- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53413 RFA No. 582 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 582 OF 2025 (RES) BETWEEN: M/S SRI LAKSHMI RANG SILKS SHOP NO.5 AND 6, GROUND FLOOR, NO.5/4, C-BLOCK, UNITY BUILDINGS COMPLEX, J.C.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. JANAKIRAM …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ANANTHA KUMAR C., ADVOCATE) AND: THE CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSOCIATION (CST TA) REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 25 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, (CHARITABLE INSTITUTION) HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.5, WHITES ROAD, ROYAPETTAH, CHENNAI, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE TRUSTEE AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. G.D. PUSHPARAJ, KARNATAKA INTERDIOCESAN ADMINISTRATIVE FINANCE AND PROPERTY BOARD 6TH FLOOR, UNITY BUILIDNG J C ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE) *** THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 96 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53413 RFA No. 582 of 2025 AND DECREE DATED 20.12.2024 PASSED IN O.S.NO.25442/2016 ON THE FILE OF LVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU., DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT. THIS RFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal by the defendant in O.S.No.25442/2016 on the file of the LVII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore, is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.12.2024, whereby the said suit filed by the respondent – plaintiff against the appellant – defendant for ejectment / eviction and for other reliefs was decreed by the trial court in favour of the respondent against the appellant. 2. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that the respondent having instituted the aforesaid suit against the appellant, who contested the same leading to the following issues being framed by the trial court; “1) Whether the plaintiff-Institution prove that it is the absolute owner of the suit property and defendant is a - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53413 RFA No. 582 of 2025 tenant under it as per the registered Lease Agreement dated 08.08.2014 for three years on a monthly rent of Rs.16,390/-? 2) Whether the plaintiff further prove that the defendant is a chronic defaulter in payment of monthly rents and due in a sum of Rs.98,340/- being the arrears of rent ? 3) Whether the plaintiff further prove that the defendant failed to pay the arrears inspite of legal notice dated 10.12.2015 as contended ? 4) Whether the plaintiff further prove that the tenancy is validly terminated ? 5) Whether the defendant prove that the suit is a premature one? 6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for ejectment of the defendant and for vacant possession of the suit property, as prayed? 7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the damages as prayed? 8) What order or decree?” 3. Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and documentary evidence at Exs.P1 to P9 were marked, while the defendant examined himself as DW-1 and did not mark any document. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant who is before this Court by way of the present appeal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53413 RFA No. 582 of 2025 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 5. The following points arise for consideration in the present appeals are; (i) Whether the trial court was justified in decreeing the suit filed by the respondent against the appellant? (ii) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court warrants interference by this Court in the present appeal? Re-Point Nos. 1 and 2: 6. Since both these points are interlinked with each other, they are taken up together for consideration. 7. A perusal of the impugned judgment and decree will indicate that the trial court has correctly and properly considered an d appreciated the material on record and has recorded categorical findings of fact that the appellant was a tenant under the respondent in relation to the suit schedule premises. The trial court also came to the correct conclusion that the respondent had duly terminated the tenancy of the appellant under him and was entitled - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53413 RFA No. 582 of 2025 to recover vacant possession of the suit schedule premises from the appellant who was also liable to pay arrears of rent / damages in a sum of Rs.5,36,412/- till the date of the suit and future damages / mesne profits at Rs.16,390/- from the date of decree till delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule premises by the appellant to the respondent. While arriving at the said conclusion, the trial court held as under:- REASONS “13. Issue No.1 & 2 :- In these issues the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that he is the absolute owner of suit property and defendant in the tenant under him as per lease agreement dated 08.08.2014 for a period of 3 years of monthly rent of Rs.16,390/- and also to prove that he has become chronic defaulter in payment of monthly rents and due in a sum of Rs.98,340/- being the arrears of rent. As per the case of the plaintiff, they had entered into an unregistered sale lease agreement dated 08.08.2014 commencing from 01.07.2014 to 30.07.2017 for a period of 3 years at monthly rent of Rs.16,930/- and in order to prove the same the plaintiff himself has examined as PW1 and got produced the document of Ex.P1 Power of Attorney and lease agreement at Ex.P4 and Renewal of lease at Ex.P5 which is also not denied by the defendant in the written statement and on this aspect PW1 has been cross examined by the defendant counsel but there is a suggestion made by - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53413 RFA No. 582 of 2025 defendant counsel that, he was a tenant under the plaintiff since 1971-1972 and also PW1 in his cross-examination has admitted the said fact about the lease agreement for a period of 3 years from 2014 on a rent of Rs.16,930/- and based on the said oral and documentary evidence it clearly goes to show that, the plaintiff is the owner of suit property and defendant is a tenant under them as per the registered lease agreement dated 08.08.2014 for a period of 3 years on the monthly rent of Rs.16,390/- 14. Now, the question is with respect to whether defendant is a chronic defaulter in payment of monthly rent and is in due sum of Rs.98,340/- toward arrears of rent. The plaintiff has contended that, the defendant is in arrears of rent since from several years and in the cross, he had admitted that, around 7 years back the defendant was paying the rent and the said receipts are in their possession for which there is no impediment on them to produce the said receipts and in the cross of PW1, he has also admitted that, the rent was fixed at the rate of Rs.16,390/- and after 2- 016 he has not paid rent to the plaintiff and also that plaintiff has issued receipt for the same and thereafter he has not paid any rent to the plaintiff and he has reiterated that, time is granted he will pay the rent. 15. Therefore, based on the said evidence, it clearly goes to show that, the rent of Rs.16,390/- is admitted by the defendant and also that he has only paid the rent upto the year 2016 and thereafter he has not paid rent to the plaintiff which clearly goes to show that, as per the calculation made - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53413 RFA No. 582 of 2025 by the plaintiff in the present suit the defendant has become a chronic defaulter and is in due a sum of Rs.98,340/- towards arrears of rent as on the date of the filing of the suit. 16. Therefore, in view of my discussion, I am of the opinion that, in both these issues, plaintiff has proved that he is the owner of the suit property under lease agreement dated 08.08.2014 for a period of 3 years on monthly rent of Rs.16,390/- and defendant has become chronic defaulter in payment of monthly rents and is in due for a sum of Rs.98,340/- towards arrears of rent and accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 & 2 in the Affirmative. 17. ISSUE No.3 to 5:- In these the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that defendant has failed to pay the arrears of rent inspite of legal notice dated 10.12.2015 and thereafter he has validly terminated the tenancy and also burden is on the defendant to prove suit is premature one. Now, in order to prove that the defendant has failed to pay arrears of rent and he has issued notice, the plaintiff has produced the copy of legal notice at Ex.P2 dated 10.12.2015 alongwith postal cover and acknowledgment at Ex.P3 & P4 which clearly shows that, prior to filing of the suit the notice has contemplated U/sec. 105 of Evidence Act has been proved which shows the termination of notice is issued by the plaintiff by complying the legal requirements to quit notice as contemplated U/sec. 106 of TP Act and tenancy of the defendant has been validly terminated and even though the defendant has contended the suit is a premature one but - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53413 RFA No. 582 of 2025 initially during the pendency of the suit, the defendant has filed application U/o 7 Rule 11 for rejection of the plaint as barred by law but the same has been dismissed and such being the fact, the point of limitation is mixed question of fact and law and plaintiff by adducing evidence has proved that the suit is maintainable and is not barred by law of limitation also he has duly complied the Provisions of Sec. 106 of TP Act showing issuance of notice before filing of the suit and as per the lease agreement, the tenancy comes to end on 30.06.2017 and even though the suit is prior to expiry of the lease amount but it clearly goes to show that, there is arrears of rent and defendant has become defaulter in payment of rent and as per the said condition mentioned in the lease agreement and the plaintiff has filed the suit for termination of tenancy before expiry of the lease agreement and the same cannot be premature suit. 18. 18. Therefore, in view of my discussion, I am of the opinion that, the plaintiff has proved that defendant has failed to pay the arrears of rent inspite of legal notice dated 10.12.2015 and tenancy has been validly terminated and defendant has failed to prove the suit is premature one and accordingly I answer Issue No.3 & 4 in the Affirmative and Issue No.5 in the Negative. 19. ISSUE NO.6 & 7:- In these issues, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that he is entitle for ejectment of defendant and for vacant possession of the suit schedule property and also entitle for damages as prayed for. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53413 RFA No. 582 of 2025 Now in order to prove the same the plaintiff has furnish produced the copy of lease agreement at Ex.P4 and there is a quit notice at Ex.P2 and when the tenancy has been terminated then the possession of the defendant cannot be lawful possession and when he has become chronicle defaulter, the plaintiff is entitle for the relief of ejectment of the defendant and to deliver vacant possession of suit property and further he is also entitle for the damages as prayed in the suit for a sum of Rs.5,36,412/- towards arrears of rent and based on the same it can be safely held that the plaintiff is entitle for the relief of ejectment and for vacant possession of suit property alongwith the relief of damages and accordingly I answer Issue No.6 & 7 in the Affirmative. 20. ISSUE NO.8:- In view of the finding on Issues No.1 to 7, I proceed to pass the following :- ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed. Defendant is directed to quit and deliver the vacant possession of suit schedule property to the plaintiff within 60 days from the date of suit. Further, the plaintiff is entitle for damages of Rs.5,36,412/- till the date of suit and future damages at Rs.16,390/- for month from the date of decree till delivery of vacant possession of suit schedule property. On failure of the defendant to vacant and deliver the vacant possession of suit schedule premises, the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53413 RFA No. 582 of 2025 plaintiff is at liberty to get the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises by the process of the court. No order as to costs. Draw Decree Accordingly.” 7.1 Upon reconsideration, re-evaluation and re-appreciation of the entire material on record, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree which cannot be said to be capricious or perverse or contrary to facts or law warranting interference by this Court in the present appeal, which is liable to be dismissed. Point Nos. 1 and 2 are accordingly answered against the appellant. 8. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is hereby dismissed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 20.12.2024 passed in O.S.No.25442/2015 by the trial court is hereby confirmed. (iii) The appellant-defendant is granted time up to 15.04.2026 to voluntarily quit, vacate and handover/deliver the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53413 RFA No. 582 of 2025 vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the respondent/plaintiff, subject to filing an Affidavit of undertaking within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMVSRL