- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44101 CRP No. 102 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.102 OF 2020 (SC) BETWEEN: MR. P. GOPAL, S/O PARASURAM SHETTIAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.276, (PORTION IN 1ST FLOOR) BEHIND SRINIVAS THEATRE, 2ND MAIN, GOWDANAPALYA, UTTARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 061. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI PRAKASH V., ADVOCATE) AND: MR. P. VASU, S/O. PARASURAM SHETTIAR, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDNG AT NO.20, FLAT NO.101, S.V.P. RESIDENCY, GROUND FLOOR, RANGAPPA LANE, CHIKKAMAVALLI, BANGALORE-560 004. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.N. KRISHNAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.01.2020 PASSED IN SC.NO.15149/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDL.JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU PARTLY Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44101 CRP No. 102 of 2020 DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT AND DAMAGES. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Defendant is the revision petitioner challenging the decree passed by the 17th Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCC-21) on 04.01.2020 in SC No.15149/2019. 2. Operative portion of the trial court order reads as under: "Suit is decreed in part with cost. Defendant is directed to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the plaintiff within 30 days from today. Plaintiff is entitled for arrears of rent in respect of suit schedule premises amounting to Rs.1,05,000/- and for mesne profits @ Rs.5,000/- p.m. from date of filing of the suit till - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44101 CRP No. 102 of 2020 the delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule premises. On failure of the defendant to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises, the plaintiff is at liberty to get the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises by the process of court. Draw decree accordingly." 3. Heard Sri.Ravi Prakash for revision petitioner. None appears for the respondent. 4. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 4.1. Plaintiff being the brother of the respondent, filed a suit against the defendant for ejectment, arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.1,05,000/- and damages at the rate of Rs.500/- per day from the date of suit till delivery of the vacant possession of the suit property. 4.2. Plaint averments further revealed that plaintiff purchased the residential property bearing No.1, Katha No.31/1, New No.276, situated behind Srinivasa Theatre, 2nd Main, Gowdanapalay, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44101 CRP No. 102 of 2020 Kadirenahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru, under the registered sale deed from its earlier vendor Smt.Nirmala. 4.3. Defendant being the brother of the plaintiff, approached the plaintiff for emergency accommodation for a short period in the suit premises consisting of two bedrooms, a hall with attached bathroom and kitchen. Defendant agreed to pay monthly rent of Rs.5,000/- from the month of May 2017 and plaintiff agreed for the same. Defendant also paid rents for three months at the rate of Rs.5,000 from May 2017 to July 2017, but abruptly stopped paying the rents. 4.4. Therefore, a legal notice came to be issued on 01.04.2019 by the plaintiff to the defendant claiming arrears of rent. Despite service of notice, there was no reply nor compliance. Therefore, suit came to be filed. 5. Pursuant to the suit summons defendant entered appearance through his advocate and filed detailed written statement inter-alia denying the landlord and tenant relationship and also denied that he occupied the premises on monthly rental basis. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44101 CRP No. 102 of 2020 6. Defendant maintained that he had paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintiff as security deposit and he contended that he is ready to vacate the suit property if plaintiff repays a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. 7. Learned trial judge conducted the trial and decreed the suit as referred to supra. 8. After the impugned order came to be passed, defendant vacated the premises on 11.03.2020 pursuant to the delivery warrant issued by the Executing Court. 9. Therefore, the present revision petition is now restricted to decree of payment of arrears of rent in a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- and mesne profit at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit till delivery of the vacant possession. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Ravi Prakash vehemently contended that there was a security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- and therefore there was no arrears of rent as claimed by the plaintiff which - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44101 CRP No. 102 of 2020 has not been properly considered by the trial Court and therefore question of payment of arrears of rent would not arise, so also grant of Rs.5,000/- per month as mesne profit. 11. In the light of the argument put-forth on behalf of the plaintiff, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 12. On such perusal of the material on record, there is no dispute that plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. All that the defendant has maintained is that he had paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as security deposit. To substantiate said contention, there is no document placed on record. 13. Further, in the cross-examination of the defendant, he has specifically admitted that he has paid the rents at the rate of Rs.5,000/- for a period of three months. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that defendant paid rents for three months and abruptly stopped from July 2017 onwards. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44101 CRP No. 102 of 2020 14. DW1 also admitted in cross-examination that there is no document to show that he had paid security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/-. 15. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned trial judge not only decreed the suit for ejectment, but also arrears of rent in a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- and sum of Rs.5,000/- per month as the damages from the date of termination of the notice till the vacant possession. 16. It is pertinent to note that decree of the trial Court has been executed by filing the execution petition and it was not voluntary act of the defendant. Pursuant to the delivery warrant issued, the vacant possession is obtained by the plaintiff. 17. Under such circumstances, decreeing of the suit by the trial Court ordering arrears of rent and the mesne profit at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month is just and proper and requires no further interference in this revision. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44101 CRP No. 102 of 2020 18. Accordingly, the following ORDER Revision petition is merit-less and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64