- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41369 CRP No. 433 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 433 OF 2018 (SC) BETWEEN: SRI. JAGADISH S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS SRI VINAYAKA PRINTERS 26/8, ANURAGHA , G.FLOOR VTH BLOCK, JADREHALLI RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560010 …PETITIONER (BY SRI PRAKASH K A, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT SUSHEELA W/O MR LINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS 17TH CROSS, M.C. ROAD VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560040 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI R.B.SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT, 1964 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.02.2018 PASSED IN S.C.No.15431/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDL.SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND XXIII ACMM, BENGALURU, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41369 CRP No. 433 of 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Prakash K.A., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.B. Sadashivappa, learned counsel for respondent. 2. Defendant in S.C.No.15431/2016 is the revision petitioner, challenging the validity of the decree passed therein allowing the suit of the plaintiff in part and directing the defendant to pay Rs.1,53,000/- towards arrears of rent from December 2015 to June 2016 at the rate of 24% p.a. 3. In the case on hand, the plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent, hand loan and sum of Rs.25,000/- towards the damages. 4. Suit on contest came to be decreed in part inter alia holding at paragraphs 12 and 13 in S.C.No.15431/2016 as under: “12. I have perused the documents produced by the plaintiff it appears that, Plaintiff is the landlord of the suit schedule property and defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff in the suit schedule property. Further it discloses that, the plaintiff has filed two suits against the defendant for recovery of arrears of rent. Both suits were decreed in favour of the plaintiff and directed the defendant to pay the arrears of rents. There is no dispute about the relationship between the plaintiff and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41369 CRP No. 433 of 2018 defendant as landlord and tenant and also defendant has admitted that, he was the tenant until vacating of the suit schedule premises. As per the admission made by the defendant, the defendant has vacated the suit schedule property on June 2016. Same was suggested by the counsel for the defendant to the plaintiff. Therefore it is clear that, up to June 2016, the defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff in the schedule property. As per the Judgment passed by this Court in earlier suits, the defendant was defaulter in payment of the rent regularly. Hence the plaintiff has filed the said suit for recovery of rent from December 2014 to April 2015 and in the said Judgment this court was held that, the plaintiff is reserves her right to file the suit for recovery of arrears of rent from December 2015 onwards as admitted by the defendant. The defendant has not challenged the said Judgment and also he has admitted that, there is no any receipts for payment of the rent up to June 2016. After gone through the earlier Judgment, it is clear that the defendant has not paid the rent regularly. Though the defendant has filed written statement and also give the evidence and denied the averments of the plaint, but not produced any documents in respect of payment of the arrears of rent as prayed in the plaint. Mere, they have produced the reply notice is not sufficient to prove the payment of the arrears of rent to the plaintiff. There is no any contradictions to disbelieve the documents produced by the plaintiff and also the counsel of the defendant nothing has been eliciting in the mouth of the plaintiff with regarding the arrears of the rent. Therefore, considering all the materials on hand, it proved that the defendant is defaulter in payment of the rent and also not paid the rents from December 2015 to June 2016. 13. It is pertain to note that, the plaintiff has claiming the loan amount of Rs.20,000/- and also claiming the damages charge of Rs.25,000/- from the defendant. But PW-1 has clearly admitted in the cross- examination that they are not produced any documents in respect of the damages and also hand loan borrowed by the defendant. Therefore mere oral submissions are not sufficient to prove the hand loan and also damages. The counsel of the plaintiff nothing has been eliciting - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41369 CRP No. 433 of 2018 from the mouth of the defendant in this regard. After perusal of the documents produced by the plaintiff, there is no any recitals with regard to the loan borrowed by the defendant and any damages. Hence the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the hand loan and damages. As admitting by the defendant in the written statement, he has agreed to pay the monthly rent of Rs.21,000/- to the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant is failed to pay the rent from December 2015 to June 2016. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled to arrears of rent with water charges from the defendant. Hence, I given the answer to the Point No.1 in the Partly in the Affirmative. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant is in this appeal. 6. Sri Prakash K.A., learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contented that by producing the certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.8637/2015, marked at Ex.D1, there was no arrears of rent payable by the defendant to the plaintiff and the fact that defendant voluntarily vacating the premises from June 2016 is not in dispute. 7. As such, decreeing of the suit in part has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 8. Per contra, Sri R.B. Sadashivappa, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, submits that plaintiff did not - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41369 CRP No. 433 of 2018 choose to challenge the partial decree of the suit denying the claim towards the hand loan and the damages and she is satisfied with the decree passed by the trial Court. 9. He would further contend that it is the case of the defendant that he has paid the entire rent and that is not found in Ex.D1. Therefore, when there is a plea of discharge, it is for the defendant to prove the same and there is no documentary evidence placed on record to prove that he had paid the rents upto June 2016. Therefore, decreeing of the suit is just and proper. 10. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 11. On such perusal, it is crystal clear that the defendant was a chronic defaulter insofar as payment of rents are concerned. 12. Earlier suits were filed by the plai7ntiff for recovery of arrears of rent which has been decreed. Reckoning the period from the earlier decrees, the defendant was due arrears of rent from December 2015 to June 2016, when the defendant voluntarily vacated the premises. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41369 CRP No. 433 of 2018 13. The said aspect of the matter is taken note of by the learned Trial Judge while decreeing the suit in part and granting decree in a sum of Rs.1,53,000/-. 14. But, the rate of interest is ordered at 24% per annum which requires interference in this revision petition as Karnataka Rent Act would only contemplate grant of 12% per annum interest and not 24% per annum. 15. Accordingly, revision needs to be allowed in part by directing the defendant to pay arrears of rent in a sum of Rs.1,53,000/- with interest at 12% per annum and not at 24% per annum. 16. With the above modification, following order is passed: ORDER (i) Revision petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the decree of the trial Court of arrears of rent in a sum of Rs.1,53,000/- rate of interest is reduced from 24% p.a., to 12% p.a., from the date of suit till recovery. (iii) Ordered accordingly. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41369 CRP No. 433 of 2018 (iv) In view of disposal of revision petition, pending applications, if any, are consigned to records. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR