attention of this Court to para.12 of the judgment of the Trial Court submitted that the second petitioner had examined himself as Defendant Witness No.1 and had produced as many as 17 documents and even the aforesaid documents are not considered and the claim for arrears of rent has been decreed merely on the ground that the defendant No.1 has not entered the witness box. Thus, the impugned judgment suffers from the vice of non-application of mind.
8. The aforesaid fact could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the Respondents.
9. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.
10. From a perusal of the records, it is evident that the second petitioner has entered the Witness Box and has produced as many as 17 documents. However, the Trial Court vide its impugned judgment in para 12 has held as follows:
“12.Point No.3: It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant is due for a sum of Rs.16,500/- towards arrears of rent as on 20.1.2016 but to rebut the same, the defendant has not stepped into the witness box and nothing was elicited in the cross- examination from the mouth of plaintiff to prove that he is due of any rent. Therefore, there is nothing to disbelieve the contention of the plaintiff with regard to arrears of rent. Hence, I answer this point in the affirmative.”
11. Thus, it is evident that the finding with regard to the arrears of rent has been based only on the ground that the defendant has failed to enter the Witness Box. The aforesaid finding is factually incorrect as admittedly the petitioner No.2 has been examined as Defendant No.1 and he has produced as many as 17 documents. The impugned judgment therefore, suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record as well as shows clear non-application of mind.
12. Accordingly, the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court dated 28/07/2018 in S.C.No.351/2016 is hereby quashed and set aside.
13. The Trial Court is directed to hear the parties afresh and to decide the suit by a speaking order within a period of two month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today.
Accordingly, the Revision Petition is disposed of.
BMV* Sd/- JUDGE