- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44975 RFA No. 2123 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2123 OF 2018 (EJE) BETWEEN: SRI. SURESH S/O DATTU RAO AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT 984/4, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN K.N.EXTENSION, YESHWANTPURA BENGALURU - 22. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA G, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIVEK HOLLA, HOLLA AND HOLLA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. D MANJUNATH S/O LATE DEVENDRAN AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS NO.984/4, 1ST CROSS 1ST MAIN, K.N.EXTENSION YESHWANTHPUR BENGALURU - 22 SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY LR'S 1(A). SMT. VENILA M W/O LATE MANJUNATH D AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 1(B). KUMARI DHANALAKSHMI S/O LATE MANJUNATH D AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44975 RFA No. 2123 of 2018 1(C). KUMARI DEEPIKA M D/O LATE MANJUNATH D AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS THE LR'S OF RESPONDENT NOS. 1(B) AND 1(C) BEING MINORS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN THE RESPONDENT NO.1(A) ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. 984/4, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN K.N. EXTENSION, YESHWANTHPURA, BENGALURU - 22. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.R. BALARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A TO C)) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.09.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.3014/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The appeal is filed by the appellant/defendant questioning the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.3014/2013 dated 28.09.2018 by the Court of IX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore (CCH-5), whereby the suit filed for ejectment is decreed directing the appellant/defendant to vacate the suit schedule premises. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44975 RFA No. 2123 of 2018 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. 3. It is stated that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and has given to the defendant on monthly rental basis and defendant has agreed to reside in the suit premises on payment of monthly rentals. But, the defendant had defaulted himself to pay the rent amount. Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file suit against the defendant for ejectment. The defendant has appeared in the suit and filed written statement contending that the plaintiff is the owner of the property and defendant is tenant and there was rental agreement. This is the sum and substance of the pleadings. 4. Based on pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves rent agreement dated 12.03.2007 entered between defendant and mother of plaintiff and rent agreement dated 29.09.2010 entered into between defendant and plaintiff? - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44975 RFA No. 2123 of 2018 2. Does he prove defendant has deposit of Rs.10,000/- under rent agreement dated 12.03.2007? 3. Does he prove that defendant has deposited Rs.30,000/- towards security deposit under rent agreement dated 29.09.2010? 4. Does he prove the jural relationship of lessor and lessee in respect of schedule premise? 5. Does he prove defendant is a chronic defaulter in payment of rent is due a sum of Rs.40,000/- under rent agreement dated 12.03.2007 and is due Rs.72,000/- under rent agreement dated 29.09.2010 towards arrears of rent? 6. Does he prove the termination of valid tenancy in respect of schedule premises? 7. Does he entitle for the relief to evict defendant from schedule premises? 8. Does he entitle for damages at the rate of Rs.6000/- per month in respect of schedule premises? 9. Whether defendant proves that his possession has to be protected under Section 53A of TP Act as contended? 10. What order or decree? 5. In support of the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P18. The defendant has got examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.D1 and D2. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44975 RFA No. 2123 of 2018 6. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record had come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property and there was rental agreement dated 12.03.2007 executed between the mother of the plaintiff and defendant and also it is held that the defendant has become defaulter in payment of rent and termination of tenancy is valid one. Therefore, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and also decreed that the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent. Thus, the trial Court has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff that he is entitled for arrears of rent of Rs.1,12,000/- and also damages at the rate of Rs.2,600/- per month from the date of suit till the delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order, defendant has filed appeal by raising various grounds and learned counsel for the appellant/defendant argued in consonance - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44975 RFA No. 2123 of 2018 with the grounds raised and submitted that the defendant is not defaulter in payment of rent. But, the plaintiff himself has not accepted the said rent amount. Further, it is submitted that there was an agreement of sale between the plaintiff and defendant as per Exhibit.D2 and thus the defendant has paid an amount of Rs.6,10,000/- to the plaintiff. But, thereafter it was not culminated into sale deed. Therefore, as per Section 53A of the TP Act, the defendant is entitled for protection of his possession. First and foremost, the defendant has never become defaulter in payment of rent and the finding given in this regard is not correct. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiff submitted that there was no agreement of sale executed between the father of plaintiff and defendant. If there was an agreement of sale, the defendant could have instituted a suit for specific performance, but that is not done, that itself shows that there is no agreement of sale and the plaintiff has not - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44975 RFA No. 2123 of 2018 received any amount from the defendant. Further, it is submitted that the defendant himself has admitted that the plaintiff is owner of the suit property. Therefore, upon the valid termination of tenancy by issuing legal notice, the tenancy is terminated and this is rightly considered by the trial Court. Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court is well-reasoned one. Hence, there is no need to make any interference. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the materials furnished in the appeal. 10. Upon the submission of the learned counsels, the following points arises for consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff proves that the defendant is defaulter in payment of arrears of rent amount? (ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff proves that there is valid termination of tenancy and thus the plaintiff is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44975 RFA No. 2123 of 2018 entitled for decree of ejectment of defendant from the suit schedule property? (iii) Whether, the order passed by the trial Court requires interference from this Court? 11. The suit is filed for ejectment. As per the plaint averments, there was a rent agreement dated 12.03.2007 between the defendant and mother of plaintiff-Neelamma and subsequently another rent agreement was executed on 29.09.2010 between the defendant and plaintiff. It is stated that the monthly rent was fixed at Rs.800/- per month and Rs.1,800/- per month and the defendant had paid deposit of Rs.10,000/- to the mother of plaintiff and also paid Rs.30,000/- to the plaintiff towards security deposit. The defendant admitted that the mother of the plaintiff was the owner of the suit schedule property and after her death, the plaintiff succeeded the suit schedule property. Thus, the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property. Therefore, it is proved that there is jural relationship of owner and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant respectively. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44975 RFA No. 2123 of 2018 12. It is the averment in the plaint and evidence of PW.1 - plaintiff that the defendant has stopped payment of monthly rent to the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff has issued legal notice as per Ex.P5 terminating the tenancy. The defendant by his reply-Ex.P6 to legal notice though denied his default in payment of rent, admittedly the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. The plaintiff has not produced sufficient materials viz., what is the rate of rent per month and from which period, the defendant had become defaulter in payment of rent. 13. Though the defendant has contended that the father of the plaintiff had executed an agreement of sale in favour of defendant for total sale consideration amount of Rs.8,00,000/- and paid an advance amount of Rs.6,10,000/- to the plaintiff. But the plaintiff-Majunath died. The defendant has not filed suit for specific performance of Exhibit.D2 - agreement of sale itself do not prove that the defendant is entitled for protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, since the said - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44975 RFA No. 2123 of 2018 document is unregistered one. The defendant has not taken any legal recourse either for specific performance or claiming or getting refund of the amount stated to have been paid as per agreement of sale deed. 14. Therefore, the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for ejectment of the defendant from the suit premises as he is the owner of the suit schedule property and at the same time, the plaintiff has not produced positive evidence, for which already the defendant had become defaulter in payment of rent and what is the amount of arrears of rent. Therefore, the judgment and decree so far as directing the defendant to pay the arrears of rent of Rs.1,12,000/- and damages at the rate of of Rs.2,600/- per month is set-aside by confirming the decree of ejectment. Therefore, my answer to point No.1 is in the negative, point No.2 is in the affirmative and point No.3 is in the partly affirmative. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44975 RFA No. 2123 of 2018 15. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed-in-part. (ii) The judgment and decree so far as payment of arrears of rent of Rs.1,12,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twelve Thousand only) and directing the defendant to pay the damage at rate of Rs.2,600/- (Rupees Two Thousand Six Hundred Only) per month is set-aside and the decree of ejectment directing the defendant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession to the plaintiff is confirmed. (iii) Accordingly, the judgment and decree is modified. (iv) The defendant is given one year time to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of suit schedule property to the plaintiff from today. The defendant is directed to file undertaking in this regard within a period of four weeks from today. (v) Till handing over the possession of the property, the defendant is directed to pay monthly rent of Rs.5,000/- to the plaintiff. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44975 RFA No. 2123 of 2018 (vi) In case the defendant fails to hand over the vacant possession to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled to execute decree without seeking notice to defendant. (vii) Draw decree accordingly. (viii) No costs. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE KA, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21