IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.112 OF 2014 (SC) BETWEEN:
SRI K GOVINDARAJULU, S/O LATE KRISHNA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1, RANOJI RAO ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560 004. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI K SURYA PRAKASH RAO, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI C DINESH, S/O CHENNAKESHAVA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, "DINESH ENTERPRISES"
SHOP NO.10, GROUND FLOOR, "AMOGH GOKUL PLAZA", NO.61-64, R.V.ROAD, TEACHER’S COLLEGE CIRCLE, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560 004. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI DHIRENDRA N KATTI, ADVOCATE) **** THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.10.2013 PASSED IN S.C.NO.595/2011 ON THE FILE OF SMALL CAUSES VI ADDL. JUDGE, BENGALURU (SCCH-2), DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF ARREARS OF RENT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This revision petition is filed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2013 passed in S.C. No.595/2011 by the VI Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru, and to decree the suit filed by the petitioner and also to grant the costs of the suit.
2. The facts leading to this revision petition are that the petitioner is the landlord and respondent is the tenant of the premises bearing shop No.9, ground floor, Amog Gokul Plaza, No.61-64, R.V. Road, Teachers College Circle, Bengaluru. The petitioner had filed execution petition in Execution No.714/2010 before the Small Causes Court, Bengaluru. In the said execution petition the respondent tenant handed over the keys of the shop premises belonging to the petitioner. In view of the submission made before the Execution Court the E.P.No.714/2010 was closed. When the petitioner went to the shop premises said to have been vacated by the respondent - tenant it was learnt that the door was latched from inside. As such, the petitioner - landlord could not open the door and take possession of the said premises. Thereafter the petitioner was compelled to take necessary steps for taking possession of the premises, as a result of which he was deprived of an opportunity to get vacant possession for a period of four months. Therefore, the petitioner filed a small cause petition for recovery of rent for a period of four months.
3. On service of notice, the respondent tenant appeared and filed the objections. On appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed on record the small cause case was dismissed vide order dated 11.10.2013.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has filed the present revision petition contending that the court below has erred in dismissing the small cause case on the reason that the petitioner landlord could have resorted to the relevant provisions under Order 21 CPC for recovery of arrears of rent in the very same execution petition instead of filing a separate small cause petition for recovery of arrears of rent. The petitioner had taken delivery of possession by filing a suit for ejectment. In Execution Petition, the Court bailiff by breaking open the latch and drawing the mahazar; has delivered the possession of the shop premises to the petitioner. The same has not been considered by the trial Court. The evidence placed on record is not appreciated in proper perspective. Thus, it has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
5. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and respondent. Perused the order passed in S.C. No.595/2011.
6. In view of the submission of the counsel for the revision petitioner - landlord and the learned counsel for the respondent – tenant, the only controversy is that the landlord petitioner was deprived of an opportunity to take vacant possession of the shop premises No.9 even after handing over of keys of the said premises in the Execution Petition as the respondent tenant had put the latch of the door from inside. Despite issuance of legal notice the respondent tenant did not reply. The petitioner having suffered loss of account of non delivery of the vacant possession is entitled to the arrears of rent for the period of four months i.e., Rs.49,840/- along with interest.
7. During the course of arguments both counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent submitted that as per their advise both the parties have settled the dispute amicably and the respondent tenant has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) in full and final settlement of the claim of the revision petitioner in respect of the arrears of shop premises which was in occupation of the tenant earlier. Since the vacant possession of the shop premises No.9 has already been delivered on 30.10.2010 the revision petitioner has no other claim in respect of the said shop premises against the respondent tenant or any other persons on his behalf. In view of the submission of both counsels, there are valid grounds to set aside the order passed in S.C. No.595/2011 and to pass appropriate orders. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed.
8. The order dated 11.10.2013 passed in S.C. No.595/2011 by the VI Additional Judge of Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru is set aside. The respondent tenant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the petitioner landlord will be at liberty to execute this order for recovery of the said sum.
Registry to draw the decree accordingly. No order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE ykl