- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47595 CRP No. 447 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 447 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SRI. CHANDRA @ CHANDRASHEKAR S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO. 595, GROUND FLOOR NEW BINNY LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 023. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ELANGOVAN .K, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. HEMALATHA W/O. SRI. HARI BABU .M AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT OLD NO. 30, NEW NO.18 2ND STREET, VENKARARATHNAM NAGAR ADAYAR CHENNAI-600 020. ALSO AT NO.595, NEW BINNY LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 023. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NAVEEN NANDA .D.T, ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.08.2022 PASSED IN S.C..NO.1442/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. JUDGE AND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU. Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47595 CRP No. 447 of 2022 PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT, DAMAGES AND MESNE PROFIT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Elangovan K., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Naveennanda D.T., learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Revision petitioner is the defendant in S.C.No.1442/2019 having suffered the decree of ejectment in the said suit. Operative portion of the order of the trial Court reads as under: "ORDER The suit is partly decreed with costs. Defendant is directed to quit and deliver vacant possession of suit 'B' schedule property i.e., ground floor of 'A' schedule building to the plaintiff within three months from today. Suit claim with respect to third floor i.e., 'C' schedule property is dismissed. Defendant is liable to pay the arrears of rent to the plaintiff at Rs.5,000/- per moth from June-2019 till August-2022 total sum of Rs.1,95,000/- and he shall continue to pay the same rent till he vacates the suit schedule premises. Draw a decree accordingly". - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47595 CRP No. 447 of 2022 3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: A suit came to be filed by the respondent after terminating the tenancy of the respondent for ejectment. Suit on contest came to be decreed. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, tenant is before this Court in this revision petition on following grounds: 15. The Trial Court has decreed the suit only on the ground that there exists landlady and tenant relationship between the respondent/plaintiff and petitioner/defendant. Since the petitioner/defendant was depositing rent directing to the respondent/plaintiff to her husband's account number and the petitioner/defendant himself has admitted that after the death of Mangayakarasi the Respondent/plaintiff came in direct contact with all the tenants. admittedly said Mangayakarasi has died on 28/01/2017. The petitioner/defendant failed to pay the rent regularly, the Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court. 16. The trial court has not consider that, The petitioner is residing in the above said address i.e.. suit schedule 'B' & 'C' property along with his family members ever since from 11/6/2014 and respondent is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, on 11/6/2014 defendant's GPA Holder one Smt. Mangayakarasi had executed a lease agreement for an amount Rs. 5,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner's mother Late Gangamma W/o. Late Muniyappa by virtue of the said lease agreement Late Gagamma and petitioner/defendant and his family were peaceful possession and enjoinment of the schedule property. The said property measuring at 20x25 more fully described in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47595 CRP No. 447 of 2022 the schedule, the copy of the lease agreement is herewith produced. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble court as Documents No.-1 17. The petitioner submits that on 13/11/2014 GPA Holder of the defendant Smt. Mangayakarasi had executed rental agreement in favour of the petitioner/defendant with respect to the C' schedule property i.e., 3rd Floor residential house at property bearing No.595/D, New Binny Layout, Bengaluru 560023 with common electricity and water connection situated at 'B' schedule Property for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- as advance amount and monthly rent for sum of Rs. 3,000/- the copy of the Rental agreement pertaining to the 'C' schedule property is herewith produced for kind perusal of this Hon'ble court as Document No-2. 18. The petitioner submits that after the mutual discussion with the respondent the above said rental and lease agreement was extended/renewed without executing new rental agreement. 19. The petitioner submits that ever since from the lease agreement and Rental agreement with respect to the 'B' & 'C' schedule properties the plaintiff and his family members are in peaceful possession and enjoinment of the schedule properties and he had paid electric and water charges pertaining to both the schedule properties without any due. The original receipts were produced as Documents. Same is marked as Ex-D.1 and D.2. 19. The petitioner submits that the respondent had collected rent amount from the petitioner with respect to 'C' schedule property through above said GPA Holder Smt. Mangayakarasi. That on 28/1/2017. GPA Holder Smt. Mangayakarasi had expired hence respondent herself along with her husband Haribabu.S. collecting the monthly rents from the petitioner through bank account transfer. 20. The petitioner submits that on 06/9/2017 petitioner's mother had expired thereafter with the mutual understanding between the plaintiff and defendant the respondent had permitted the petitioner to continue the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47595 CRP No. 447 of 2022 peaceful possession and enjoinment of the 'B' schedule property. 21. The Petitioner submits that during the January 2019 respondent and her husband Haribabu.S. demanded sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- additional lease amount with respect to 'B' schedule property and enhanced monthly Rent sum of Rs. 2.000/- with respect to 'C' schedule property. 22. The petitioner had agreed to pay enhanced monthly Rent sum of Rs. 2,000/- with respect to 'C' schedule property and informed the respondent that he is incapable to pay additional lease amount of Sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with respect to 'B' schedule property. Further he had requested the respondent to execute new deeds with respect to both the schedule property. But, the defendant again enhance monthly rent sum of Rs. 3,000/-, demanded additional advance lease amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and postponed the same on one or other false pretext. 23. The petitioner shock and surprise that On 15-6-2019 at about 5.00. Am, the respondent along with her husband came to the schedule premises and directed the plaintiff to vacate the both the schedule premises failing which the defendant will hire the rowdy elements to dispossess him from the schedule premises by throwing his belongings on the street and they had also abused with all sought of filthy, vulgar and indecent language and attempted to man handle the petitioner and his family members which has caused severe mental and physical agony Hence, petitioner and his family members apprehend some danger from the hands of respondent, his hired rowdies, Gunda elements and her henchmen hence immediately the petitioner had lodged a criminal complainant against the Husband of the defendant before the Jurisdictional J.J. Nagar police and the police have recorded statements. They stating that the property dispute is civil in nature and directed the petitioner to approach the competent court of law and seek for the necessary relief. 24. The petitioner submits that the respondent is attempting to dispossess the petitioner from the suit schedule premises hence there is imminent threat by the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47595 CRP No. 447 of 2022 respondent by interfering peaceful possession and enjoinment of the suit schedule properties and disturbance of the petitioner, the petitioner is a statutory Rental/lessee in the schedule house premises. He is poor helpless and law abiding citizen, unable to resist the illegal acts and the lawful possession of the schedule premises has to be protected by granting a Decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering, disturbing the petitioner possession of the schedule premises or dispossessing him from the premises in any manner, except by due process of law. 25. The petitioner had filed a injunction suit before the Hon'ble CCH-36 at Bengaluru and the Hon'ble court has passed interim injunction order to till disposal of the suit, the same is pending for evidence. 26. The petitioner submits that, at the time of evidence in Para No. 7 of the deposition of Pw-1, she admitted that, it is true that the petitioner/defendant's Mother Gangamma was permitted to stay in the Ground Floor i.e., suit 'B' schedule property in the year 2014 by the Mangayakarasi. It is false to suggest that there was lease agreement. The premises was given on rent. Before 2014 I did not know the said Ganngamma. She specifically admitted that, It is true to suggest that on 11.06.2014 Mangayakarasi had executed the lease deed in favour of Gangamma. It true to suggest that Mankayakarasi had informend us that lease amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs only) has been collected from Gangamma. It is true to suggest that after the death of Mangayakarasi we have no difficulty to get lease agreement in our name. 27. The petitioner submits that, very clearly deposed that the evidence of the Pw-1 Para No.8. that it is true that during the life time of Gangamma the petitioner/defendant used to pay rent of Rs. 5000/- every month. After the death of Gangamma no rent has been paid. It is true that till 15/06/2019 the petitioner/defendant paid rent of Rs. 5,000/- to my account. The petitioner's Mother Gangamma died in the year of 2017. But the Trial court has not consider the real fact in the case. Even though the petitioner had produced - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47595 CRP No. 447 of 2022 Xerox copy of lease and rental agreement executed by the Respondent/ through GPA holder and other relavant documents. 28. The petitioner submits that, the Pw-1 deposed in her evidence that, Para No.3 of Deposition of Pw-1 Mankayakarasi and Rajamanikam had helped us while constructing the house. Rajamanika is tha Husband of Mangayakarasi. It is true that both Rajamanikam and Mangayakarasi were in-charge of the Building and were giving information regarding the property to us in channai. It is true that while construction of the building whenever the immediate money was required Rajamanikam and Mangayakarasi used to pay and later it was collected from us. 29. The petitioner further submits that, the evidence of Pw-2 deposed in his evidence that the construction of building was completed in December 2007. Till Last year i.e., 2021 no rent agreement is executed to the tenants. I have occupied' C' schedule property from 2010 we are collecting rent from the Petitioner/defendant. Rs. 5000/- was collected as rent from petitioner/defendant. Therefore, very clearly deposed in their evidence that, only the entire building maintained by Mangayakarasi. And also deposed that rent collected from petitioner/defendant since from 2010. But the petitioner and his mother were residing from 2014 only. Thereafter, the petitioner paid rent through Mangayakarasi sum of Rs. 3000/- only till 2017, after death of Mankayakarasi, the petitioner used to pay rent through bank account in respect of 'C' schedule property. 30. It is submitted that only on the oral evidence of the PW.1 and 2 who are the husband and wife, the Trial Court has passed the impugned Judgment and decree, the Trial Court has failed to note the real facts and only on version of oral evidence by respondent/plaintiff side and the view taken by the Trial Court has passed decree is not at all supported with any documentary evidence as such the impugned Judgment and decree is not at all sustainable in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47595 CRP No. 447 of 2022 the eye of law and liable to be as set aside by this Hon'ble Court. 31. It is submitted that throughout the proceedings before the Trial Court the Respondent/plaintiff has totally failed to substantiate her contention and without considering the same, the Trial Court has exceeded its power and granted the decree. As such the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court. 32. The Trial Court has proceeded to pass the Decree against the petitioner herein mainly believing the theory of the Respondent herein that she was falsely deposed in her evidence, without any proof or evidence, the trial court judge ought not to have ventured to pass the impugned judgment and decree. Even though already the respondent had filed an application for arrears rent of Rs. 1,45,000/- same came to be rejected on the ground that 'C' schedule property is as rent and the respondent had filed the suit for both schedule property. Now without any application the Hon'ble trial court had passed order that the petitioner shall pay arrears rent sum of Rs. 1,95,000/- to the respondent. 33. The Trial Court has not at all considered the evidence and cross-examination in the right perspective and so order suffers from infirmity and illegality. The order/decree is therefore liable to be set aside. The Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court is not in accordance with the principles of justice and the same is perverse warranting interference by this Hon'ble Court. Court." 5. Sri.Elangovan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition vehemently contented that there is a security deposit of Rs.7,50,000/- and if the respondent pays said sum of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47595 CRP No. 447 of 2022 Rs.7,50,000/- the revision petitioner would vacate the premises. 6. Per contra, Sri.Naveennanda, learned counsel for the respondent/landlady opposes the grounds of revision and contends that plaintiff has not received any amount. It is the Mangayakarasi being the alleged power of attorney holder of the plaintiff/landlady has received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as is admitted by PW.1 at the time of lease and thus, landlady is not responsible to return any amount. 7. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 8. On such perusal of the material on record, non- return of the security amount cannot be a ground for the tenant to remain in the possession of the property. More so, when there is a serious dispute as to the receipt of sum of Rs.7,50,000/- by the landlady. It is for the revision petitioner/tenant to recover the said sum of Rs.7,50,000/- - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47595 CRP No. 447 of 2022 by filing appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Court in accordance with law. 9. With that liberty for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the grounds urged in the revision petition are hardly sufficient to admit the revision petition for further consideration. 10. All that the trial Court was required to find out whether there was a proper termination of tenancy. Admittedly, even according to the suggestion that has been made by the revision petitioner, said amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is not paid to landlady, but it was paid to Mangayakarasi. If it is so, it is for the revision petitioner to workout suitable remedy. The termination of the tenancy by issuing the notice is proved by the landlady in accordance with law resulting in the trial Court passing the decree of eviction. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47595 CRP No. 447 of 2022 11. As such, the grounds urged in the revision petition are not sufficient to admit the revision petition for further consideration. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER i) Revision Petition is dismissed. ii) Amount of rent in deposit is ordered to be withdrawn by the landlady under due identification. iii) For recovery of the alleged security deposit/advance of Rs.7,50,000/-, defendant is at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. iv) Taking note of the fact that reasonable time is to be granted for finding an alternate accommodation, time to vacate the premises is extended till 31.01.2026, subject to - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47595 CRP No. 447 of 2022 payment of rent and voluntarily vacating the premises. v) An affidavit shall be filed in this regard within four weeks from today. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NR/-, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20