- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25840 RFA No. 1251 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1251 OF 2025 (RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. CHANCHAL KUMARI W/O SRI. VASANTHRAJ JAIN AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS TENANT I GROUND FLOOR IN PROPERTY BEARING NO.12 AND 51 21ST MAIN ROAD, OPP. B D A COMPLEX BANASHANKARI II STAGE BENGALURU-560070. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GURURAJ KULKARNI, AND SMT. ANURADHA .N.G, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SMT. SUMA B. RAO W/O SRI. M. BHASKAR RAO AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O NO.36, 1ST MAIN B SK III STAGE, III PHASE, 4TH BLOCK BENGALURU-560085. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAKESH BHATT, AND SRI. YESHWANT B. POOJAR, ADVOCATES) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 R/W SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.02.2025 PASSED IN O.S. NO.7702/2022 ON THE FILE OF Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25840 RFA No. 1251 of 2025 XLIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL JUDGMENT Since the decree arises out of an ejectment suit. counsel on record were notified that the appeal would be heard finally. Accordingly, the matter is admitted and taken up for final hearing. 2. The captioned appeal is by an unsuccessful defendant/tenant who has questioned the decree for possession in O.S.No.7702/2022. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 4. The brief facts of the case are as under: The plaintiff, who is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, admits that the defendant is a tenant in respect of the ground floor portion of the building, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25840 RFA No. 1251 of 2025 measuring approximately 1000 square feet. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the said premises was let out to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.44,000/-. The present suit has been instituted on the foundational plea that the plaintiff requires the suit premises for his own personal and bona fide use. In furtherance of this claim, the plaintiff has approached the defendant with a request to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises. However, the defendant having failed to comply, the plaintiff has been constrained to initiate the present proceedings seeking recovery of possession. 5. The present suit is filed alleging that despite repeated reminders and requests and consequent legal notice issued on 1.10.2022, defendant failed to handover possession. 6. In response to summons, defendant appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement. Defendant though admitted tenancy, however, disputed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25840 RFA No. 1251 of 2025 the rate of rent alleged in the plaint. Defendant disputed the default in regard to payment of rent and claimed that she is occupying the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs.23,700/-. Defendant contended that she is doing business of home appliances for her livelihood and it is the only source of income for her survival. In the event, the order of eviction is passed, defendant claims that she would suffer immense loss and therefore, resisted the suit and sought for dismissal of the suit. 7. Plaintiff and defendant in support of their claims have let in oral and documentary evidence. Plaintiff in support of her contention has examined herself as p.W.1 and her son as P.W.2 and in all produced 18 documents, which are marked as Exs.P1 to 18. Defendant has examined herself as D.W.1 and has not adduced any documentary evidence. 8. The trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence adduced by both parties, answered Issue No.1 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25840 RFA No. 1251 of 2025 partly in the affirmative by holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the agreed rent was Rs.44,000/- per month. However, while answering Issue Nos.2 and 3 in the affirmative, the Court accepted the defendant's contention that the agreed monthly rent was Rs.23,700/-. Notwithstanding this finding, the trial Court proceeded to hold that the plaintiff had successfully made out a case of bona fide requirement of the suit premises, particularly for the use and benefit of her son. Accordingly, while answering Issue No.4 in the affirmative, the Court found that the tenancy had been validly terminated by issuance of a quit notice in compliance with the requirements of law. In view of these findings, the suit came to be decreed, and the defendant was directed to deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule premises. The trial Court further held that the defendant is liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.23,700/- per month from the date of termination of tenancy until delivery of possession. The said decree is under challenge. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25840 RFA No. 1251 of 2025 9. Heard the learned counsel for the defendant and the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff. Perused the records. 10. The following points would arise for consideration: "(i) Whether the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court suffers from perversity and infirmity?" 11. The appeal filed by the defendant would not detain this Court for long in view of the ground urged in para 13 of the appeal memo. This Court deems it fit to cull out para 13, which reads as under: "13. The trial Court ought to have noted that the son of the respondent is already having a premise to carry on his business and to harass the appellant/tenant, the plaintiff/respondent has initiated eviction proceedings. More over the appellant has orally requested the respondent/landlord to grant 3 more years time to vacate and the same request is turned down by the landlord as well as by the trial Court." - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25840 RFA No. 1251 of 2025 12. On a perusal of paragraph 13 of the appeal memorandum, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant/defendant, having unequivocally admitted the existence of the jural relationship of landlord and tenant as well as the termination of lease by the respondent/plaintiff, has virtually confined the scope of the appeal to a plea for indulgence by way of extension of time. The said paragraph, extracted earlier, reveals that the primary grievance of the appellant is that the trial Court failed to consider his oral request for extension of time by three years to vacate the premises. It is also contended that the eviction proceedings are allegedly motivated by personal animosity, as the son of the respondent is already in possession of a commercial premises. However, these allegations are not substantiated by any cogent evidence and appear to be a mere afterthought to delay the process of eviction. This plea, in the considered opinion of the Court, is more in the nature of an appeal for equitable - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25840 RFA No. 1251 of 2025 relief rather than raising any substantial legal or factual issue requiring adjudication on merits. 13. A careful examination of the testimony of the defendant, who has deposed as D.W.1, further reinforces the conclusion that no triable issues remain in the present appeal. During the course of cross-examination, the plaintiff has succeeded in eliciting a significant admission from the defendant. The defendant has candidly acknowledged that she has already secured an alternative commercial premises, which is located immediately adjacent to the tenanted property. This admission, in unequivocal terms, demonstrates that the defendant is not facing any hardship or inconvenience which would otherwise necessitate indulgence by this Court. It is also brought on record that the defendant has already vacated the first and third floors of the building, thereby further indicating her preparedness to surrender possession. In this background, the finding recorded by the trial Court on Issue No.4 wherein it has held that the plaintiff has - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25840 RFA No. 1251 of 2025 successfully proved the lawful termination of tenancy does not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity warranting interference by this Court. Once the lease is duly determined and the defendant herself does not dispute the same but merely seeks more time, the substratum of the defence collapses and no adjudicatory issue of significance survives for consideration in the appeal. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the firm opinion that the appellant/defendant is not entitled to any equitable relief, much less a discretionary indulgence from this Court. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, the trial Court has not only decreed the suit for ejectment but has also awarded damages to the tune of Rs.23,700/- from the date of termination of tenancy. Despite the said decree being challenged, the appellant has not taken any steps to comply with the monetary component of the decree. Though a vague submission is made by the appellant’s counsel that certain amounts were allegedly paid in cash - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25840 RFA No. 1251 of 2025 subsequent to the decree, such statements remain unsubstantiated and are not backed by any documentary evidence. The absence of any material to support this claim further weakens the appellant’s case. Hence, on both counts, lack of a valid legal defence and failure to demonstrate bona fides, this Court finds no justification to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment and decree of the trial Court. Accordingly, the point for consideration stands answered in the negative. Appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13