- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13574 RSA No. 1633 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1633 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. THE DIRECTOR (REGION) NATIONAL SAMPLE SURVEY ORGANISATION REGIONAL OFFICER,5TH FLOOR E AND F WING, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 034 2. THE SENIOR SUPDT NSSO (FOD) NO.1241 POORNAPRAGNA 1ST STAGE HEBBAL MYSURU 16 3. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF STATISTICS AND PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION, SARDAR PATEL BHAVAN, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI 01 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. D BASAVARAJA.,ADVOCATE) AND: R RAGHAVENDRA RAO, S/O LATE V RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT 516/1, AKASHAYA, 1ST FLOOR 8TH CROSS,VINAYA MARG SIDDARTHA NAGAR MYSORE …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.PALLAVA R.,ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13574 RSA No. 1633 of 2025 THIS RSA FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.04.2025 PASSED IN RA.NO.251/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSUSU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.09.2017 PASSED IN OS.NO.204/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYSURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by defendant nos.1 to 3, the Union of India and one of its department namely Ministry of Statistics and Programme implementation, National Sample Survey Organisation, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 05.09.2017 passed by the 1st Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru, in O.S. No.204 of 2013, which is affirmed by the Judgment & Decree dated 29.04.2025 passed by the 5th Addl. district Judge, Mysuru in R.A No. 251 of 2017. 2. The parties shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendants. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13574 RSA No. 1633 of 2025 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows. 3.1 Plaintiff is the landlord and the defendants are the tenants. Plaintiff filed a suit for eviction seeking arrears of rent and damages against the defendants for use and occupation of the rental demised property. It is the case of plaintiff that by agreement dated 01.09.2002, defendants 1 and 2 had taken the suit premises for use and occupation of defendant no. 2 as a tenant under the plaintiff. The term of the lease was 5 years commencing from 01.09.2002 with a rate of rent agreed initially as ₹ 7,200/- per month. It was also agreed that after expiry of the three years, there would be an annual enhancement of rent not exceeding 8%. It was also agreed between the parties that the lessee shall take action so far as practicable for renewal of the lease within six months after the expiry of the term. 3.2 It is further case of the plaintiff that the lease term came to an end on 31.08.2007 and no fresh lease agreement was executed though the defendants 1 and 2 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13574 RSA No. 1633 of 2025 continued to occupy and use the premises. It was further stated that defendants 1 and 2 have not cleared the electricity and water bills in respect of the suit schedule premises and they have also not surrendered the keys of the premises to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was willing to renew the lease by increasing the rent to ₹ 16,000/- per month at the rate of 8% per annum escalation. But, since the defendants did not make use of the opportunity to renew the lease and pay arrears of rent, the plaintiff got issued a notice of termination of tenancy to the defendant No.1 on 08.11.2012. Despite which, the suit premises was not vacated and left with no alternative, the plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against the defendants/tenants. 3.3 Upon service of summons, the defendants appeared, filed their written statement and contested the matter denying the averments made in the plaint and took up a plea that on the expiry of the lease agreement on 31.08.2007, plaintiff has given a written undertaking to accept the rent fixed by the Central Public Works - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13574 RSA No. 1633 of 2025 Department ('CPWD' for short) or the rent demanded by him, whichever was less, and after the assessment made by CPWD, the rent was fixed at ₹ 9,000/- per month with effect from 01.09.2007. Further, several contentions were taken in the written statement by the defendants. 3.4 Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for consideration: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, there was a valid tenancy between him and defendants before issue of tenancy termination notice? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, he is entitled for arrears of rent as prayed for? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that, he is entitled for damages as prayed for? 4. Whether the defendants prove that, suit is not maintainable? 5. Is plaintiff entitled for the relief as sought for? 6. What order or decree? 3.5 In order to establish the issues and prove his case, plaintiff examined himself as PW1, got marked Exhibits P1 to P27. The defendants examined one officer as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D1 to D21. Upon going - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13574 RSA No. 1633 of 2025 through the materials placed on record, both oral and documentary, and the arguments putorth by learned counsels for the plaintiff and the defendants, the learned trial judge did not find favour with the defendants and agreed with the contentions putforth by the plaintiff and held the issues in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly decreed the suit in part. The trial Court ordered for payment of arrears of rent from 27.03.2009 till 01.03.2010 at the rate of ₹ 9,000/- per month and observed that plaintiff is entitled for interest on arrears of rent at 8% per annum. Further, the suit for eviction was dismissed as having become infructuous and the suit for damages also came to be dismissed. 3.6 Aggrieved by the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court, the plaintiff being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment preferred an appeal in R.A No. 251/2017. The defendants also being aggrieved by the very same judgment had preferred a cross-appeal. Both - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13574 RSA No. 1633 of 2025 the appeal as well as the cross-appeal were taken up together by the first appellate court for consideration. 3.7 Upon reconsideration and re-appreciation of the entire materials, both oral and documentary, the first appellate court formulated the following points for consideration: 1.Whether the trial court is justified in holding that the plaintiff is entitled for rent at the rate of 9000/- per month from 1.9.2007 to 1.3.2010? 2.Whether the trial court is justified in holding that the defendant is liable to pay rent of Rs.9000/- from 26-3-2009 to 1-3-2010 with interest? 3.Whether the Judgment and decree dated 05.09.2017 passed in O.S.204/2013 on the file of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Mysuru do call for interference of this court? 4. What order ? 3.8 Upon reconsidering the matter once again and re-appreciating the evidence, both oral and documentary and the impugned judgment of the trial Court, the first appellate court, after carefully examining materials on record and the submissions of learned counsels for both - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13574 RSA No. 1633 of 2025 parties, did not find favour with the plaintiff's appeal so also the cross-appeal preferred by the defendants and having found the judgment & decree of the trial Court to be correct and not tainted with any illegality, confirmed the same. It is these judgments of the Appellate Court and the trial Court which are questioned by the defendants/Union of India and others in the present second appeal. 4. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel - Sri D. Basavaraja appearing on behalf of the appellants/defendants that the trial Court as well as the appellate court have not taken into consideration the materials placed on record, the intent and the action of the defendants and have passed a mechanical order without application of mind to the relevant documents placed on record to show the bonafides of the defendants with regard to vacating the suit premises and there being no intent of continuing the tenancy further. Having not considered the same, the judgment rendered is illegal, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13574 RSA No. 1633 of 2025 perverse and arbitrary. It is further contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the first appellate court ought to have considered the application filed under Order XLI Rule 23A of CPC and remitted to the trial Court for fresh adjudication to reconsider once again the application and the documents annexed along with it. 4.1 It is also vehemently contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the trial Court and the first appellate court have conveniently ignored the documentary evidence placed on record, which is marked as Exhibits before the trial Court so also the fact that the defendants had vacated the suit premises on 26.03.2009, which was communicated to the plaintiff/owner by letters dated 20.03.2009 and 31.03.2009 and also by publishing a newspaper notice dated 29.05.2009. The appellate Court has not appreciated the contentions of the defendants in the proper perspective and the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts are perverse and illegal and the same require to be set aside. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13574 RSA No. 1633 of 2025 4.2 It is the further contention of learned counsel for the appellants that once the defendants/tenants vacated the suit premises on 26.03.2009 and caused a legal notice by way of publishing in the newspaper on 29.05.2009, the liability and responsibility of the defendants/tenants comes to an end on 29.05.2009 and infact the plaintiff was deliberately avoiding receipt of the keys, so also the notice sent by the defendants only with a deliberate intent to prolong and protract the payment of rent. All these aspects have been conveniently ignored and the fact remains that when the defendants did not continue in the suit premises, which is stated in the legal notice as also in the notice published in the newspaper, the question of asking the defendants to pay rent beyond the period of stay of defendants in the suit premises is not correct and the same is illegal and perverse. On these grounds, learned counsel seeks to allow this appeal and set aside the judgments rendered by the trial Court and the first appellate court. But, at the same time, learned counsel - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13574 RSA No. 1633 of 2025 contends that defendants are ready and willing to pay the rent till the vacation of the property i.e. on 26.03.2009 or even till 29.05.2009, the date of publication of the notice in the newspaper. 5. Per contra, learned counsel - Sri Pallava .R appearing for the respondent/landlord vehemently contends that there was a clear agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants with regard to tenancy, which is not denied by the defendants. The lease agreement was not extended and the defendants continue to stay in the demised premises beyond the period of lease. Though the plaintiff wanted to extend the lease period, the defendants did not make use of this opportunity to either extend the lease or hand over the keys of the premises by issuing a notice as contemplated under the lease agreement in accordance with the terms stipulated therein and therefore violated the terms and conditions of the lease agreement. Hence, a legal notice was issued and asked the defendants to make good the payment of - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13574 RSA No. 1633 of 2025 arrears of rent for the period which was not paid and for unauthorised occupation of the demised premises till 01.03.2010, date on which the communication regarding vacatiing of the suit premises was made to the plaintiff. 5.1 It is the further contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff that the trial court as well as the first appellate court have not appreciated all these aspects. Though the plaintiff wanted enhancement of rent to ₹ 17,000/- per month, the trial court has granted only ₹ 9,000/- per month, which on challenge by the plaintiff came to be rejected. However, the plaintiff has not challenged the judgment rendered by the first appellate court. Therefore, learned counsel seeks dismissal of the appeal as there is no cogent reason to interfere with the judgment rendered by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court, in view of the fact that despite the contention that the defendants have vacated the premises on 26.03.2009, the keys of the premises was not handed over to the plaintiff and it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff with regard to - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13574 RSA No. 1633 of 2025 vacation of the premises only on 01.03.2010 when the keys were handed over. Therefore, the rent is liable to be paid till 01.03.2010. 5.2 It is also contended by learned counsel for the plaintiff that in pursuance to the impugned judgments rendered by the trial Court and the first appellate Court, the plaintiff has initiated an execution petition for recovery of arrears of rent. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the defendants, the points that arises for consideration in the present appeal are: i) Whether the appellants/defendants have made out any good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the impugned judgments rendered by the trial Court and the appellate Court? ii) Whether any substantial questions of law are required to be framed ? 7. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the lease agreement executed on 01.09.2002 and the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13574 RSA No. 1633 of 2025 premises being taken by the defendants for rent, so also the ownership and jural relationship of the plaintiff and the defendants of landlord and tenant. The initial rent is also not disputed, so also the enhanced rent of ₹ 9,000/- per month and increase at the rate of 8% per annum after 3 years. So also it is not in dispute that the tenancy came to an end on 31.08.2007. It is also not in dispute that the lease agreement was not extended further by the plaintiff. Defendants claim that they have vacated the suit premises on 26.03.2009. It has not been accepted by the plaintiff, so also by the trial Court as well as the first appellate court. So also the notice published in the newspaper on 29.5.2009 with regard to vacation of schedule premises, is not accepted by the plaintiff as well as the trial Court, as the notice was taken out in Vijayakaranata Daily, Mysuru edition, whereas the plaintiff was working in the Forest Department at Ballary at that point of time when the notice was issued. The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have taken into - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13574 RSA No. 1633 of 2025 consideration all these aspects, dealt with the matter elaborately including the vacation of the premises by the defendants and the oral and documentary evidence placed before the Court, in particular the acknowledgment and the legal notices issued. 8. Upon careful consideration of all these materials, the trial Court and the first appellate Court have come to a conclusion that Ex.P16 is a letter dated 1.3.2016 issued by the defendant No.1 to the plaintiff, which was confronted to DW.1 and the same has been accepted. In the said letter, the plaintiff was called upon to collect the keys and take possession of the suit premises. Therefore, both the Courts have taken the said date as a date of vacating and handing over premises to the plaintiff. 9. Having considered all these aspects, the trial Court has also denied the plaintiff of enhanced rent of ₹ 17,100/- per month, which though claimed, the plaintiff was not successful in proving and satisfying the same. The - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13574 RSA No. 1633 of 2025 trial Court agreed with the rent at ₹ 9,000/- per month and passed an order awarding arrears of rent at the rate of ₹ 9,000/- per month from 27.03.2009 to 01.03.2010, the date on which the notice was got issued by defendant no. 1 to the plaintiff. Therefore, it cannot be now said by the defendants that there is illegality or perversity in the judgments rendered by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. Both the Courts have elaborately considered all the factual aspects so also the legal aspects. There is no question of framing substantial questions of law for consideration in the matter, as none exists in the present case. It is no doubt true that the appellants/defendants are agreeable to pay the rent from 27.03.2009 till 29.05.2009. But this aspect has been negated by both the courts and has ordered to pay rent from 27.03.2009 to 01.03.2010. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the judgments rendered by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. No proper and cogent - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13574 RSA No. 1633 of 2025 grounds are made out to frame any substantial question of law for consideration in this appeal. 10. Section 100 of CPC deals with the Scope and powers of the Appellate Court. It is a no more res integra to state that the powers as contemplated under Section 100 CPC are very narrow and limited. This Court, in several catena of judgments, has held that the Appellate Court sitting in the second appeal is not required to appreciate the evidence on record unless there is perversity shown in the judgments rendered by the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court. When two Courts have already considered the question of fact and the question of law to a large extent in detail, even if this Court finds third opinion on the opinions already expressed concurrently by both Courts, it is a general Rule that this Court should refrain from imposing its third opinion merely for the sake of interference when there is no cogent material placed on record. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13574 RSA No. 1633 of 2025 11. The question of framing of substantial questions of law would depend upon if there is any illegality or perversity in the judgments rendered by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. Having considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and having perused the impugned judgments of both the Courts and having gone through the records, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the judgments rendered by both the Courts. The appellants have not made out any good ground for this Court to frame any substantial question of law, as no such question of law, in my opinion, exists to be framed to decide the case on hand. The reasons assigned and conclusion arrived at by both the Courts are just and proper. I do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgments rendered by both the Courts. 12. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants/ defendants submits that the appellant being an organ of the Union of India, an execution petition having been filed by the respondent/plaintiff, it may cause embarrassment if - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13574 RSA No. 1633 of 2025 the execution proceedings is continued and executed. Therefore, he seeks a month's time to make good the arrears of rent. 13. Accordingly, I pass the following: O R D E R i) The appeal is dismissed at the initial stage of admission itself. ii) However, the Executing Court in Ex. No.536/2025 shall grant one month's time to the appellants/ defendants to pay the arrears of rent as ordered by the trial Court in O.S. No.204/2013 dated 05.09.2017, which is confirmed by the first appellate Court in R.A. No.251/2017 dated 29.4.2025. iii) It is also made clear that if the amount is not paid within the said time, the Executing Court is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13574 RSA No. 1633 of 2025 iv) In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any do not survive for consideration and the same pales into insignificance. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE GSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42