- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16308 RFA No. 868 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 868 OF 2023 (RES) BETWEEN: M/S SRI. CHARAN ENGINEERING WORKS, NO 81/B-2, AEROPLANE MANSION, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 023 BY ITS PROPRIETOR R. MAHENDRAN, S/O G. RAJAVELU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO 27-H/A, 2ND CROSS, MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 023. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PARAMESHWARAPPA M. V., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. M.R. MADHUSUDHAN, S/O SRI M D RAMANARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT NO 7, SANTHUSAPET BANGALORE – 560 053 NOW R/AT NO 657, 11TH CROSS, 7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR (WEST) BANGALORE – 560 082. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. KESHAVA BHAT A., ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.02.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.4348/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE C/C XLIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT EJECTMENT. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16308 RFA No. 868 of 2023 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal by the defendant in O.S.No.4348/2016 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 23.02.2023, whereby the said suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff against the appellant-defendant for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.3,96,000/- for the period from June-2015 to April- 2016, for mesne profits and other reliefs was decreed by the Trial Court in favour of respondent-plaintiff against the appellants- defendants. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. The respondent-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the appellant-defendant inter alia contending that the appellant was a lessee under respondent in respect of the suit schedule premises under unregistered lease deed dated 24.09.2003, which had expired after the stipulated period of 11 months, subsequent to which the appellant was a monthly tenant - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16308 RFA No. 868 of 2023 under the respondent. It was contended that the appellant did not pay the rentals due to the respondents nor remitted the TDS amount from March, 2013 onwards and the respondent terminated the tenancy of the appellant by issuing legal notice dated 28.09.2015 and since the appellant neither complied with the said demand nor vacated the suit schedule premises, respondent instituted the aforesaid suit against the appellant. 4. The appellant having filed his written statement and contesting the suit, the Trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether plaintiff proves that the relationship of landlord and tenant is terminated? 2. Whether he further proves that he entitled for arrears of rent of Rs.3,96,000/- and Rs.96,000/- towards TDS? 3. Whether he further proves that he is entitled for interest of sum of Rs.21,950/-? 4. Whether he further proves that he is entitled for mesne profits? 5. Whether defendant proves that the plaintiff has to pay damages of Rs.98,69,000/-? 6. Whether he further proves that he is entitled for vacant possession of the schedule property? 7. To what decree or order? - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16308 RFA No. 868 of 2023 ADDITIONAL ISSUE 1. Whether the plaintiff proves the valid termination of tenancy of defendant? 5. The respondent-plaintiff examined his Power of Attorney Holder as PW.1 and documentary evidence at Exs.P-1 to 8 were marked on his behalf, while the appellant-defendant examined himself as DW.1 and documentary evidence at Exs.D-1 to D-6 were marked by him. 6. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court answered issue Nos.1, 4, 6 and additional issue No.1 in favour of respondent- plaintiff as well as issue No.2 partly in the affirmative in his favour. However, the Trial Court answered issue Nos.3 and 5 in the negative against the respondent-plaintiff and proceeded to partly decree the suit in his favour as stated supra by passing the impugned judgment and decree, which is assailed in the present appeal. 7. A perusal of the impugned judgment and decree will indicate that the Trial Court partly decreed the suit by granting the reliefs of ejectment/eviction of the appellant from the suit schedule premises and further directed the appellant to pay arrears of rent in - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16308 RFA No. 868 of 2023 a sum of Rs.3,96,000/- for the period between June-2015 to April- 2016. However, the reliefs of recovery of Rs.96,000/- towards TDS and interest of Rs.21,950/- sought for by the respondent-plaintiff was rejected by the Trial Court, which have not been assailed by the respondent-plaintiff by way of either cross-objections or a separate appeal before this Court. It follows therefrom that the present appeal is restricted/limited to the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment and decree only in so far as it relates to the decree for eviction and mesne profits as well as direction to pay arrears of rent in a sum of Rs.3,96,000/- by the appellant-defendant to the respondent-plaintiff. 8. The following points arise for my consideration in the present appeal: (i) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in granting the relief of eviction in favour of the respondent-plaintiff against the appellant defendant? (ii) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in directing the appellant to pay arrears of rent in a sum of Rs.3,96,000/- to the respondent-plaintiff? (iii) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court warrants interference in the present appeal? - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16308 RFA No. 868 of 2023 Re. Point No.(i) : 9. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the Trial Court has correctly and properly considered the pleadings and evidence adduced by both sides for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that the respondent was the landlord of the suit schedule premises and that the appellant was a tenant under him. The Trial Court also came to the correct conclusion that the respondent-plaintiff had validly terminated the tenancy of the appellant under him by issuance of a legal notice at Ex.P-2 dated 28.09.2015 and accordingly, upheld the claim for eviction and mesne profits in favour of the respondent-plaintiff against the appellant defendant by holding as under: “9. Issue No.1: The plaintiff has categorically contended that, He is the absolute owner of the suit property. When he was minor, his father Ramnarayan by representing him as minor guardian, inducted the defendant as tenant of the suit property by executing the lease deed dated 24-09- 2003 to run the industrial manufacturing units. Under the lease deed, he has received Rs. 1,00,000/- as security deposit and let out for monthly rent of Rs. 11,000/-, and the defendant is liable to pay 15% enhanced rent for every 3 years, and the tenancy was for the 11 months and renewable on the mutual understanding, accordingly it was renewed on month to month. It is the plaintiff contention is - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16308 RFA No. 868 of 2023 that since March 2013 the defendant defaulted in making the rent properly and even he has not deposited the TDS of Rs. 53,000/- for the period between 2013-14 and Rs. 43,200/- for the period between 2014-15, when such being the case and when he defaulted the payment of rent for the period from June 2015 the plaintiff by issuing notice dated 28-09-2015 got terminated the tenancy, and by giving 6 months notice period demanded the defendant to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the schedule property. But despite service of the notice the defendant fails to quit and deliver the suit schedule premises. 10. The defendant took an inconsistent stand, disputed the ownership of the suit property, and denied the relationship of the plaintiff as landlord and defendant as his tenant, denied the default in making of rent. But in turn contended that, the plaintiff has failed to provide water and sanitary facility, due to water log in the roof of the suit schedule property, water was leakaged which has caused the rusting of industrial components and CNC machine for which he has suffered loss of Rs. 98,69,000/-, for which contended that the plaintiff is liable to pay the same. 11. If the above contentions are perused it appears the defendant has not approached the court with clean hands, though he knows that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property, his being a minor guardian inducted the defendant into the suit property as tenant, he went to the extent of denying the ownership and jural relationship. But, during the cross examination he admits that Ex.P.8 is the lease agreement executed by the father of the plaintiff - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16308 RFA No. 868 of 2023 named M.D.Ramnarayan as a minor guardian of the plaintiff on 24-09-2003. And he admitted that the suit property was originally belongs to grand father of the plaintiff and which came to the plaintiff herein. And also admits that initially the lease was for the period of 11 months, by paying Rs. 1,00,000/- as security deposit and Rs. 11,000/- was initial rent was agreed. And was renewed and the tenancy was for the month to month and since 2015 itself he was paying the rent of Rs. 36,000/- per month. 12. Though the plaintiff had categorically contended that from June 2015 itself the defendant has stopped to make the rent payment, prior to that also he was very irregular in making the rent payment, not only that he was not at all deposited TDS deducted on the rent income with the income tax department which attracted the penalty, which was paid by the plaintiff. In particularly though the plaintiff has categorically contended that, from June 2015 itself the defendant defaulted in making the rent payment and in this regard he has placed his bank statement as per Ex.P.6 according to which the defendant paid the rent of February month on 10-04-2015 of Rs. 32,400/- by deducting the TDS and March month rent on 01-06-2015, April month rent was on 07-08-2015, May month rent was paid on 10-09- 2015. 13. But the defendant to show contrary the contention of the plaintiff and to show the payment rent thereafter produced the Ex.D.4 which is the rent register, according to him he has paid the rent both by was of cash and RTGS but from 09-10-2015 onwards he has shown to be made the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16308 RFA No. 868 of 2023 payment of rent by way of cash, but prior to that rents by way of RTGS. Further contention is that one Kumar accountant of the plaintiff was used to collect the rent, but the plaintiff contended that there was no such accountant named Kumar was working with them. Even the defendant has not produced any document Kumar was an accountant of the plaintiff. In fact D.W.1 categorically deposed that he do not know where abouts of said Kumar. 14. In that background plaintiff contended that he got issued notice dated 28-09-2015 as per Ex.P.2 in which the plaintiff has categorically communicated the defendant that he defaulted in making the rent payment from June 2015 itself, also alleged that he defaulted in making the TDS payment for the period between 2013 to 15, and thus by issuing the 6 months prior notice under Section 106 of TP Act, has terminated the tenancy of the defendant, as the suit schedule property has been let out to the Industrial manufacturing unit, 6 months prior notice is mandated under Section 106 of TP Act and directed the defendant to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property on or before 30.04.2015. 15. But the defendant contended that he has not received said such notice, thus termination of tenancy is invalid. But admits that said notice was sent to the correct address of the defendant, as shown in the rent agreement, even defendant has not disputed the fact that in Ex.P.2 has been sent to the correct address. And further he has also admitted that Ex.P.4 postal acknowledgment is bears the seal of his Industry but his only contention is that it does not - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16308 RFA No. 868 of 2023 bears his signature, if that aspect is considered firstly notice being dispatched to the correct address of the defendant, court shall draw a presumption that it was deemedly sent to the correct address and served on him, as the defendant not produced any contrary evidence to this court. That apart Ex.P.4 has been received by the defendant company by putting its seal and signature, just because the said acknowledgment does not bears the signature of the defendant himself, it cannot be said that it was not served to the defendant, which shows the defendant with intent to escape from his obligation appears to be deposed false before this court. From the above it is very clear that the plaintiff has established that he is the owner of the suit property, he has inducted the defendant into the suit premises by executing the lease deed as per Ex.P.8, he was continue to be in possession of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff alleged that defendant defaulted in making the rent payment regularly and promptly and fails to deposit the TDS from 2013 to 2015 which prompted the plaintiff to terminate the tenancy by issuing the notice as per Ex.P.2, which has been duly served. As the suit schedule premises was let out to the manufacturing industry, the Section 106 of TP Act mandates landlord to issue 6 months prior notice before termination, as the plaintiff complied the same, the plaintiff has validly terminated the tenancy, accordingly answer the issue No.1 in affirmative. 21. Issue No.4: The plaintiff sought the mesne profit from the defendant on the ground that though he by issuing the valid notice by giving mandatory period of time as - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:16308 RFA No. 868 of 2023 demanded under Section 106 of the TP Act by giving 6 months notice period the defendant fails to quit and vacate the suit schedule premises, thus his occupation subsequent to expiry of notice period is illegal and unauthorized, thus he is liable to pay the mesne profit. 22. Of course the plaintiff is right that as the defendant fails to quit and delivery the vacant possession immediately after expiry of notice period, he is entitle to recover mesne profit from the defendant. With regard to the quantum is concerned there must be a separate enquiry for the reason that even according to Ex.P.8 lease deed the defendant is liable to pay 15% enhanced rent for every 3 years. The lease was terminated and the defendant was obligated to quit and deliver the schedule premises on or before 30-04-2016 and the suit was filed in the year 2016, if that aspect is consider the defendant would obligated to pay two enhanced rent to the plaintiff and more over the suit schedule property is an industrial shed by considering the market value of the rent existed in the surrounding locality which requires an adjudication. But the plaintiff in his notice sought the Rs. 50/- per sq.ft., as damages but to make that claim no material is being placed before this court. Thus which requires further enquiry, accordingly answer the issue No.4 in affirmative. 24. Issue Nos. 6 and additional issue No.1: It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is the owner of suit premises and he had let out the same on a monthly rent under the Ex.P.8 lease deed, according to which the 11 months is the lease period but it is renewable on the instance of the both the parties, and it was renewed and the defendant is in - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:16308 RFA No. 868 of 2023 possession of the suit schedule premises as a tenant for a period of more than 12 years as on the date of issuance of notice as per Ex.P.2. It is the plaintiffs contention is that the defendant was an irregular in making the rent payment, was not paid the TDS properly to the income tax authority, which prompted the plaintiff to terminate the tenancy Accordingly he by issuing the Ex.P.2 notice terminated the tenancy by issuing 6 months prior notice as mandatory under Section 106 of TP Act, as the suit schedule premises is the industrial manufacturing unit. If the contents of the Ex.P.2 notice is perused the plaintiff is categorically stated that as he is no longer interested to continue the tenancy of the defendant, thus terminated it by issuing the clear 6 months notice and directed the defendant to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises on or before 30- 04-2016. But the defendant in his written statement contended that he has not received any such notice but the plaintiff producing the Ex.P.2 notice, Ex.P.3 two postal receipts, Ex.P.4 postal acknowledgment proved that he had sent the notice to the correct address of the defendant address, it was duly served on the factory address of the defendant, even the defendant admitted that the Ex.P.4 postal acknowledgment bears the seal of his company, but he denies that signature therein is not belongs to him. But he does not denies that signature therein does not belongs to any of the person placed in his industry. And moreover firstly if the notice is being sent to the correct address, under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, the court shall presume the facts that, it was sent and served on the addressee, unless contrary evidence is shown before the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:16308 RFA No. 868 of 2023 court. The plaintiff proved that he sent the correct address, which been duly served on the address but in the present case the plaintiff produced the acknowledgment shown the proof, the defendant except denial has not brought any contrary to the evidence of the plaintiff. Thus this court has no hesitations to hold that the plaintiff by issuing the 6 months clear notice as mandated under Section 106 of TP Act validly terminated the tenancy of the defendant, as the defendant made out no grounds to allow him to continue in the suit schedule premises, thus he was bounded to handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff, thus answer the issue No.6 and additional issue No.1 in affirmative.” 10. As can be seen from the aforesaid findings recorded by the Trial Court, the entire pleadings and evidence of the parties have been correctly and properly considered and appreciated by the Trial Court in their proper perspective and consequently, the said findings cannot be said to be perverse or capricious warranting interference in the present appeal. Accordingly, point No.(i) is answered against the appellant and in favour of the respondent. Re. Point No.(ii) : 11. In this context, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the respondent-plaintiff had established that the - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:16308 RFA No. 868 of 2023 appellant was due in a sum of Rs.3,96,000/- towards arrears of rent for the period from June-2015 to April-2016; however, the claim of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.96,000/- towards TDS and interest of Rs.21,950/- was rejected by the Trial Court by holding as under: “16. Issue Nos.2 and 3: The plaintiff categorically pleaded that defendant has not paid the rent from June 2015. And also pleaded that the defendant was use to pay make the rent by way of RTGS / NEFT or by way of cheque and never paid the same by way of cash. 17. The plaintiff issued notice dated 28-09-2015 as per Ex.P.2 stating that, the defendant is due of rent from the month of June 2015 which was duly served on the defendant as per Ex.P.4. Though the defendant contended that no such notice was served on him but during the cross examination he admits that the acknowledgment bears the seal of his industry named M/s Sri Charan Engineering Works, but signature therein is not belongs to him. Firstly it was sent to the correct address, it was duly served to the correct address. It appears though the defendant has received the notice but with intent to escape from his liability had denied the claim of the plaintiff, which shows that the defendant appears to be taken the false contention. And despite service of the notice he has not pleaded or replied to stating that he has paid the rent for the said period. In the written statement also he has contended that he is not in due of any rent. But the plaintiff produced the Ex.P.6 bank statement according to which the defendant got transferred Rs. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:16308 RFA No. 868 of 2023 32,400/- on 10-04-2015, again on 01-06-2015, on 07-08- 2015 and lastly on 10-09-2015. If the said transfer of money is considered it appears that he paid the rent up to May 2015, thereafter there was no transfer of rent payment by way of RTGS. But during the cross examination of DW.1 he has deposed 30-06-2015 onwards he paid the rent by way of cash to the accountant of the plaintiff named one Kumar. But this aspect has not pleaded in the written statement and i was not stated in the affidavit and no reply notice got issued by contending the same, on a first time he has deposed and produced the Ex.D.4 payment ledger book, according to him one Kumar was receiving the rent from him by way of cash acknowledged the same. But he has not produced any document to show one Kumar was working with the plaintiff as accountant. Further the defendant himself deposed that he do not know where about of said Kumar. 18. When the plaintiff is categorically pleaded and deposed before this court that since June 2015 the defendant has not paid the rent. Even during the Cross Examination, the defendant made no efforts to suggest to him that, the plaintiff had the accountant named Kumar, and to whom the defendant paid the rent, for which the said Kumar acknowledged in the ledger. From the above its clear that, production of Ex.D4 is a clear case of after thought, and it's a created document. In absence of whispering anything in the WS, Affidavit, no such suggestion being made to the P.W.No.1 during Cross Examination, all of a sudden the defendant produced the Ex.D4 in a surprise manner, that too during the cross examination pleaded that, - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:16308 RFA No. 868 of 2023 he paid the rent to the Kumar, who was the accountant of the plaintiff. The said evidence is without a pleading. Thus, this court has no hesitation hold that, the defendant is a unscrupulous tenant. He doesn't deserve any leniency. As he is not honest and he is a totally unfair. Which is amounts to unethical and immoral, has no gratitude to his landlord, who provided the space to establish his Industrial Unit, running the business since quite long time. Thus production of Ex.D.4 and deposing during cross examination on that he was paying the rent by way of cash to the accountant of the plaintiff has no evidentiary value, thus that does not help to the case of the defendant. In fact the plaintiff has proved that since June 2015 to 30-04-2016 in all for 11 months the defendant was in due of Rs. 3,96,000/- rent. 19. The plaintiff in his case sought the prayer for order for paying Rs. 96,000/- as TDS out of which Rs. 53,000/- for the period between 2013-14, Rs. 43,200/-for the period between 2014-15 which was the TDS amount deducted by the defendant out of the rental income but he has not deposited the said amount into the income tax account of the plaintiff, for which the plaintiff paid the said amount along with the Rs. 21,950/- as penalty by way of an interest. Though the plaintiff stated that he has paid the said amount thus it is the defendant is obligated to refund the same but the plaintiff has not produced any piece of document. Even defendant was also not produced any document to show after deduction of TDS for the said period he has deposited the same into the account of income tax account of the plaintiff herein. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:16308 RFA No. 868 of 2023 20. In fact the D.W.1 deposed that for the said period the plaintiff has received the entire rent amount by promising to pay the TDS directly to the income tax authority. But the contention of the defendant is against to the provision of Section 194(I) of income tax act, as the said provision mandates on the tenant to deduct 10% of TDS amount if the rental income per annum exceeds Rs. 2,40,000/-. Here plaintiff contended that he has already paid the said amount but produced no document. If he has not pleaded that he has already deposited the TDS amount to the Income Tax department with penalty, this court would have directed the defendant to deposit the same into the account of the income tax department, but as the plaintiff is claiming to order to pay the said amount to him, in the absence of material to show it is the defendant has deducted the TDS, not deposited, but in fact the plaintiff paid the said amount along with the penalty, this cannot be ordered in favour of the plaintiff. Thus answer the issue No.2 in partly affirmative and issue No.3 in negative.” 12. The aforesaid findings recorded by the Trial Court, upon correct and proper consideration and appreciation of material on record also cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference in the present appeal. Accordingly, point No.(ii) is also answered against the appellant and in favour of the respondent. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:16308 RFA No. 868 of 2023 Re. Point No.(iii): 13. While dealing with point Nos.(i) and (ii) supra, I have already come to the conclusion that the Trial Court was fully justified in arriving at the correct conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for eviction, mesne profits and arrears of rent in a sum of Rs.3,96,000/- from the appellant-defendant. Upon re- appreciation, re-evaluation and re-consideration of the entire material on record, I am of the view that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity, nor can the same be said to be capricious or perverse warranting interference in the present appeal and point No.(iii) is also answered against the appellant and in favour of the respondent. 14. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) Appeal is hereby dismissed. ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 23.02.2023 passed in O.S.No.4348/2016 on the file of XLIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, is hereby confirmed. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:16308 RFA No. 868 of 2023 iii) However, in the interest of the justice, the appellant is granted time up to 31.07.2025 to voluntarily quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the respondent, subject to the following terms and conditions:- (a) The appellant shall pay up to date arrears of rent, if any, due to the respondent – plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule premises up to 31.07.2025. (b) The appellant shall also continue to pay the last paid monthly rent to the respondent as and when it falls due, till he vacates and hands over vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the respondent. (c) The appellant shall not sub-let, under-let or part with possession or induct any third party into the suit schedule premises till the respondent quits and delivers the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the respondent till 31.07.2025. Appellant shall file the affidavit incorporating the aforesaid conditions within a period of three weeks from today. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS/BMC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1