- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17772 RSA No. 667 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 667 OF 2025 (POS) BETWEEN: SRI MOAHMMED NAVEED PASHA, S/O LATE. MOHAMMED BALAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT SARDAR TRADERS BISCUIT BAZAR, MADIPETE, TUMAKURU - 572 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VENKATESH C R., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT T R RENUKAMBA, W/O LATE.N.S.PALANETHRA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.48/B, 4TH BLOCK, 2ND PHASE, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.PRADEEP KUMAR R.H., ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.04.2025 PASSED IN RA NO.97/2024 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKURU., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.07.2024 Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17772 RSA No. 667 of 2025 PASSED IN OS NO.493/2015 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular second appeal is filed by the appellant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2025, passed in R.A.No.97/2024 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru, and the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2024 passed in O.S.No.493/2015 by the learned IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the defendant, and the respondent was the plaintiff. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17772 RSA No. 667 of 2025 4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff let out the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant to run the business in the said property and executed the rent agreement on 05.11.2010 and as per the rent agreement, the defendant agreed to pay rent of Rs.3,400/- p.m., and agreed to pay an enhanced rent at the rate of 5% on completion of the year and accordingly, defendant has paid a rent of Rs.4,200/- per month as per the agreement. It is contended that the defendant has violated the terms and conditions of the rent agreement, and has not paid the enhanced rent regularly. It is contended that the plaintiff terminated the defendant's tenancy over the suit schedule property by issuing a termination notice dated 09.03.2015. The defendant neither vacated nor paid the enhanced rent. Hence, a cause of action arose for the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17772 RSA No. 667 of 2025 plaintiff to file the suit for possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 5. The defendant filed a written statement admitting the relationship as a landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant and denying rest of the plaint averments. The defendant regularly pays the rent to the plaintiff and the plaintiff's brother also demands the rent, pertaining to the suit schedule property. It is contended that there is a disputes regarding ownership over the suit premises between the plaintiff and her brother. It is contended that the suit schedule property is not necessary for the plaintiff and her son, and accordingly, prays to dismiss the suit. 6. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed issues. 7. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined herself as PW-1, and marked 11 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.11. On the other hand, the defendant was examined - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17772 RSA No. 667 of 2025 himself as DW.1, examined two witnesses as DW.2 and DW.3 and marked 4 documents as Exs.D.1 to D.4. 8. The Trial Court, on assessing verbal and documentary evidence, partly decreed the plaintiff's suit with cost vide judgment dated 15.07.2024. It is ordered and directed the defendants to quit, vacate and hand-over the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the plaintiff within three months from the date of the judgment, failing which the plaintiff is entitled to execute the same by filing the separate application. 9. The defendant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2024 passed in O.S.No.493/2015, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.97/2024 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, and CJM, Tumakauru. 10. The First Appellate Court, on reassessing the verbal and oral evidence on record, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 11.04.2025, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.493/2015. The defendant, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17772 RSA No. 667 of 2025 aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 11. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that if reasonable time is granted to the defendant, the defendant will hand-over the vacant possession to the plaintiff, and filed a memo stating that the appellant/defendant requires six months' time to vacate and hand-over the possession to the respondent/plaintiff. The defendant has filed a memo stating that the defendant is ready to hand-over the possession after six months from today. 12. In view of the same, nothing survives for consideration in this appeal. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 14. Six months' time is granted to the defendant to vacate and hand-over possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. Failing which, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession by due process of law. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17772 RSA No. 667 of 2025 15. In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.1/2025 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2025 is disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE AMA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1