- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43021 CRP No. 484 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 484 OF 2019 (SC) BETWEEN: M/S MICRO SPARK TECH REP. BY B G ERANNA, NO.76, BACK PORTION, 7TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, GARVEBHAVI PALYA, BENGALURU -560068. PRESENTLY AT NO.68/4, 1ST CROSS, APR MAIN ROAD, SRIRAMNAGAR, G B PALYA, BENGALURU -560068 …PETITIONER (BY SRI PRABHUGOUDA B. TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI DARSHAN DAMODAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O DAMODAR P REDDY, R/AT NO.39, 19TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN, N S PALYA, BTM 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU -560 076 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.CHANDRASHEKARAN, ADVOCATE -ABSENT) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.08.2018 PASSED IN SC NO.17/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXII ACMM BANGALORE PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EVICTION. Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43021 CRP No. 484 of 2019 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri B. Prabhugouda Tumbigi, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent. 2. Defendant in S.C.No.17/2018 assailing the correctness of the order dated 31.08.2018, passed in S.C.No.17/2018, on the file of XXIV Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru (SCCH-26). 3. Operative portion of the impugned judgment reads as under: “The suit of plaintiff is hereby partly decreed with cost. The defendant is hereby directed to quit, vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within 60 days from the date of this order. The defendant is further directed to pay the rent to the plaintiff over the schedule property from December 2017 to till vacate the suit premises for sum of Rs.13,500/-p.m. If the defendant is failed to vacate the suit property or - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43021 CRP No. 484 of 2019 pay the arrears of rent, the plaintiff is at liberty to take legal action under due process of law.” 4. The petitioner being the tenant, vacated the suit property though he denied the jural relationship of landlord and tenant. 5. As such, suit continued in respect of arrears of rent. Plaintiff claim Rs.40,000/- per month as the damages, whereas the defendant maintained that since there was no jural relationship, he is not obliged to make the payment to the plaintiff and secondly contended that all the arrears of rent is paid and therefore, he is not liable. 6. In this regard, in the impugned judgment at para Nos.21 and 22 there is a discussion with regard to the defence taken by the defendant in detail which reads as under: “21. The plaintiff is claiming damages of Rs.40,000/-p.m. from the defendant, but to justification of this damages, there is no documents furnished by the plaintiff. The defendant admitted that the rent of the suit property per month is fixed of Rs.13,500/-. The defendant entered into suit premises on 10-3- 2017 through rental agreement and GPA cancelled by the plaintiff on 18-7-2018, thereafter plaintiff - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43021 CRP No. 484 of 2019 issued legal notice as on 18-11-2017, to evict from the suit property. Unless and until this legal notice issued by the plaintiff, the defendant has no knowledge about the plaintiff claimed the rent on the basis of the landlord. Therefore according to defendant, he has paid monthly rent regularly to Chandini and also plaintiff, but the plaintiff denied the rent received by him. Therefore when the plaintiff is owner of the suit property, he has right to get the rent from the defendant, but the plaintiff issued legal notice on 18-11-2017, therefore from that day the plaintiff is entitled to get a monthly rent from the defendant. The said notice issued by the plaintiff prior to filing of this suit and also the time is granted for 15 days to vacate the suit property. Therefore the plaintiff is entitled the monthly rent of Rs.13,500/- from the defendant from December 2017 to till evict the suit property. It is boundan duty of the defendant when he knows the plaintiff was absolute owner of the schedule property, he should pay monthly rent to the plaintiff, even then, he has not paid rent and not furnished receipts. Therefore he is liable to pay the rent to the plaintiff from December 2017 till vacate the premises. Hence my answer to issue No.4 in the affirmative. 22. Issue No.5:- I have discussed in point No.1 to 4 the plaintiff is entitled suit claim in part." - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43021 CRP No. 484 of 2019 7. The learned Trial Judge holding that the defendant is liable to pay the rentals at the rate of Rs.13,500/- per month, the suit came to be decreed. 8. Same is challenged before this Court in this revision petition on the following: GROUNDS  That the petitioner vacated the schedule premises on 01.02.2018 and handed over the key to the Chandini W/o. Venkatesh who returned the deposit, in this regard the petitioner had given his evidence before the Court below. There was no rent due towards the schedule premises but the Court below directed the petitioner to pay the rent from December 2017 to till vacating the schedule premises is bad in law.  That the entire evidence on record clearly shows the petitioner was not given the schedule premises on rent but the aunt of the respondent i.e., Chandini W/o Venkatesh given the schedule premises on rent being a GPA holder of the respondent on 10.03.2017. That due to differences between the respondent and his aunt, the respondent falsely claiming rent against the petitioner, even though the petitioner has vacated the premises on 01.08.2018, before his rent agreement expired. That the petitioner - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43021 CRP No. 484 of 2019 had paid upto date rent to Smt.Chandini, W/o. Venkatesh and no rent due towards the schedule premises. But Court below erred in directing the petitioner to pay a rent from 18.11.2017 to February 2018 which is bad in law.  That once the petitioner tenant under the petitioner's aunt, for him she is the landlord as she received the advance amount and also monthly rent amount etc. The aunt of the respondent returned he advance amount while vacating the schedule premises as such the respondent is neither let the premises for occupation nor collected any rent amount as such there is a jural relationship between the petitioner and respondent as such claim of the respondent is bad in law.  That the rent agreement for a period of 11 months which was entered on 10.03.2017, the petitioner vacated the premises on 01.02.2018, as such he has not committed any irregularity in payment of rent as the rent as been paid to the aunt of the respondent regularly. But in the instant case respondent claiming he had cancelled the GPA on 08.07.2018, given to the his aunt however, the respondent's ant as per the agreement dated 10.03.2017, let the schedule premises to the petitioner for a period of 11 months and thereaftfer she returned the advance amount accordingly premises was vacated before completion of 11 months, as such - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43021 CRP No. 484 of 2019 there is no due towards the payment of rent in respect of the schedule premises.  That the Court below erred in directing the petitioner to pay rent of Rs.13,500/- from December 2017 till eviction is bad in law because the respondent is not given the schedule premises for rent as admittedly he has authorized his aunt to given it for rent and collect the rent, due to differences with his aunt he cannot go back and claim the rent from the respondent  That the petitioner is not aware of the fact that, the respondent is the owner as schedule premises was rented by Smt.Chandini, W/o.Venkatesh to the petitioner as such the petitioner disputed his ownership, such being the fact section 16 of the Small Causes Court Act the Trial Court should have returned the plaint directing the respondent to prove his ownership before Civil Court as the respondent has not produced any document to show that, petitioner is the tenant under him.  That the respondent at no point of time directed or requested he petitioner stating he has not authorized his aunt to collect the rent from the petitioner such being the fact without any material claiming the rent from the petitioner is bad in law. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43021 CRP No. 484 of 2019 9. Sri Prabhugouda Tumbigi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contented that when there is a cancellation of the General Power of Attorney, dual relationship ends on 18.07.2018. 10. Therefore, seeking the arrears of rent by the plaintiff does not arise at all which has been ignored by the learned trial Judge while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting the revision petition for further consideration. 11. Since the learned counsel for the respondent is absent, this Court perused the material on record meticulously in the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the revision petitioner. 12. In the case on hand, tenant has disputed relationship. But the keys of the petition premises was handed over by the defendant to the very same plaintiff. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43021 CRP No. 484 of 2019 13. Further, if he has handed over the petition premises to the plaintiff, there cannot be any further dispute as to the entitlement of receiving the arrears of rent by the plaintiff. 14. These two stands of the defendant is contradictory to each other. 15. No doubt, the defendant is entitled to take not only contradictory stands but also mutually destructive pleas in a suit. 16. But in the case on hand, for the recovery of the rent is concerned, trial Court has recorded a categorical finding that plaintiff is entitled to receive though not at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per month, but at the rate of admitted rent of Rs.13,500/- per month. 17. Further, the defendant has also taken the plea of discharge. 18. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that plea of discharge is to be established by the defendant. But, no such material evidence is forthcoming on record even though defendant got examined himself as D.W.1 and on his behalf two more witnesses are also examined. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43021 CRP No. 484 of 2019 19. In the cross examination of the defendant, he has clearly admitted about the relationship as well as the payment of rent. 20. However, he maintained that some amount has been paid through bank transfer in the name of the plaintiff, but some amount otherwise by cash. 21. If he has paid otherwise by cash, he must obtain the receipts from the plaintiff. 22. In the absence of any such documentary evidence on record, plea of discharge is not established before the trial Court by the defendant which resulted in decreeing of the suit as aforesaid. 23. Therefore, this Court does not find any good grounds to interfere with the order of the learned trial Judge. 24. Accordingly, the following: ORDER Civil Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR