- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17445 RFA No. 459 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 459 OF 2021 (MON) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MANJULA ANANTHA W/O. ANANTHA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.329 5TH MAIN, 16TH CROSS HIG COLONY, RMV 2ND STAGE DOLLARS COLONY BENGALURU - 560 094. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. RUPA RON, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI N.G. RAJU S/O. S.N. RAJU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.7/1 PALACE GUTTAHALLI MAIN ROAD MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560 003 ALSO AT NO.55, 3RD MAIN 4TH CROSS, RMV II STAGE DOLLARS COLONY BENGALRUU-560 094. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17445 RFA No. 459 of 2021 THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.02.2021 PASSED BY THE XIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN O.S. NO.5577/2014 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF, ETC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 06.02.2021 passed in O.S.No.5577/2014 by the XIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bangalore City, the defendant therein has preferred this appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant is present. Respondent though served has remained absent. 3. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 4. The defendant is said to be the absolute owner of the property bearing No.29, 16th cross, 5th Main, 2nd Stage (HIG Colony), Devasandra Circle, Rajmahal Vilas, 2nd - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17445 RFA No. 459 of 2021 Stage, Bangalore. She is said to have leased the property in favour of the plaintiff with a monthly rental of Rs.10,000/- and as agreed between the parties, the plaintiff also deposited a sum of Rs.20,50,000/- as a security deposit. The plaintiff has vacated the property on 02.06.2011. At the time of vacating the property, the defendant paid back the plaintiff a sum of Rs.19,00,000/-. On the ground that the defendant was required to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and inspite of demands made, she has not paid the said amount, O.S.No.5577/2014 has been filed by the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs.2,04,000/- (due of Rs.1,50,000/- + accrued interest) along with future interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 5. The defendant has entered appearance and has filed the written statement and has contended that she is not liable to pay the amounts as claimed by the plaintiff as the said sum of Rs.1,50,000/- is deducted towards the damages caused to the property by the plaintiff. It is also - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17445 RFA No. 459 of 2021 contended that the suit is barred by limitation. However, the defendant admits tenancy and also the rent amounts and amounts received by her as security deposit and paying back the sum of Rs.19,00,000/- to the plaintiff at the time of him vacating the leased property. 6. To prove his case, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW-1 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P4 and defendant got examined herself as DW-1 and got marked documents as Exs.D1 to D3. 7. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues and has answered the same as follows:- "1. Whether plaintiff proves that out of advance amount of Rs.20,50,000/-, defendant returned only Rs.19,00,000/- and defendant has to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/-? 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for interest as claimed in the plaint? 3. Whether defendant proves that plaintiff has caused damages to leased property as pleaded in the written statement? 4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for suit claim? - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17445 RFA No. 459 of 2021 5. What order or decree? ADDITIONAL ISSUE Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Article 113 of the Law of Limitation? Issue No.1:- In the Affirmative; Issue No.2:- Partly in the Affirmative; Issue No.3:- In the Negative; Issue No.4:- Partly in the Affirmative; Additional Issue:- In the Negative Issue No.5:- As per the final order for the following:-" 8. Based on it, the trial Court has passed the following order:- "Suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed with costs. The defendant shall a pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the plaintiff along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of suit till its realization. Draw decree accordingly." 9. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17445 RFA No. 459 of 2021 10. Admittedly, there was a landlord and tenant relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff and the plaintiff had taken the property on lease for a monthly rent of Rs.10,000/- and also had paid the security deposit of Rs.20,50,000/- and upon him vacating the property concerned, the defendant has paid back a sum of Rs.19,00,000/-. There is no dispute regarding the arrears of rent. The only dispute pertains to Rs.1,50,000/- along with accrued interest thereon. Under the circumstances, the questions that arise for consideration are: i. Whether the defendant is liable to pay the said sum as ordered by the trial Court or that the said sum has been deducted towards repairs to the house? ii. Whether the suit is barred by limitation and the trial Court erred in concluding it otherwise? 11. Ex.P.1 is a copy of the letter written by the plaintiff to the defendant intimating that he is vacating the suit schedule property and he has demanded the security - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17445 RFA No. 459 of 2021 deposit of Rs.20,50,000/-. The contents of the letter is as mentioned below:- "From: 25/5/2011 Raju N.G. Smt. Manjula Ananth. Dear Amma, This is in reference to four letter dt 05/2/2011, I wish to inform you that we have cleaned the Lane, curtains, mosquito nets, four lights fitting, guisers, though some of door locks were not working when it was given to us I have replaced the same in good gesture. Regarding the painting the same was occupied by one in that new painting and hence the same was not mentioned in the agreement which you are aware off. I request you to input the same any time, since you are in the first floor. Kindly arrange to return advance of Rs.20,50,000/- before vacating the same, since I have to give for another home. I will vacate the house on 30/05/2011. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/- 25/5/11" - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17445 RFA No. 459 of 2021 12. Ex.P2 is a letter marked at the behest of the plaintiff and it is written by the defendant to the plaintiff, in the context of the plaintiff vacating the property concerned. The contents of the letter shows that there has been correspondence between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding vacating of the property concerned. The letter reads as under:- "From: Smt. Manjula Anant To, Shri N.G. Raju Dear Shri Raju, Namasthe, Received your letter dated 28/02/2011 in respect of vacating the house and return of deposit amount. I thank you for being our tenant for the last 7 years and you are moving out in the month of may 2011, elsewhere to suit your present needs. I wish you (my family too) and your family All the best, health and prosperity. May God bless you and your family. I propose you to fix a date of inspection the house, fifteen days (15 days) in advance of your vacating, so as - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17445 RFA No. 459 of 2021 to identify any repairs/replacements require/painting etc. and take up the works 2 days (two days) before you vacate, I will return balance amount payable through cheques. This is the normal transactions between tenant and owner. I am waiting to hear from you, the firm date of inspection and vacating so that, we both will be ready for necessary actions and smooth handing and taking over. Before leaving premises neat and cleaned curtains, mosquito nets, fans, light fittings, guisers, please see that all the keys with duplicate to be hanged in each and every doors, wardrobe, cupboards and drawers. (all should be insect insect free)" 13. Perusal of Exs.P1 and P2 reveal that the plaintiff stated to the defendant that he would be vacating the property concerned and demanded that the advance amount of Rs.20,50,000/- be repaid to him upon him vacating the property and Ex.P2 reveals that the defendant agreed for the plaintiff vacating the property concerned and also agreed to pay back the advance amount of Rs.20,50,000/- subject to deductions, if any, taking into consideration that the damages that might have taken place to the property leased. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:17445 RFA No. 459 of 2021 14. Admittedly, subsequent to issuance of letters at Exs.P1 and P2, the plaintiff has vacated the property on 02.06.2011 and defendant has paid back a sum of Rs.19,00,000/-. Thereafter, as late as 25.10.2013, the plaintiff has got issued a legal notice (Ex.P3) to the defendant demanding refund of the said sum of Rs.1,50,000/- along with accrued interest totally amounting to Rs.2,04,000/-. The defendant has issued a reply dated 14.11.2013 (Ex.P4) denying the liability. 15. The case of the plaintiff is that there was no damages to the property concerned and the defendant is liable to pay the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and that she did not pay the said amount immediately on the ground that she did not have the said amount and inspite of the plaintiff giving her time, she did not pay the said amount, resulting in plaintiff issuing the legal notice at Ex.P3. 16. The case of the defendant is that the said sum of Rs.1,50,000/- has been deducted towards the damages and infact the total damages came to Rs.1,73,620.50/- - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:17445 RFA No. 459 of 2021 and infact the plaintiff himself is liable to pay a sum of Rs.23,620.50/-. 17. The trial Court in its judgment has concluded that the money claimed by the plaintiff from the defendant is a money deposited under an agreement and it shall be payable on demand and has held the demand was made by way of a legal notice dated 25.10.2013 and suit is filed within the period of limitation. It has also concluded that the defendant has failed to prove the damages that had happened to her property and has ordered for refund of the amount claimed by the plaintiff along with certain interest. 18. The transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant is one that of a tenant and a landlord and it does not pertain to borrowing of the money. It does not pertain to deposit of the money which has been done by the plaintiff with the defendant and that the defendant is liable to pay the same on demand. Hence, in my opinion Article 22 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963 does - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:17445 RFA No. 459 of 2021 not apply. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion it is Article 113 which applies. The amount deposited by the plaintiff with the defendant is in pursuance of a lease agreement entered into between the parties concerned in respect of the property and the deposit of the amount becomes payable to the plaintiff upon him vacating the suit schedule property and not on demanding payment of the same. The right to sue accrues to the plaintiff in the instant case, when he vacates the suit schedule property. Apart from making a mere allegation that the time to pay the amount was extended at the request of the defendant, the plaintiff has not produced any documents to show the same. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish the facts alleged by him in the plaint and it is his specific averment that at the request of the defendant, he granted her time to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. The evidence adduced by the plaintiff does not establish that there was an agreement between the parties concerned wherein defendant had agreed to pay the said sum of - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:17445 RFA No. 459 of 2021 Rs.1,50,000/- over a period of time and plaintiff had granted her the said time. Perusal of the letters at Exs.P1 and P2 indicate that the defendant had made clear that she would pay back the deposit amounts after deducting the damages caused to the property. Admittedly, thereafter she has not paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and has paid only a sum of Rs.19,00,000/-. The right to sue accrued to the plaintiff as on that date which is 02.06.2011 and admittedly, the suit is barred by limitation as it is filed on 21.07.2014, much after three years from the right to sue accrued. 19. For the aforementioned reason, the appeal requires to be allowed and the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.5577/2014 is liable to be set aside. Hence, the following:- ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.5577/2014 by the XIX Additional City - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:17445 RFA No. 459 of 2021 Civil & Sessions Judge at Bangalore City is set aside. iii. O.S.No.5577/2014 is hereby dismissed. iv. Appellant is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited before this Court. v. Registry is directed to send back the trial Court records. vi. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33