- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4008 RSA No. 1722 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1722 OF 2014 (RES-) BETWEEN: MR K G SEETHARAM S/O K GOPALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS SWEET STALL, OPP.KSRTC BUS STAND OLD GMSCT COMPLEX TUMKUR. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. HARIKRISHNA S HOLLA., ADVOCATE) AND: GMS CHARITABLE TRUST (R) ASHOKA ROAD, TUMKUR REP. BY ITS SECRETARY SRI N R JAGADEESH S/O LATE RUDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS INDUSTRIALIST, TUMKUR …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M V REVANASIDDAIAH., ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 19.9.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.2/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., TUMKUR & C/C OF I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., TUMKUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 11.11.2013 Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4008 RSA No. 1722 of 2014 PASSED IN OS.NO.533/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., TUMKUR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2014 passed in R.A.No.2 of 2014 by the Learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumkur, and the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2013 passed in O.S.No. 533 of 2006 by the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumkur. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 3. The respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.533 of 2006 for ejectment against the appellant, contending that the suit schedule property is owned and possessed by the respondent trust and the appellant is the tenant. The respondent trust issued a termination notice under - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4008 RSA No. 1722 of 2014 Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, terminating the tenancy on 11.09.2006. Even after termination, the appellant continued to be in possession of the suit schedule property. The respondent trust is entitled for damages. Hence, a cause of action arose to file the suit. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 4. The appellant filed a written statement contending that the respondent issued notice on wrong person stating that the respondent filed a suit in O.S.No. 669 of 2001 against one M. K. Ballukaraya and in that suit, a notice was issued to other tenants, for that purpose the plaintiff issued a notice for the name sake and wrongly a notice has been issued to the defendant. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 5. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 6. The respondent trust to substantiate its case examined its secretary as PW.1 and marked two documents as - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4008 RSA No. 1722 of 2014 Exhibit P1 and Exhibit P2. In rebuttal, the appellant examined himself as DW.1 and marked four documents as Exhibit D1 to Exhibit D4. The trial Court after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent with costs vide judgment dated 11.11.2013 and directed the appellant to deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the respondent within 3 months from the date of the order. 7. The appellant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. 533 of 2006 preferred an appeal in R.A.No. 2 of 2014 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumkur. 8. The first appellate Court, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 19.09.2014 and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The appellant, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this Regular Second Appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4008 RSA No. 1722 of 2014 9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction regarding tenanted premises where the rent is less than ₹2,000/- and the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, more particularly, when the suit is filed against the person other than a tenant. He submits that both the courts below have not properly appreciated the entire evidence on record. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the appeal. 11. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. 12. It is an undisputed fact that the property belongs to mutt and the respondent is a trust and the suit property belongs to the trust. The defendant/ appellant is the tenant under the respondent. The respondent has issued a notice of termination under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The appellant, failed to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4008 RSA No. 1722 of 2014 receive the termination notice. The respondent filed a suit for ejectment. The trial Court considered the entire evidence on record and held that there exists a relationship as a landlord and tenant between the appellant and the respondent and respondent has rightly terminated the tenancy by issuing 15 days prior notice as required under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. 13. Both the courts below have concurrently recorded the finding of facts against the appellant. Both the courts below have rightly passed the impugned judgments. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned judgments or any substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal. 14. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4008 RSA No. 1722 of 2014 ii. The judgments and decree passed by the courts below are hereby confirmed. iii. No order as to the costs. iv. In view of the dismissal of appeal, pending IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration, and they are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS