- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13193 CRP No. 100082 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100082 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. THE HUBLI STONE SUPPLYING COMPANY PARTNERSHIP FIRM R /BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SHOP NO.32, SRI JAGADGURU MOORUSAVIRMATH COMPLEX, NEAR BASAVA VANA, P.B. ROAD, HUBBALLI, MR. GANGADHAR S/O. GURUSHIDDAPPA SHETTAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS. 2. MR. RAVI S/O. GURUSHIDDAPPA SHETTAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, 3. SMT. MAHANTA W/ O. PRAKASH SHETTAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, 4. MR. RAJESH S/O. MADHUKAR KOLEKAR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, 5. MRS. SAROJABAI W /O. MADHUKAR KOLEKAR AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, 6. MR. SANJAY S/O. MADHUKAR KOLEKAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R /O: SHOP NO.32, SRI JAGADGURU MOORUSAVIRMATH COMPLEX, NEAR BASAVANA VANA, P.B. ROAD, HUBBALLI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE.) Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.09.26 14:38:13 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13193 CRP No. 100082 of 2019 AND: SRI JAGADGURU GANGADHAR DHARMA PRACHARAK MANDALI, SOLE TRUSTEE, SRI GURUSIDDARAJ YOGENDRA MAHASWAMIGALU, GURU GANGADHAR RAJYOGENDRA MAHASWAMIGALU MOORUSAVIRMATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS GPA HOLDER SRI ANANDGOUDA S/O. BASANAGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: MANAGER, R /O: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHETAN T. LIMBIKAI, ADVOCATE.) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN RESPECT OF S.C.NO.10 /2012 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUBBALLI AND QUASH /SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE MADE IN S.C.NO.10 /2012, PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUBBALLI, AND FOR ISSUE OF ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR ORDER DIRECTIONS AND ETC.,. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ARGUMENTS THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) Heard the arguments and perused the material placed before the Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13193 CRP No. 100082 of 2019 2. The petitioners have preferred this revision petition against the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2017, passed in S.C.No.10/2012, by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi. 3. For the purpose of convenience and easy reference, ranking of the parties is referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 4. Brief facts leading to this revision petition are that the power of attorney holder of the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession from the defendants. It is also alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property. The defendants have been inducted into the suit property by the plaintiff on 03.12.1984 as tenants on a monthly rent. The nature of tenancy was monthly tenancy commencing from the first of every calendar month ending on the last day of the same month. Thus, according to the plaintiff, the tenancy of the defendants commenced from 01.03.1984 with an - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13193 CRP No. 100082 of 2019 agreement to pay the yearly rent of ₹6,025/- in advance. In this behalf, a lease deed was executed between the parties. It is contended that the defendants have failed to pay the rentals as per the agreed terms of lease deed. Thus, they are guilty of violation of the terms of the lease deed. The plaintiff recently found that the suit property is required for expansion of its educational institution. Therefore, the plaintiff has issued a notice of termination to the defendants on 14.09.2011 calling upon them to vacate the suit property and to hand over its vacant possession to the plaintiff. Despite receipt of the said notice, the defendants have neither vacated the suit premises nor they have given the arrears of rent. Thus, the defendants are in illegal possession of the suit property even after termination of their tenancy. Therefore, they are liable to pay mesne profits of ₹15,000/- per month from the date of notice of termination, till handing over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13193 CRP No. 100082 of 2019 5. After appearance of the defendants, defendant No. 6 has filed the written statement, which is adopted by the other defendants. It is stated in the written statement that this Court has no jurisdiction to try the matter. The suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. It is contended that the defendant firm was the tenant of the suit property since 1959 and it was carrying the stone business. The plaintiff executed a registered agreement of ground rent on 03.12.1984 for a period of 32 years. As per the terms of the said document, the defendants firm was required to pay ₹6,025/- as ground rent per year. It has not committed any default in paying the rent. The aforesaid agreement does not contain any default clause. Thus, the nature of the lease is permanent lease and the defendants are open for renewal of the tenancy after the expiry of 32 years. The notice of termination issued by the plaintiff is not in accordance with law. They ought to have issued 06 months notice in view of nature of tenancy. Thus, there is no valid determination of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13193 CRP No. 100082 of 2019 tenancy of the defendants. Further, they have denied all the averments made in the plaint as false and sought for dismissal of the suit. 6. To prove the case of the plaintiff, one witness was examined as PW1 and 08 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P8. On closure of the plaintiff’s side evidence, the defendants have adduced evidence of DW1 and 02 documents were marked as Exhibits D1 and D2. 7. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, the trial Court has decreed the suit in part declaring that the plaintiff is entitled for vacant possession of the suit property from the defendants and the defendants are directed to vacate the suit premises and hand over its vacant possession to the plaintiff within 02 months from the date of judgment, failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to take possession of the suit property through the process of the Court. Being aggrieved by this judgment and decree, the defendants have preferred this revision petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13193 CRP No. 100082 of 2019 8. I have examined the materials placed before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the lease is a permanent lease in favour of the defendants. It is specifically pleaded that the tenancy is yearly tenancy and therefore Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is not applicable. The plaintiff is bound to give 06 months notice of valid termination of the tenancy, but the plaintiff has given 15 days notice, which is not a valid termination of tenancy. Hence, the notice is not valid. The same is not considered by the trial Court. On this ground, he sought for allowing this revision petition. 9. The learned counsel for the defendant would submit that the trial Court has elaborately discussed this point in the impugned judgment that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court and sought for dismissal of this petition. 10. A perusal of the impugned order in paragraph Nos.8 to 16, the trial Court has observed as under. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13193 CRP No. 100082 of 2019 “8. Point No.1: As noted above, the instant proceeding is filed by the plaintiff who is the pontiff of Moorusavir Mutt, Hubballi through the GPA holder seeking the vacant possession of the suit property along with future mesne profits. As can be seen from the pleadings of the parties there is no serious dispute that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and the defendants have been in possession of the same as tenants. The only point in dispute is whether they have been inducted as tenants on monthly rent or yearly rent. Even during the course of arguments, learned Advocate for the defendants has fairly conceded that there is no dispute with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenants between the parties to the suit. According to him the defendants have challenged the termination of tenancy in a legal manner and also the mesne profits. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that there is a clear proof that the plaintiff is the landlord and the defendants are the tenants of the suit. property. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the affirmative. 9. Point No. 2: This point is with regard to valid termination of tenancy of the defendants. It is argued by the counsel for the defendants that as can be seen from the plaint pleadings the nature of tenancy is monthly tenancy. However, the documents produced indicate that the property was rented out to the defendants on yearly rent. Therefore, the plaintiffs ought to have issued 6 months prior notice for termination of the tenancy as required under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is also argued that there is lot of variance between pleadings and evidence with regard to the nature of tenancy. Hence, the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13193 CRP No. 100082 of 2019 plaintiffs are not entitled for any reliefs much less the relief of vacant possession of the suit property from the defendants. 10. To prove the nature of tenancy, as noted above, the GPA holder of the plaintiff got examined as P.W. 1 in the instant case. In his chief-examination P.W. 1 has re-iterated that the nature of tenancy is monthly tenancy commencing from 1st of every calendar month and ending on the last day of the said month. He has stated that however it is agreed to give the advance rent of 1 year. By referring to this, the advocate for the plaintiff has argued that as per the lease agreement it was agreed to pay the 1 year rent in advance. That itself is not sufficient to infer that the nature of tenancy is yearly tenancy. 11. In the cross examination of P.W.1, the lease agreement is got marked as Ex.D-1. It is admitted as true by P.W. 1 that as per Ex.D-1, it was agreed to pay Rs.6,025/- to the plaintiff as the ground rent for 1 year. It is further admitted as true that even prior to Ex.D-1, the defendant No. 1 firm was in occupation of the suit property as a tenant. The lease period was up to 27-01-2016, with future condition for further extension of period of tenancy as per the understanding of the parties. Further in the cross examination P.W.1 has admitted that the defendant firm is a tenant on yearly rent. By referring to this admission given by P.W. 1 in the light of Exs.D-1, the Advocate for the defendant would argue that it is clear that it is a yearly tenancy which can be terminable by issuing 6 months prior notice. But Ex.P-2 is given terminating the tenancy only for 15 days. Hence, in this case there is no legal and valid termination - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13193 CRP No. 100082 of 2019 of tenancy. It is also argued that P.W-1 is not competent witness to give evidence as a GPA holder of the plaintiff in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of AIR 2005 Supreme Court 249 (Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another Vs. Indusind Bank Ltd., and others). In the said decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held: "If the power of attorney of holder has rendered some acts, in pursuance to power of attorney of attorney, he may depose for the principal in respect of such acts, but he cannot depose for the principal for the acts done by the principal and not by him". 12. By referring to this observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the counsel for the defendant would argue that P.W. 1 cannot give evidence on behalf of the plaintiff as the GPA holder with regard to the factum of nature of tenancy. 13. In my opinion this line of argument advanced by the counsel for the defendant cannot be accepted. Of course, there is no dispute with regard to the position of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision referred to supra. But, in the instant case it is clear that P.W.1 being the manager is helping power of attorney of attorney on behalf of the plaintiff and given evidence with regard to the tenancy. As noted above, there is no dispute about the fact that the plaintiff is the landlord and the defendants are the tenants. The evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the nature of tenancy which is covered by the document at Ex.D-1. Hence his evidence is not beyond the scope of the act done by P.W.1. Therefore the law laid down in the said - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13193 CRP No. 100082 of 2019 decision cannot be made applicable to the case on hand. 14. Now let me go through the cross examination of DW-1. In the cross examination D.W.1 has admitted that defendants are in possession of the suit property as the tenants. It is further admitted as true that the nature of tenancy is monthly tenancy and it was agreed to give 12 months rent in advance to the plaintiff once in a year. The pre supposes the fact that nature of tenancy is monthly tenancy subject to payment of one year rent in advance. Therefore it cannot be considered as a yearly tenancy terminating by 6 months prior notice. It is further elicited from the mouth of DW-1 that there is no any clause in Ex.D-1 stipulating the period for terminating the lease. Therefore it is a lease at will which cannot be terminated at any point of time as per the convenience of the landlord. Thus, the aforesaid lines of arguments advanced by the counsel for the defendants cannot be accepted. 15. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff has issued Ex.P-2 legal notice to the defendants terminating the tenancy and demanding the vacant possession of the suit property. The said notice is received by the defendants is not in dispute. Even after the receipt of legal notice, the defendants have not vacated the suit properties and handed over its vacant possession. Therefore, I am of the opinion that in this case, the plaintiff has terminated the tenancy of the defendants through legal notice at Ex.P-2 and it is a valid termination of tenancy. 16. It is also submitted by the counsel for the defendants that the plaint pleadings are not - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13193 CRP No. 100082 of 2019 clear as to the nature of tenancy to show whether is it a monthly tenancy or yearly tenancy. As noted above in the plaint the plaintiff has clearly pleaded the nature of tenancy as monthly tenancy commencing from 1st of every calendar month and ending on the last day of the same month. This fact is also admitted by DW-1 in the cross examination. Therefore, I am of the opinion that in the instant case the nature of tenancy is monthly tenancy which can be terminable by 15 days advance notice as required under Sec. 106 of Transfer of Properties Act. As noted above Ex.P-2 is the termination notice issued as per law. Therefore, I am of the opinion that in the instant case the plaintiff has terminated the tenancy of the defendants as required under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Properties Act. Therefore, I answer Point No.2 in the Affirmative.” 11. With regard to means profits is concerned, the trial Court has dismissed the plea of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not preferred any revision petition. Hence, there is no need to discuss about the entitlement of mesne profits as sought by the plaintiff. 12. A perusal of the reasons assigned by the trial Court, I do not find any error or illegalities in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The trial - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13193 CRP No. 100082 of 2019 Court has assigned proper reasons as to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is dismissed. ii) In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of as they do not survive for consideration. iii) Send a copy of this order along with the records to the concerned trial Court. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE MRK CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 47