- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47660 CRP No. 292 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 292 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SRI. N. JANARDHAN MURTHY S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA R/AT NO. 23, 5TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS, K.G. NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 019. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VINYA KUMAR G.S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. V.F. KUMBAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. K SUNDARESH S/O LATE KRISHNASWAMY RAO, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 6/12, 4th MAIN ROAD, 9tH CROSS, CHAMARAJPETE, BENGALURU - 560 018 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VISHWANATHA SHETTY K, ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.04.2022 PASSED IN S.C.NO.275/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE 12TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU (SCCH-08), PARTLY ALLOWING THE SUIT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47660 CRP No. 292 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Vinay Kumar G. S., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.V.F.Kumbar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Vishwanatha, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Defendant in S.C.No.275/2021 is the revision petitioner challenging the decree of the suit directing the revision petitioner to pay sum of Rs.1,15,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and from the date of decree till recovery at the rate of 9% per annum. 3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 3.1. There is no dispute as to the relationship between the parties as tenant and the landlord respectively in the revision petition. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47660 CRP No. 292 of 2022 3.2. A suit came to be filed for recovery of arrears of rent as well as consequential relief in SC No.275/2021. 3.3. Said suit on contest, came to be decreed. 3.4. The defence of the defendant was that he was only due in a sum of Rs.34,000/- towards the arrears of rent representing four months rent and the plaintiff had agreed to deduct the same from the advance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and refund sum of Rs.1,16,000/-. To establish the said aspect of the matter, there is no material evidence on record except the oral say of the defendant. 4. Taking note of the same, learned Trial Judge decreed the suit. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant has filed the present revision petition. 6. In the case on hand, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47660 CRP No. 292 of 2022 petition, contented that the Trial Court misdirected itself in not appreciating the material evidence properly on record and sought for allowing the revision petition. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment. 8. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 9. On such perusal of the material on record, as there is no dispute between the parties, the plaintiff has contended that on 17.11.2019, defendant took the possession of the property and he vacated the premises on 17.03.2021 and not as contented by the defendant as 17.07.2020. 10. In that regard, the rate of rent at the rate of Rs.8,500/- would work out to Rs.1,10,500/-. Therefore, plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the money. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47660 CRP No. 292 of 2022 11. It is further contented that from December, 2019 to March, 2020, defendant paid the rent and on account of COVID-19 pandemic, he fell in arrears of rent. 12. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned Trial Judge on weighing the material evidence placed on record, by the plaintiff as well as the defendant, noted that the defendant failed to establish the plea that the plaintiff had agreed to return sum of Rs.1,16,000/- after deducting sum of Rs.34,000/- and decreed the suit. 13. Since there is no dispute as to the rate of rent and the date of actual handing over the possession, the learned Trial Judge was justified in decreeing the suit as prayed for in the respect of arrears of rent of Rs.1,16,000/- with interest as referred to supra. 14. Thus, grounds urged in the revision petition do not warrant interference that too in the revisional jurisdiction in the absence of any other cogent material - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47660 CRP No. 292 of 2022 evidence placed on record by the defendant to establish his case. 15. Hence, following: ORDER i. Revision petition is dismissed. ii. Amount in deposit is ordered to be withdrawn by the respondent/plaintiff under due identification. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 41