Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 36488 (KAR)

SMT JAMUNA v. SRI KUMAR SWAMY M T

RFA/2761/2024 · 2025-04-15

S R Krishna Kumar

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15606 RFA No. 2761 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2761 OF 2024 (EJE-) BETWEEN: SMT JAMUNA W/O LATE SHANMUGAM AGED ABOUT 59 YE AWRS R/ATNO.3, PVN LANE NAGARTHPET CROSS, THIGALARPET BENGALURU 562 002 REPRESENTED BY HER SPA HOLDER SRI KIRAN KUMAR V K S/O VISHNU BHAT K AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO. 5, 3RD FLOOR S P ROAD CROSS DAFFEDHAR MUNIYAPA GALLI THIGALARPET BENGALURU 560 002. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. V R BALARAJ.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI KUMAR SWAMY M T S/O THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 2. SRI PRAKASHA M T S/O THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO. 42, MAHDESHWARA NAGAR MAGADIMAIN ROAD BENGALURU 560 091. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHANKARA H C.,ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15606 RFA No. 2761 of 2024 THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 8.11.2024 PASSED IN OS NO.4153/2022 ON THE FILE OF XV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU., DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal by the plaintiff-SPA Holder is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 08.11.2024 passed in O.S.No.4153/2022 by the XV Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, whereby the suit for ejectment and payment of arrears of rent filed by the appellant – plaintiff against the respondents – defendants was dismissed by the trial court, which partly allowed and decreed the counter claim of the respondents – defendants against the appellant – plaintiff, thereby directing the appellant – plaintiff to refund / return the security deposit of a sum of Rs.6 lakhs to the respondents-defendants within a period of two months from the date of the order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15606 RFA No. 2761 of 2024 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the appellant – plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents – defendants for ejectment and payment of arrears of rent and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule premises. The said suit was not only contested and opposed by the respondents – defendants, but also put forth counter claim for refund / return of security deposit of Rs.6 lakhs alleged to be paid by them to the appellant – plaintiff. Pursuant to the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants have committed default in payment of rent for the period from March 2021 to till today? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to with arrears of rent of Rs.2,49,750/- from the defendants? 3. Whether the defendants are entitled to claim return of deposit amount of Rs.6 lakh with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the plaintiff? 4. What order or decree?” 4. The appellant – plaintiff examined special power of attorney holder as PW-1 and documentary evidence at Exs.P1 to P9 were got marked on his behalf. The 1st respondent examined himself as DW-1 and Exs.D1 and D2 were marked on his behalf. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15606 RFA No. 2761 of 2024 5. After hearing the parties, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree dismissing the claim of the appellant – plaintiff and partly decreeing the counter claim of the respondents – defendants against the appellant – plaintiff directing him to refund Rs.6 lakhs. Aggrieved by which, the appellant – plaintiff is before this Court by way of the present appeal. 6. A perusal of the impugned judgment and decree will indicate that the claim of the appellant – plaintiff for eviction was rejected on the ground that the respondents – defendants had already handed over vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the appellant – plaintiff on 20.06.2021. According to the respondents – plaintiffs, since they had voluntarily handed over vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the appellant – plaintiff, respondents – plaintiffs are not due to pay any arrears of rent to the appellant – plaintiff and the question of any decree for arrears of rent would not arise. 7. In this context, it is relevant to state that despite the rival contention with regard to handing over / non-handing over of suit schedule premises by the respondents – defendants to the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15606 RFA No. 2761 of 2024 appellant – plaintiff, the trial court has proceeded to reject the claim of the appellant without appreciating that there was no acceptable evidence adduced by the respondents to prove that they handed over vacant possession of the suit schedule premises on 20.06.2021 itself. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and decree insofar as it relates to rejection of the claim of the appellant for eviction / ejectment deserves to be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff deserves to the decreed in his favour in this regard. 8. Insofar as the claim of the appellant with regard to arrears of rent is concerned, it is an undisputed fact that the trial court rejected the said claim and decreed the counter claim for refund of security deposit. It is also a matter of record that the impugned judgment in relation to counter claim is pending adjudication before the Executing court in Ex.No.603/2025. Under these circumstances, since there are disputed questions of law and fact that arises for consideration between the parties as regards arrears of rent as well as alleged refund / return of advance amount, without expressing any opinion on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions in this regard, I deem it just and appropriate to relegate - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15606 RFA No. 2761 of 2024 the parties to the Executing court for adjudication of the said rival claims in accordance with law by the Executing court. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and appropriate to allow the present appeal partly by modifying the impugned judgment and decree by directing eviction of the respondents – defendants from the suit schedule premises. 10. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Petition is hereby partly allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 08.11.2024 passed in O.S.No.4153/2022 by the trial court insofar as it relates to rejecting the claim for ejectment / eviction of respondents – defendants from the suit schedule premises is hereby set aside. (iii) The suit of the appellant – plaintiff insofar as it relates to eviction / ejectment of the respondents – defendants from the suit schedule premises is hereby decreed in favour of the appellant – plaintiff by directing the respondents – defendants to hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the appellant – plaintiff immediately without any delay. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15606 RFA No. 2761 of 2024 (iv) Insofar as the impugned judgment and decree rejecting the claim of the appellant – plaintiff for arrears of rent and upholding the claim of the respondents – defendants for refund / return of the advance amount of Rs.6 lakhs is concerned, all rival contentions in this regard are kept open to be decided by the Executing court in Ex.P.No.603/2025 and no opinion is expressed on the same. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.