Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 38652 (KAR)

MRS. SANGEETHA JAYAKUMAR v. WG. CDR. TSK PANICKER

RFA/1059/2024 · 2026-09-01

Hanchate Sanjeevkumar

Original Suitbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010286582024 NC: 2026:KHC:47628 RFA No. 1059 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1059 OF 2024 (EJE) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. SANGEETHA JAYAKUMAR W/O SANJAY PANICKER AGE 43 YEARS RESIDING AT APT NO.354, TOWER NO 3, JALVAYU TOWERS, BYPANNAHALLI, SADANANDA NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 038. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. DEVAIAH I S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. WG. CDR. TSK PANICKER S/O MR M N T PANIKER AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 2. NIKHIL SHARATH PANICKER S/O WG CDR TSK PANICKER AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS BOTH RESIDING AT NO.601/602, A WING, LAKE PLEASANT LAKE HOMES, BEHIND GOPAL SHARMA SCHOOL, POWAI, Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010286582024 NC: 2026:KHC:47628 RFA No. 1059 of 2024 MUMBAI – 400 076. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED, ADVOCATE A/W SRI. BEERESHA H, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.03.2024 PASSED IN OS.NO.4902/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The Regular First Appeal is filed by the defendant calling in question the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2024 passed in O.S.No.4902/2022 by the Court of the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs for ejectment came to be decreed, directing the defendant/appellant to quit, vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule premises. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010286582024 NC: 2026:KHC:47628 RFA No. 1059 of 2024 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 3. The plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and the defendant is a tenant in occupation of the suit schedule premises pursuant to a rental agreement dated 01.06.2015 for a period of two years. The defendant is the wife of the brother of plaintiff No.1. Therefore, it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant was permitted to occupy the suit property on a monthly tenancy basis at a rent of Rs.40,000/-. The plaintiff filed the suit for ejectment after issuing notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act. As the defendant failed to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule premises, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit for ejectment. 4. The defendant appeared and filed her written statement, taking various pleas and contending that she is not a tenant in the suit premises. Further, it was - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010286582024 NC: 2026:KHC:47628 RFA No. 1059 of 2024 contended that the plaintiff No.1 is none other than the brother of the husband of the defendant and that there are strained relations between the defendant and her husband. The husband of the defendant, taking undue advantage of the helpless position of the defendant, appears to have instigated the plaintiff to file a false suit against her. Further, it was pleaded that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. It was also pleaded that the flat in which the defendant and her daughters are presently residing belongs to the brother of the defendant's husband and that the defendant, her husband and their children had been residing together therein. 5. It was further pleaded that, in connection with an incident in which the husband of the defendant allegedly committed a sexual offence against their first daughter, a POCSO case was registered against the - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010286582024 NC: 2026:KHC:47628 RFA No. 1059 of 2024 husband of the defendant. In view of all these circumstances, the husband of the defendant left the defendant and her children. It was therefore contended that the plaintiff, in collusion with the husband of the defendant, had filed the present suit only with an intention to victimize the defendant and her daughter. Hence, it was submitted that the suit is not maintainable and that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Accordingly, the defendant prays for dismissal of the suit. 6. Upon consideration of the pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, he is the owner and defendant is the tenant and their exist relationship of landlord and tenant? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant taken the premises on monthly rent of Rs.40,000/-? - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010286582024 NC: 2026:KHC:47628 RFA No. 1059 of 2024 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is defaulter in paying the rent? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for arrears of rent? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of eviction as sought? 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as claimed in the suit? 7. What Order or decree? 7. The Special Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiffs was examined PW.1 and got marked the documentary evidence as Exs.P1 to P15. On behalf of the defendant, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 8. Based on the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, the Trial Court decreed the suit and directed the defendant to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the plaintiffs within a period of three months from the date of the - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010286582024 NC: 2026:KHC:47628 RFA No. 1059 of 2024 judgment and decree. The Trial Court also directed the defendant to pay damages at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per month from the date of the suit till handing over of vacant possession of the suit premises. 9. The Trial Court assigned reasons to the effect that the plaintiff had proved ownership of the suit property and that the defendant and her husband had occupied the premises on a monthly tenancy basis. Therefore, having regard to the fact that the defendant was proved to be a tenant and that the quit notice issued under Section 106 of the T.P. Act was found to be legal and valid, the Trial Court decreed the suit and directed the defendant to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit premises. 10. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred the present appeal by raising various grounds and learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submitted that the suit is not maintainable as there is no - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010286582024 NC: 2026:KHC:47628 RFA No. 1059 of 2024 relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. Further, it is submitted that the plaintiff is none other than the brother of the husband of the defendant and, therefore, the defendant is in permissive possession of the premises and not in unauthorized possession. Hence, a suit for ejectment is not maintainable. Further, learned counsel submitted that the daughter of the defendant is presently studying in a nearby school and that, if the defendant is ordered to be evicted, the entire family would be put to hardship. Therefore, learned counsel prays to allow the appeal. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the defendant is a relative of the plaintiff and that the husband of the defendant is the brother of plaintiff No.1. Therefore, owing to such close relationship, the defendant was permitted to occupy the premises as a tenant, but no formal agreement was executed. Admittedly, the plaintiffs are the owners of - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010286582024 NC: 2026:KHC:47628 RFA No. 1059 of 2024 the suit property. Therefore, the Trial Court, having considered all these aspects, has rightly decreed the suit. Further, it is submitted that there is no need for interference with the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Hence, learned counsel prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. Based on the rival arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties, the following point arises for consideration: “Whether, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and directing the defendant to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit premises and further directing her to pay damages at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per month from the date of the suit till handing over of vacant possession requires interference?” 13. It is not disputed by the defendant that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule property. It is also not disputed that the husband of the defendant is the - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010286582024 NC: 2026:KHC:47628 RFA No. 1059 of 2024 brother of plaintiff No.1. It is further not disputed that the defendant is in possession of the suit property. However, it is the contention of the defendant that, due to strained relations between the defendant and her husband, her husband had left her and their children and started residing separately. Thus, it is contended that the defendant and her family are being victimized. It is submitted that the tenancy agreement has not been produced. Therefore, according to the defendant, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. Just because the tenancy agreement has not been produced, that cannot be a ground to dismiss the suit. Even if the defendant may not strictly be termed as a tenant, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, at the most, the defendant can be said to be in permissive possession of the suit premises. 14. Admittedly, the defendant is not the owner of the suit property. The defendant has not disputed the - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010286582024 NC: 2026:KHC:47628 RFA No. 1059 of 2024 ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiffs, being the owners of the suit property, are entitled to seek recovery of possession from the defendant. Considering all these aspects, the Trial Court has rightly decreed the suit and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court do not call for any interference. Therefore, I answer the point in the negative. 15. However, considering the fact that the defendant and her daughters are residing in the suit premises and that the daughter of the defendant is studying in a nearby school, this Court is of the opinion that some reasonable time may be granted to the defendant to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit premises without causing undue hardship to her daughters. 16. Therefore, one year’s time is granted to the defendant to vacate and hand over vacant possession of - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010286582024 NC: 2026:KHC:47628 RFA No. 1059 of 2024 the suit premises, subject to the condition that she shall pay monthly rent of Rs.25,000/- to the plaintiffs without fail during the said period. With these observations, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The judgment and decree dated 27.03.2024 passed in O.S.No.4902/2022 by the Court of the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is hereby confirmed, subject to the following modification: (a) The defendant is granted one year time from today to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the plaintiffs, subject to payment of monthly rent of Rs.25,000/- to the plaintiffs without fail during the said period. (b) The defendant is directed to file an affidavit of undertaking before the Trial Court within a period of four weeks from today, undertaking to comply with the aforesaid direction. - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010286582024 NC: 2026:KHC:47628 RFA No. 1059 of 2024 (c) In the event the defendant fails to pay the monthly rent of Rs.25,000/- regularly, the plaintiffs are at liberty to execute the decree in accordance with law. 3. No order as to costs. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68