Bangalore District Court
Bangalore Ayodhya Nagarada … vs M/S Suresh Arts Pvt Ltd on 18 December, 2024
KABC170009592024
IN THE COURT OF LXXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-85) (COMMERCIAL COURT),
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF DECEMBER 2024
PRESENT
SRI.RAMAKANT CHAVAN,
B.Com., LL.B.(Spl)
LXXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
Com.O.S.No.495/2024
PLAINTIFF:
Bangalore Ayodhya Nagarada
Shivacharya Vysya (Nagartha) Samithi
Sri Nagareshwara Swamy Temple Premises,
Nagarthpet, Bangalore-560 002,
Rep. by its Hon. Secretary
Smt.Shylaja Udayashankar,
W/o Udayashankar,
Aged about 60 Years.
(By Sri.P.Manjunath, Adv.)
AND
DEFENDANT:
M/s Suresh Arts Pvt Ltd.,
Rep. by Sri.K.A.Suresh,
S/o Appaiah,
Major,
New No.12, Chikkanna Garden,
1st Cross, H.N.Parvathamma Complex,
Shankarapuram,
Bangalore-560 004.
(By Sri.K.S.Manjunath, Adv.)
2 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
Date of Institution 01.04.2024
For ejectment, arrears of rent
Nature of suit
and damages
Date of First Case 01.08.2024
Management Hearing
Date of commencement of 07.08.2024
recording of evidence
Date on which judgment
18.12.2024
pronounced
Time taken for disposal Years Months Days
1) From the date of First 00 04 17
Case Management Hearing
2) Total duration 00 08 17
LXXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
(CCH-85) Commercial Court, Bengaluru
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for the following reliefs:
(a) Directing the defendant to quit, vacate and
handover the vacant possession (ejectment) of the
suit schedule property to the plaintiff;
(b) Directing the defendant to pay the entire
arrears of rent of Rs.7,66,800/- being the arrears
from March 2023 to till the end of December 2023;
3 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
(c) For determination of damages of Rs.85,000/-
per month from the date of filing of the suit till the
date of handing over the vacant possession of the
suit schedule property to the plaintiff.
2. Brief facts of the plaintiff's case are that the plaintiff is
the absolute owner of property bearing New No.12, Chikkanna
Garden, 1st Cross, H.N.Parvathamma Complex, Shankarapuram,
Bengaluru comprising of ground, first and second floor and herein
after called schedule premises. The defendant is the tenant from
01.05.2022 under the plaintiff on monthly rent of Rs.71,000/-
and GST of Rs.5,680/- in all amounting to Rs.76,680/-, entered
into a Rent Agreement dated 09.06.2022 and also paid a sum of
Rs.5.00 lakhs as security deposit. The defendant is running a
business / office under the name and style of Moniflix Audio,
Moniflix Studio, Visual Magic in the schedule premises. But, not
paid rent from March 2023 to December 2023 amounting to
Rs.7,66,800/- to the plaintiff.
It is further pleaded that, as per Clause 4 of the Rental
Agreement, the defendant has agreed to pay the monthly rent on
or before 10th of every English calendar month and if the
defendant commits default with regard to payment of rent
continuously for a period of two months, he is liable for eviction
from the schedule premises. Despite the plaintiff's letter and
legal notices dated 10.01.2023, 30.01.2023 and 16.05.2023, the
defendant has not cared and bothered to pay the arrears of rent
to the plaintiff. The defendant is a chronic defaulter as far as
4 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
payment of rent is concerned and he has violated the terms and
conditions of rental agreement and also not paid the arrears from
December 2023. The defendant is a month to month tenant in
occupation of the schedule premises. The tenancy commences
from first day of each month and ending on the last day of the
same month.
It is further pleaded that, the plaintiff got issued a legal
notice dated 11.12.2023 to the defendant by terminating the
tenancy and calling upon the defendant to pay entire arrears of
rent, to quit, vacate and handover the vacant possession of the
suit schedule property to the plaintiff. But, after receipt of the
same, the defendant failed to comply the demands and not sent
any reply. The defendant's tenancy of the schedule premises is
terminated immediately on the expiry of 15 days from the date of
receipt of legal notice dated 11.12.2023. The defendant is liable
to pay damages at the rate of Rs.85,000/- p.m. for wrongful use
and occupation of the schedule property from the date of
termination of tenancy till the defendant handover the vacant
possession of the schedule property to the plaintiff.
It is further pleaded that, before filing of the above suit, the
plaintiff filed a PIM application No.206/2024 before DLSA,
Bengaluru on 25.01.2024. After receipt of the same, the
defendant appeared through his counsel but, not ready for
mediation. Hence, the DLSA has issued non starter report on
04.03.2024. Hence, on all these grounds and other grounds pray
for decree the suit.
5 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
3. On service of summons, the defendant has appeared
through its counsel and filed written statements, denied most of
the plaint averments and further contended that the suit of the
plaintiff is not maintainable. The plaintiff is a legal entity /
institution has to be represented by an authorized signatory and
in the instant case, no such authorized signatory is forthcoming
while filing the suit. Smt. Shylaja Udayashankar stated to be the
Secretary, is not authorized by the institution by way of
committee resolution.
It is further stated that, the defendant is put in possession
of the schedule premises from 01.05.2022 is not correct and that
the rental agreement dated 09.06.2022 executed between the
parties does not mean that this defective is put in possession of
the rented premises as on 09.06.2022. The defendant put in
possession of the schedule premises and started running his
business / office w.e.f. October 2023 and not on 09.06.2022 as
alleged. Clause No.4 is mentioned in the normal course but,
however the plaintiff is not entitled to make use of clause 4 for
the simple reasons that this defective was made to occupy the
schedule premises w.e.f. October 2023 onwards and thereafter
he has paid the rents regularly. The rental agreement is not
registered and requisite stamp duty is not paid on the
instrument.
It is further stated that, this defendant has orally replied
the plaintiff committee at the time of meeting, after the receipt
6 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
of the notice, that the monthly rents become payable w.e.f.
October 2023 as the schedule premises was in dilapidated
conditions and calls for entire renovations and lot of repairs at
the time when the negotiation for renting the premises took
place in between the plaintiff committee and this defendant. The
official correspondences by way of Whatsapp is made available
and the beginning stages, the plaintiff committee came forward
to undertake renovation works and do the repairs to the schedule
premises within 3 months from 09.06.2022 at the cost of
Rs.25.00 lakhs.
It is stated that, the defendant has kept the plaintiff
committee informed of the present scenario and the reasons why
the renovation work was extended over a period of one and half
year. When the defendant has improved the tenanted premises to
the maximum extent spending almost Rs.45.00 lakh for almost
one and half year, the plaintiff institution is using the technique
of termination notice and claiming damage at the rate of
Rs.85,000/- per month which is not called for, unwarranted and
unfair trade practice. They are not entitle to recover arrears of
rent from March 2023 to December 2023 and at the same time
they cannot enforce ejectment suit against the defendant. The
suit is undervalued and the CF paid is insufficient.
It is further stated that, this defendant approached the
plaintiff institution for renting the schedule premises and at that
time, he notice that the building was looks like more than 50
7 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
years old building consist of three floors. On 08.06.2022 when
this defective addressed to the Secretary of the plaintiff
committee by way of Whatapp, when the assignment was worked
out by her, it was estimated at Rs.25.0 lakhs, she being the
secretary of the institution has confirmed that she would
undertake works and would finish within 3 months. Till then, the
defendant could not occupy the schedule premises as a tenant
which is well within the knowledge of the institution. When there
was no response even after three months, this defendant again
approached them, the committee for expediting the repairs,
renovation works. The secretary informed to go ahead with the
work and released a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs as advance.
It is further stated that, the defendant engaged in the
services of mason, plumber in the beginning stages for an
estimated cost. They have listed the working of the building after
proper inspection of the entire building, as per the list furnished y
them. In the beginning stages, the estimated cost was around
Rs.19,52,940/-, the meson has given his estimate at
Rs.9,24,292/-. When this defendant undertaken the renovation
and repair works, the second wave of Covid-19 started. The
defendant noticed that the roofing can be done by Doctor Fix it.
There was leakage at the top floor even after Dr.Fix it was done.
He was compelled to go for 2" cementing just to avoid further
leakage, 2000 Sq.ft. This defendant never imagined that the cost
of renovation and repair would exceed Rs.25.00 lakhs after
undertaking the works. The entire cost touched Rs.45.00 lakhs,
8 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
by the time, the entire work was completed, it took this
defendant for one year and 6 months as he was unable to
generate funds for the purpose and that the institution has told
him to go ahead with the work depending on his need.
It is further stated that, it is pellucid on record that except
the wall, the entire building was rejuvenated including roofing,
flooring, water pipes, drainage, sanitary works, electrifications,
grill work, stairs with granite slab, carpentry work, doors,
windows, plumbing materials, labours and finally painting to the
entire building, which took this defendant a complete 15 months.
This defendant has requested the plaintiff institution to bear with
the cost of repairs, renovation and made some alternative
arrangement with them to pay 60% if not 100% cost of Rs.45.00
lakhs invested by him, the secretary has promised to place the
matter before the committee for approval. This defendant has
undertaken the renovation and repair works of the schedule
premises with a vision that he could continue his business in the
schedule premises for minimum period of Ten years. This
defendant occupied the schedule premises as a tenant from
October 2023 and continuously paid the rent up to date.
It is further stated that, it is well known to the plaintiff that
the defendant has invested money on the schedule premises and
the work could be completed only in October 2023, therefore, the
plaintiff has not claimed any rents from 09.06.2022 onwards till
February 2023. Their case is that, the defendant has fallen
9 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
arrears of rent from March 2023 onward till December 2023. The
letters dated 10.01.2023, 30.01.2023 and 16.05.2023 of the
plaintiff is prepared only for the record purpose and for audit
purposes and it was not meant to operate on this defendant.
Therefore, the defendant did not reply to any of the letters and
notices. There are two factions in the plaintiff committee, one
faction concur with this defendant, the other faction demands
action at their end. Because of divergent views of the committee,
this frivolous suit was filed against this defendant for no fault.
It is further stated that, this defendant would not be liable
to pay the rent during the renovation and repairs of the entire
building of the schedule premises. The suit of the plaintiff is
premature and not maintainable. The question of ejecting this
defendant does not arise at all and the same is liable to be
dismissed with exemplary cost. Hence, on all these grounds, the
defendant prays for dismissal of the suit.
4. Based on the above, this court has framed the
following:
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the
defendant is put in possession of the
schedule premises from 01.05.2022 as per
the Rental Agreement dated 09.06.2022, as
pleaded?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the
defendant is a chronic defaulter and he has
not paid the rent amount and violated the
10 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
terms and conditions of the Agreement dated
09.06.2022?
3. Whether the defendant proves that he has
invested Rs.45.00 Lakhs for renovation of the
suit schedule premises, as pleaded?
4. Whether the defendant proves that the suit of
the plaintiff is premature one?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs
sought?
6. What order or decree?
5. To prove the case, the Secretary of the plaintiff is
examined as PW1 and got marked some documents at Ex.P1 to
P17. The Proprietor of the defendant is examined as DW1 and got
marked Ex.D1 to D22. One more witness of the defendant i.e.
Freelance Editor is examined as DW2, but not adduced any
documentary evidence.
6. Heard arguments on behalf of the plaintiff Committee.
The The learned counsel for the defendant has filed his written
arguments. Perused the records.
7. My findings on the above issues are:
Issue No.1: In the negative
Issue No.2: Partly in the affirmative
Issue No.3: Partly in the affirmative
Issue No.4: In the negative
Issue No.5: Partly in the affirmative
Issue No.6: As per the final order for the following
11 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
REASONS
8. Issue Nos.1 and 2: The burden of proving these Issues
lies on the plaintiff. To avoid the repetition of facts, I have taken
up these Issues for a common discussion.
9. The Secretary of the plaintiff has filed affidavit in lieu
of her evidence and she is examined as PW1. She has narrated
the plaint averments. The documents produced by PW1 are office
copy of the legal notices, postal documents, PIM report, rent
receipts, copy of the account statement, certified copy of MA of
the plaintiff and letterhead of the plaintiff Committee at Ex.P1 to
P18.
10. During her cross examination, it is forthcoming that
she is having authority to prosecute this suit, the document is
produced at Ex.P16. The plaintiff Committee started in the year
1958. Earlier there was a tenant in the schedule property and he
vacated the same in the year 2022, he was running a studio in
the schedule property. Since he sustained loss in his business
and unable to pay the rent, hence, he vacated the schedule
property. She has admitted that, the defendant asked the
plaintiff Committee to get renovate the schedule property prior to
his occupation. It is further forthcoming that-
"ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿ ದಾವಾ ಆಸ್ತಿಗೆ ಬಾಡಿಗೆ ಬರುವ ಮೊದಲು ಕಟ್ಟ ದ ಹಳೆಯದಾಗಿದ್ದು
ದುರಸ್ಥಿ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಡಬೇಕು ಎಂದು ಮಂಡಳಿಗೆ ಕೇಳಿದ್ದ ರು ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಸ್ವ
ಹೇಳಿಕೆ, ಸುಣ್ಣ ಬಣ್ಣ ಹಚ್ಚಿಕೊಡುತ್ತೕೆವೆ ಮತ್ತು ಸ್ವ ಲ್ಪ ಪ್ರಮಾಣದ ಸೋರಿಕೆ ಇದೆ ಅದನ್ನು
ಸರಿ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಡುತ್ತೇವೆ ಅಂತ ಉತ್ತರಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ."
12 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
11. She has identified the Ex.D1 to D4 (photos) and she
has also admitted that, the situation of the schedule property
prior to the occupation of the defendant was, as seen in these
photos. The schedule property consists Three floors and she has
also identified the photos at Ex.D5 to D7. Earlier there was an old
compound and gate were there as could be seen in Ex.D7. She
has admitted that, the defendant had sent a Whatsapp message
on 08.06.2022 regarding repair of the schedule property and she
has identified the said message at Ex.D8. It is also forthcoming
that -
"ನಾನು ಮಂಡಳಿ ಹೇಳಿದ ಪರವಾಗಿ ಯಾವ ಯಾವ ಕಾಮಗಾರಿಗಳನ್ನು
ಮಾಡಬೇಕಾಗುತ್ತದೆ ಎನ್ನು ವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನಾನು ಅವರಿಗೆ ಬರೆದುಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿ."
12. She has denied that, the total estimation of the repair
works was Rs.25.00 lakhs and the Committee needs Three
months to get it ready. She has identified the Ex.D9 and its
contents which are true. It is further forthcoming that, the
schedule premises consists Three floors. She has admitted that -
ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಯು ದಾವಾ ಆಸ್ತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸ್ಟು ಡಿಯೋ ಪ್ರಾರಂಭ ಮಾಡುವ ಉದ್ದೇಶ
ಹೊಂದಿದ್ದು , ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ತಕ್ಕ ಹಾಗೆ ದುರಸ್ತಿ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಡಬೇಕೆಂದು ಕೇಳಿದರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
ಆದರೆ ನಾವು ಏನು ಮಾಡಿಕೊಡುತ್ತೇವೆ ಎನ್ನು ವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನಿಡಿ-9 ರಲ್ಲಿ ನಮೂದು
ಮಾಡಿದ್ದೇವೆ ಅಂತ ಉತ್ತರಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಬೇಕಾದರೆ ನೀವು ಮಾಡಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳ ಬಹುದು ಎಂದೂ
ಹೇಳಿದ್ದೇವು ಅಂತ ಕೂಡ ಉತ್ತರಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ.
13. She has further deposed that, there was no painting to
the building after 2016. There were 7 toilets in the building and
also assured the defendant to get repair the same. She has
13 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
admitted the Ex.D10 also. The plaintiff Committee registered in
the year 1951-52. The building was gifted by the Donor in the
year 1974-75. She does not know whether the building old one
or not. It is also forthcoming that, all the 11 Executive Members
of the Committee were visited the schedule property at the time
of giving the same on rent. It is also forthcoming that -
"ಸದರಿ ನಿಡಿ-9 ನ್ನು ಸ್ಥ ಳಕೇ ಸಮಿತಿಯ ಸದಸ್ಯ ರು ಬಂದಾಗ ಮಾತುಕತೆಯ ನಂತರ
ಸ್ಥ ಳದಲ್ಲಿಯೇ ಬರೆಯಲಾಗಿತ್ತು ಅಂದರೆ ಇರಬಹುದು ಅಂತ ಉತ್ತರಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಸ್ಥ ಳ
ಪರಿಶೀಲನೆ ಮಾಡುವ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಮೂರೂ ಅಂತಸ್ತು ಗಳನ್ನು ಪರಿಶೀಲನೆ
ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ದಾವಾಸ್ತಿಯ ಮೂರೂ ಅಂತಸ್ತು ಗಳಿಗೆ ಜಿ ಐ ಪೈಪ್ ಲೈನ್
ಅಳವಡಿಸಲಾಗಿತ್ತು ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿ."
She does not remember suit property was using for commercial
purpose since 1974-75.
14. It is further forthcoming that, it was decided that, who
has to borne the expenses for the repairs. The plaintiff
Committee had given Rs.5.00 lakhs as per Ex.D10. She has
denied that, during the repairs, the defendant has put up 12
Windows, 8 Doors, 7 Toilets/Bathrooms and also flooring to all
the 3 floors. She has deposed that, after renovation, Five
Executive members of the plaintiff Committee had visited the
premises to collect the rents. She has shown her ignorance that,
the Joint Secretary of the plaintiff Committee- Arun Kumar has
appreciated the renovation carried out by the defendant.
15. In the further cross examination, she has shown her
ignorance that, the defendant has contracted Suresh Icon
14 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
Company for contract for the renovation for Rs.25.00 lakhs and
also shows her ignorance that, the defendant has spent Rs.22.00
lakhs for purchase of materials as well as Rs.20.00 lakhs for
renovation. It is further forthcoming that-
"ಸದರಿ ದಾವಾ ಕಟ್ಟ ಡದ ಕುರಿತು ವಾದಿ ಸಮಿತಿ ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಯ ನಡುವೆ 10
ವರ್ಷಗಳ ವರೆಗೆ ಬಾಡಿಗೆಯನ್ನು ಮುಂದುವರೆಸಬೇಕು ಎಂದು ಮಾತುಕತೆಯಾಗಿತ್ತು
ಅಂದರೆ ಮೌಖಿಕವಾಗಿ ಏನೇ ಆಗಿರಬಹುದು ಆದರೆ ಕರಾರು ಪತ್ರದಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾತ್ರ 11
ತಿಂಗಳ ಮಟ್ಟಿಗೆ ಆಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ ಅಂತ ಉತ್ತರಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ."
16. She has admitted that, the defendant is running
M/s Suresh Arts Pvt. Ltd., and Moniflix Audios, Monifilix Studio,
Visual Magic in the schedule premises. Even she has shown her
ignorance that, even after taking the premises on rent, the
defendant started Studio, Theater, Sound Proof editing room in
his own expenses. She has admitted that, the defendant is not
claiming the amount pertaining to started Studio, Theater, Sound
Proof editing room. It is also forthcoming that-
"ದುರಸ್ತಿಯ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಖರ್ಚಾದ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಮುಂದೆ ಬಾಡಿಗೆ ಕಟ್ಟು ತ್ತಾ ಹೋಗಿ, ಸದರಿ
ಖರ್ಚಾದ ಹಣದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಸಮಿತಿಯ ಸಭೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಒಪ್ಪಿಗೆ ಪಡೆಯುತ್ತೇವೆ, ಎಂದು
ಉದಯಶಂಕರ, ಅರುಣಕುಮಾರ, ಪಿ.ವೀರಭದ್ರ ಮತ್ತು ಪಿ.ಭಾಸ್ಕ ರ ಹೇಳಿದ್ದ ರು
ಅಂದರೆ ಬಾಡಿಗೆ ಕಟ್ಟ ಲು ಹೇಳಿದೇವು ಅಂತ ಉತ್ತರಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ."
17. She has admitted that, the plaintiff Committee has
issued a notice to the defendant on 09.01.2023 (Ex.D22) for
payment of rents. She does not know how long the renovation
had taken place. She also ignores that, the defendant has
completed the renovation work in the month of October 2023,
15 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
even she ignorance that, the defendant was not using the
premises during renovation and also ignores that, the renovation
work was stopped from 2022 June to October 2023 because of
his income.
18. It is also forthcoming that, the rent received from the
defendant as per Ex.P12 has been taken into account for the
month of December 2022. She has admitted that, eviction notice
has been issued to the defendant as per Ex.P4. According to her,
since there is due of previous rents, hence, notice has been
issued. It is also forthcoming that -
"ದುರಸ್ಥಿ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಯು ದಾವಾ ಆಸ್ತಿಯ ಸ್ವಾಧೀನ ಪಡೆದಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ ,
ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಬಾಡಿಗೆ ಯಾವ ರೀತಿ ಕೇಳುತ್ತೀರಿ ಎನ್ನು ವ ಸೂಚನೆಗೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರು
ಕರಾರು ಪತ್ರ ಆದಾಗಿನಿಂದ ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿ ಸ್ವಾಧೀನದಲ್ಲಿ ಇರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಅಂತ ಉತ್ತರಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ."
According to her, the original Rent Agreement is with the
defendant. She has denied the other suggestions.
19. The Proprietor of the defendant is examined as DW1.
He has filed his affidavit. He has narrated the defence taken by
him. He has also given particulars in his affidavit regarding the
amounts spent for labour contractor, reconstruction of the
schedule premises from 09.06.2022 to 30.09.2023 through Bank
transactions, it totally amounts to Rs.21.15 lakhs. Apart from
this, he has spent Rs.26,36,925/- towards the repairs, renovation
of the entire building. In all he has spent Rs.47,51,925/- in a
period of One year Three months for the tenanted premises. He
16 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
was not in the occupation of the building and it is well within the
knowledge of the plaintiff Committee and its members. He has
produced some documents at Ex.D1 to D21 i.e. photos,
Whatsapp conversations, letter by the Secretary of the plaintiff,
Rough sheet regarding calculation, photos of renovated schedule
property, certificate U/Sec.65B of the Evidence Act, Bank
statement of ICICI Bank and pendrive etc.
20. In his cross examination, it is forthcoming that he is
admitted that, he is a tenant in the schedule premises and the
monthly rent is Rs.76,680/- including GST. According to him,
there is no rental Agreement between the plaintiff Committee
and himself. He has denied that, he has occupied the schedule
premises as a tenant in the month of May 2022. He has paid an
advance amount of Rs.3.00 lakhs on 19.05.2022 by way of
transfer and also paid another amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs to the
plaintiff Committee on 24.05.2022. Even prior to Agreement, he
has transferred the said amount. It is also forthcoming that, he
has paid an amount of Rs.76,680/- on 16.06.2022 as rent and it
was paid through bank. He has denied his signature on the copy
of the Rent Agreement. He has admitted that, in the schedule
premises he is carrying out Editing, Graphics, Dubbing, DI and
Sound Design. According to him, the Rent Agreement dated
09.06.2022 forthcoming in his affidavit, it is falsely mentioned.
He has admitted that, as per Ex.D14, an amount of Rs.76,680/-
has been shown as rent to the plaintiff Committee on
16.06.2022. He has produced the documents to show that, he
17 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
was in the possession of the schedule premises from October
2023 and it was informed orally to the Committee members of
the plaintiff Committee. It is further forthcoming that -
"ದಾವಾ ಆಸ್ತಿ ಗೀಳು ಸ್ಥಿತಿಯಲ್ಲಿದ್ದು , ಅಕ್ಟೋಬರ್ 2023 ರಿಂದ
ಬಾಡಿಗೆಯನ್ನು ಕೊಡುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದು ನಾನು ಕಮೀಟಿಗೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ಈ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಲಿಖಿತ
ದಾಖಲೆ ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ . ದುರಸ್ಥಿಗೆ 15 ತಿಂಗಳು ಬೇಕಾಗುತ್ತದೆ ಎನ್ನು ವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಕಮೀಟಿಗೆ
ಲಿಖಿತದಲ್ಲಿ ತಿಳಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ . ಆದರೆ, ಪ್ರತೀ ಹಂತದಲ್ಲಿ ಕಮೀಟಿಗೆ ವಿಷಯವನ್ನು
ತಿಳಿಸುತ್ತಾ ಇದ್ದೆನು. 15 ತಿಂಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ದುರಸ್ಥಿ ಕಾರ್ಯವನ್ನು ಮುಗಿಸಬೇಕು ಎನ್ನು ವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ
ಕಮೀಟಿಯವರು ನನಗೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಲಿಖಿತ ದಾಖಲೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ."
21. It is forthcoming, he has informed the plaintiff
Committee that, he is paying rent from the month of October
2023, since there is no Agreement or document regarding
commencement of rent from the month of October 2023, hence,
he has not produced any documents. He has further deposed
that, he has not produced the bills for the amount of Rs.45.00
lakhs spent towards renovation of the suit premises. But, he has
produced documents. It is further forthcoming that-
"ಗ್ರಾನೈಟ್ ಹಾಕಿಸುವ ಸಲುವಾಗಿ ಲಿಖಿತದಲ್ಲಿ ಹೇಳಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಆದರೆ ಇಬ್ಬ ರೂ
ಒಪ್ಪಿಕೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ."
22. He has paid an amount of Rs.14,49,600/- to Suresh
Icon as per Ex.D11 as an advance. The amount was paid through
bank. The amount shown in Ex.D11 was spent for the purpose of
renovation and it was brought to the knowledge of the plaintiff
Committee, for which it has agreed orally. He voluntarily deposed
that -
18 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
"ಅವರು ಒಪ್ಪ ದೇ ಇದ್ದ ರೆ ನಾನು ಕೆಲಸವನ್ನು ಮುಂದುವರಿಸುತ್ತಾ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ
ಅಂತ ಉತ್ತರಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ."
23. The commencement of renovation was started in the
month of June 2022, since the plaintiff Committee put pressure
on him regarding confirmation of rent, he has paid rents as per
Ex.P8 to P14. Renovation was under process. Hence, he could not
take the possession of the schedule premises. He volunteers
that-
"ದುರಸ್ಥಿ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ಬಾಡಿಗೆ ಕೊಡುವ ಅಗತ್ಯ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ , ಕೇವಲ
ಮಂಡಳಿಯವರು ಪೀಡಿಸಿದ್ದ ರಿಂದ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತೕೆನೆ."
24. He has admitted that, he has paid rent of Rs.76,680/-
on 16.08.2023 as per Ex.D14(a). He has put his appearance
before DSLA. He has admitted that, since 25.01.2024, he has not
paid the rents to the plaintiff Committee. Since the renovation
was completed in the month of November 2023 and the plaintiff
Committee has filed this suit and he is not running his business.
Moreover, the plaintiff has not paid the amount spent for
renovation. Hence, rent was not paid.
25. In the further cross examination, it is forthcoming
that, he has produced the photos pertaining to renovation. He
has not produced any documents pertaining to Ex.D10. But,
amount was paid through bank. According to him, the plaintiff
Committee has paid Rs.5.00 lakhs towards renovation directly to
the Contractor. The materials were purchased by the contractor
19 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
for renovation of the schedule premises. The Contractor and the
labours have not issued any bills for having received the labour
charges. It is further forthcoming that -
"ನಾನು ಖರ್ಚು ಮಾಡಿದ ರೂ.45.00 ಲಕ್ಷದ ಪೈಕಿ ಶೇಕಡ 60 ರಷ್ಟು ಹಣ
ಕೊಡುವಂತೆ ವಾದಿ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆ ಗೆ ನಾನು ಲಿಖಿತದಲ್ಲಿ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ . ಮೌಖಿಕವಾಗಿ
ಮಾತುಕತೆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಕೇಳಿದ್ದೆನು. ದಾವಾ ಆಸ್ತಿಯ ಸ್ವಾಧೀನವನ್ನು ನಾನು
ಅಕ್ಟೋಬರ್ 2023 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಬಾಡಿಗೆಯನ್ನು ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದಾಗಿ ಮತ್ತು ಅಲ್ಲಿಯವರೆಗೆ
ಬಾಡಿಗೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದಾಗಿ ನನ್ನ ಪ್ರಮಾಣ ಪತ್ರದ 26 ನೇ ಪ್ಯಾರಾದಲ್ಲಿ ನಮೂದು ಇದೆ
ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಮುಂದೆಯೂ ಕೂಡ ಬಾಡಿಗೆಯನ್ನು ಸರಿಯಾಗಿ ಕೊಡುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದು
ನಮೂದು ಆಗಬೇಕಾಗಿತ್ತು ಅಂತ ಉತ್ತರಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಅಕ್ಟೋಬರ್ 2023 ರಲ್ಲಿ
ಸ್ವಾಧೀನವನ್ನು ಪಡೆದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ದಾಖಲೆಯು ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ."
26. It is forthcoming and DW1 has admitted that, he has
transferred amount on 16.06.2022, 17.07.2022, 18.08.2022,
03.10.2022, 22.11.2022, 01.03.2023, 15.03.2023, 11.09.2023
and 06.11.2023 of Rs.76,680/- on each month, to the bank
account of the plaintiff Committee including GST, it was for
tenancy confirmation. He has admitted that, in Ex.P15, these
amounts are mentioned as Studio Rent. He has not shown the
amount of Rs.19,52,940/- as per Ex.D11 in IT Returns, since he
has not started his business. He has not received any letters
from the plaintiff Committee on 10.01.2023, 30.01.2023 and
16.05.2023. One Ravichandra Kumar introduced himself to the
plaintiff Committee. There is no contract between himself and
Suresh Icon Company. But, he has produced bank particulars
regarding payment. He has not produced the bills for the period
20.04.2023 to 30.09.2023 regarding payments made to others.
20 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
He has admitted that, he has not produced documents pertaining
to Rs.47,51,925/- as mentioned in his affidavit. No bills have
been issued for contracts. It is also forthcoming that, the plaintiff
Committee assured for release of the amount spent by him. No
document has been executed in this aspect. The Ex.D16 - photos
go to show regarding the renovation. He has further forthcoming
that -
"ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಸ್ವ ಹೇಳಿಕೆ, ನಂತರ ಹಂತ ಹಂತವಾಗಿ ಬದಲಾವ ಣೆಯಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ, ಒಪ್ಪಿಗೆ
ಕೂಡ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದ ರು."
27. There is no mention in his affidavit regarding
execution of 11 months Rent Agreement, the plaintiff Committee
has agreed to continue in the schedule premises for a period of
Ten years, after completion of renovation. But, there is no
document. There are no bills pertaining to the amount of
Rs.21.15 lakhs and Rs.26,36,925/- as mentioned in his affidavit
and not produced. It is further forthcoming that, he has written a
letter to the plaintiff Committee on 28.04.2024 for apportionment
of amount of Rs.45.00 lakhs spent by him towards renovation in
60:40. He has denied the other suggestions.
28. A witness is examined as DW2, who is the Freelance
Editor and filed is affidavit, stated that, he negotiated with the
committee members of the plaintiff Committee. The defendant
was asked to confirm tenancy at first, as the earlier tenant
vacated the schedule premises without paying the rent, since, he
had undergone loss in the business. The entire building was in
21 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
dilapidated condition. The defendant did not know that the
building repairs would cost him Rs.25.00 lakhs in the beginning
stage. The building was rented to a Ladies Hostel earlier. He
purchased the building materials for renovation from Suresh
Icon. The defendant has spent Rs.47.00 lakhs for renovation of
the schedule premises. He never said that, he would not pay the
rents at all pending clearance of his requisition for
reimbursement, the rents are kept in abeyance.
29. In his cross examination, it is further forthcoming
that, he himself introduced the defendants to the plaintiff
Committee. The defendant asked to come as tenant in the month
of April-May 2022. He has not identified his signature on the copy
of the Rent Agreement dated 09.06.2022. He does not know
whether the defendant is in due of Rs.14,56,920/- towards rent.
There are no bills pertaining to the amount of Rs.47.00 lakhs
spent as mentioned in his affidavit. The defendant has not asked
the plaintiff Committee to return the amount spent by him
towards renovation. The defendant is able to pay the rents. He
has denied the other suggestions.
30. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted his
arguments basing on the plaint averments and also evidence of
PW1 and documents produced on behalf of the plaintiff. He has
also drawn my attention towards the evidence of DW1, DW2 and
documents produced by the defendant. It is an admitted fact that
the plaintiff Committee is the owner of the schedule premises, it
22 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
consists Three floors, the defendant is a tenant under the plaintiff
Committee. The monthly rent is Rs.76,680/-. There is no dispute
regarding landlord and tenant between the parties.
31. He has further submitted that, there was a Rental
Agreement with the defendant pertaining to the schedule
premises executed on 09.06.2022, the copy is produced by PW1.
The defendant has denied the same and even denied the
signature on the said copy of the Rental Agreement. The
defendant has taken the possession of the schedule premises in
the month of May 2022. The DW1 has admitted the Rental
Agreement. The defendant did not pay the rent regularly. He is a
defaulter. Hence, the plaintiff Committee has issued notice of
termination on 11.12.2023. He has drawn my attention towards
Ex.P4. He has also pointed out towards the Ex.P1 also i.e. notice
dated 16.05.2023 calling upon the defendant to pay the arrears
of rent of Rs.3,06,720/- including GST from January 2023 to April
2023, it was as on the date of the said notice and also called
upon the defendant to vacate and deliver the vacant possession
of the schedule premises.
32. In his further arguments, he has pointed out towards
the cross examination of DW1 wherein he has admitted the
Rental Agreement. The defendant has received the said legal
notice on 12.12.2022. Even prior to the institution of the suit, the
plaintiff Committee has filed PIM application and defendant
appeared in the said proceedings. He has pointed out towards
23 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
the defence raised by the defendant in his written statement. The
defendant has sought an amount of Rs.47.00 lakhs which was
allegedly spent towards the renovation of the schedule premises.
No bills have been produced by the defendant. He has also
pointed out towards the Ex.D9 and D10. Regarding repairs of the
building, it is clearly mentioned in Ex.D9. Ex.D10 is the letter
regarding amount spent for the so called renovation by the
defendant. Since the defendant has not produced any cogent
evidence. Moreover, he has categorically admitted this fact.
Hence, the plaintiff Committee is liable to pay the amount sought
in the written statement. Moreover, the defendant has not paid
the court fee also on the amount claimed. He has pointed out
towards the Ex.P8 to P14, these are the Rental receipts
commencing from the months of June 2022 to November 2023.
It shows that, the defendant is the monthly tenant under the
plaintiff Committee and the rent period is only for 11 months and
not for 10 years as claimed by the defendant.
33. He has further submitted that, the say of the
defendant is that, he has engaged one Suresh of Icon Company
for renovation work as contractor, but, the defendant has not
examined the said Suresh. He has also pointed out towards the
cross examination of DW2, he has also denied his signature on
the copy of the Renta Agreement. The defendant has not
examined any other witnesses regarding the renovation. There is
no written Agreement/consent from the plaintiff Committee to
carry out the renovation to the schedule premises. Without any
24 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
written Agreement, the defendant has said that, he has
renovated the schedule premises by spending huge amount. The
defendant is not entitled for the said amount. He has also pointed
out towards the photographs produced on behalf of the
defendant.
34. During his arguments, he has relied upon a decision
reported in AIR 2002 SCC 3557 in Y.K. Bhasanth Singh & Anr. Vs
Roman Catholic Mission and the following decisions reported in-
(2012) 11 SCC 405
Payal Vision Ltd. Vs Radhika Choudhary
"12. Incidentally, the defendant appears to have raised
in the written statement a plea regarding the nature and
extent of the super structure also. While the plaintiff's case is
that the super structure as it existed on the date of the lease
deed had been let out to the defendant and the defendant
had made structural changes without any authorisation, the
defendant's case is that the super structure was constructed
by her at her own cost pursuant to some oral agreement
between the parties. It is unnecessary for us to delve deep
into that aspect of the dispute, for the nature and extent of
superstructure or the legality of the changes allegedly made
by the defendant is not relevant to the determination of the
question whether the existence of tenancy is admitted by the
defendant. At any rate, nature and extent of structure
whether modified or even re- constructed by the defendant is
a matter that can not alter the nature of the possession
which the defendant holds in terms of the agreement
executed by her. The relationship of the landlord and the
tenant remains unaffected even if the tenant has with or
without the consent of the landlord made structural changes
in the property. Indeed if the tenancy was protected by the
25 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
rent law and making of structural changes was a ground for
eviction recognised by such law, it may have been necessary
to examine whether the structure was altered and if so with
or without the consent of the parties. That is not the position
in the present case. The tenancy in question is not protected
under the Rent Control Act having regard to the fact that the
rate of rent is more than Rs. 3500/- per month. It is,
therefore, of little significance whether any structural change
was made by the defendant and if so whether the same was
authorised or otherwise. The essence of the matter is that
the relationship of the landlord and the tenant is clearly
admitted. That is the most significant aspect to be examined
by the Court in a suit for possession especially when the
plaintiff seeks a decree on the basis of admissions."
AIR 1996 DELHI 32
Vinod Khanna & Ors. Vs Bakshi Sachdev (Deceased)
through its LRs & Ors.
"(B). Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882), S.106 -
Notice for termination of tenancy Validity - Tenancy for
residential purpose - Proof of fact that notice under S.106
was issued by landlord to tenants at his residential address in
accordance with law - Presumption arises that notice was
duly served on tenants. General Clauses Act (10 of 1897),
S.27 Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.114.
(C) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.20 R.12 - Mesne profits -
Determination - Suit for possession of rented premises - no
evidence led by landlord in respect of increase of rent -
Judicial notice can be taken of fact that increase of rents in
and around Delhi which is city of growing importance - Rent
for premises was Rs.6000 - Court, held, justified in fixing
compensation mesne profits at Rs.10,000/- by taking judicial
notice of increase in rent."
26 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
(2010) 11 SCC 441
Rangappa Vs Sri. Mohan
"15. Furthermore, during the cross-examination of the
complainant, it was suggested on behalf of the accused that
the complainant had the custody of the cheque since 1998.
This suggestion indicates that the accused was aware of the
fact that the complainant had the cheque, thereby weakening
his claim of having lost a blank cheque. Furthermore, a
perusal of the record shows that the accused had belatedly
taken up the defence of having lost a blank cheque at the
time of his examination during trial. Prior to the filing of the
complaint, the accused had not even replied to the notice
sent by the complainant since that would have afforded an
opportunity to raise the defence at an earlier stage."
35. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendant has
also submitted his written arguments. He has pointed out
towards the pleadings of the parties and also defence by the
defendant. The defence is on Four folds - there is no valid
authorization issued to the so called Secretary (PW1) to
prosecute the case against the defendant, though tenancy is
admitted, the terms and tenure of the tenancy is not determined,
as the repairs, renovations were in progress during June 2022
and October 2023, the suit is premature in nature, during the
repairs, renovation period, the defendant is entitled to have
Tenancy Improvement Allowance in Commercial Reality and
Commercial Lease Agreement.
36. He has pointed out towards the Bye law of the plaintiff
Committee, though the plaintiff stated that, the tenancy issue
27 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
was for 11 months and there is a default clause to enable them
to invoke the same and to seek for ejectment of the tenant.
There is no tenancy Agreement between the parties. No such
Agreement is forthcoming from the plaintiff Committee. In the
absence of the valid Rent Agreement, it cannot be said that, the
plaintiff can invoke the default clause and issue termination
notice. The suit of the plaintiff Committee is premature one.
Though the tenancy was confirmed by the defendant by paying
an advance of Rs.5.00 lakhs in Two installments during May 2022
at the instance of the plaintiff Committee, when the repairs,
renovation issues were highlighted, the plaintiff has admitted
that, the building requires repairs and renovation. When the
repairs/renovation were in progress, the plaintiff is not entitled
for the claim any rents during the said period. During the holiday
period, the defendant has paid rents for Nine months at the
instance of the plaintiff as it has insisted the defendant to pay
the rents.
37. It is further stated that, the defendant is directed to
undertake repairs, renovation of the schedule premises
depending on his need. The defendant has invested his hard
earned money of over Rs.47,51,925/- on the schedule premises,
which is a tenanted premises for a period of One year Three
months. The minimum duration of a commercial lease depends
on the local market, but, generally short term leases are Three
years or less, while long term leases are Ten years or more. The
commercial leases are often longer than the referential leases,
28 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
which are typically 11 months. The lock-in period is of Three
years, during the which the tenant cannot vacate the space. This
projects the landlord from unpredictable changes in the lease and
provides a stable rental income. A standard Commercial Lease is
about 3 to 5 years. Standard Lease Agreements give tenants
some flexibility in negotiation and the ability to move in the
future.
38. It is further stated that, the plaintiff committee has no
courtesy for appreciating the work done by the defendant for its
building and having invested hard earned money of
Rs.47,51,925/-. Instead of discharging its duty, as per the Tenant
Improvement Allowance in Commercial Reality, the committee
insisted for rent from time to time, and thereafter, after the
entire building was renovated, when the defendant occupied the
tenanted premises for the first time during October 2023, the
plaintiff committee conspired themselves to evict the defendant
for no fault to filing this false suit, which is not only premature,
but also vindictive in nature without any authority.
39. He has pointed out towards the evidence of PW1 i.e.
the Secretary of the plaintiff committee, she has no authorization
to prosecute the matter, she has produced only amended bye-law
of the institution. Admittedly, the schedule premises is a
commercial building. The defendant has also produced some
documents at Ex.D1 to D21 and examined himself as DW1 and a
witness as DW2. The plaintiff committee also produced Ex.P1 to
29 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
P18. Earlier there was a tenant in the schedule premises, and
because of loss sustained by him, he had vacated the same. The
plaintiff committee was looking for a potential tenant and DW2
introduced the DW1 to the plaintiff committee. The committee
members of the plaintiff discussed and agreed for renovation,
since it was an old premises. The PW1 has categorically confirms
that periodically the committee members used to visit the
tenanted premises to access the situation of repairs and
renovations. One Mr.Arun Kumar had inspected the building and
praised the defendant for his renovation work. The PW1 neither
denies nor disputes the same. It is also an admitted fact that, the
defendant has invested on his Studio, Mini Theater, Sound Proof
Editing Room, Audition Halls, which cost him about Rs.1.00 Crore
for which the defendant is not asking for reimbursement of the
said amount from the plaintiff committee and it is also admitted
by PW1 during her cross examination. The PW1 categorically
stated that, the committee members would taken decision on
reimbursement issue, if the rents were regularly paid. The PW1
cleverly said that, all the members went to ask for rent, which is
interesting. Just to ask for rent, whether all the committee
members would visit the tenanted members. It is also an
admitted fact that, the plaintiff committee has also paid an
amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs towards repairs and renovation. The
defendant has paid Rs.5.00 lakhs towards advance and also paid
rent for Nine months about Rs.7.00 lakhs during holiday period,
even though he has not occupied the schedule premises. The
entire building repairs, renovations were completed during
30 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
October 2023 and thereafter the defendant would be liable to pay
the rent subject to the reimbursement issue is settled between
the parties.
40. He has further stated that, the defendant is also
entitled for Tenant improvement allowance, in commercial real
estate lease negotiation, a tenant improvement allowance is a
grant or a concession given by the landlord to the tenant, for
making renovations or doing additional construction in the
premises, which may be required by the tenant to carry out on
business from the premises. It actually expressed on a per Sq.ft
basis and includes raw material costs as well as labour charges
during renovation. It does not include furniture or relocation cost.
The said allowance is usually paid as a reimbursement towards
the cost incurred by the tenant in making the necessary
renovations of the rented space. The tenant has to make the
expenses out of his own funds first and the reimbursement will
be given by the landlord later. The said allowance is given to the
tenant after making the renovation, the amount of the allowance
is decided at the time of negotiating the Lease Agreement. The
tenant should have fair idea about how much the renovation is
likely to cost, before asking the landlord for the allowance. A
landlord who is eager to lease out the space, may be willing to
give a higher tenant improvement allowance to lease out the
premises.
31 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
41. He has further stated that, there was a negotiation
between the parties before the tenancy Agreement that the
tenanted premises requires repairs, renovation, since the building
is a commercial building. The committee members had agreed in
the principle that, the building calls for repairs, renovation. Based
on the assurance given by the plaintiff committee, the defendant
has undertaken repairs, renovation from time to time, which
extended from June 2022 and closed during October 2023. The
DW1 has deposed regarding this aspect and also produced the
bank statement at Ex.D14. The payment made to the contractor
i.e. Suresh Icon to an extent of Rs.26,36,925/- through bank
transfers during the renovation period cannot be disputed. The
defendant could not examine the said Suresh Icon due to some
technical reasons, it does not mean that, it is fatal to the defence
of the defendant. The bank details disclose the payment made
through banking transfers as per Ex.D14. From 09.06.2022 to
01.10.2023 an amount of Rs.26,36,925/- has been transferred
towards repairs and renovation of the entire building. Apart from
that, the defendant also spent an amount of Rs.21.15 lakhs
towards the schedule premises/tenanted premises from
26.07.2023 to 30.09.2023. Totally the defendant has spent
Rs.47,51,925/-. The schedule premises consists ground floor and
Two floors. In the ground floor, the defendant fixed Computer
office and Administrative office, in the first floor Sound Proof Mini
Theater, Sound Designing Theater, Two Editing Set ups and in the
Second Floor, Sound Proof , Sound desiging Thearter, and other
rooms which are still empty, in the Terras Audition Hall and
32 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
Pantry Kitchen area. Therefore, the tenant improvement
allowance the defendant is entitled to have the reimbursement
from the plaintiff committee. As per the said clause, the
defendant was allowed to improve the building at the instance of
the plaintiff committee, now the plaintiff committee cannot say
'no' to the reimbursement issue. It is a case of the defendant
that, he has denied that, there was a Rent Agreement as
contended by the plaintiff committee. Neither the committee can
substantiate the issue, nor it able to prove by producing the
same. It was agreed in the principle that the tenancy period
should be extended for Ten years as per the admission of PW1.
The plaintiff committee has agreed to modify the Tenancy
Agreement for Ten years after repairs and renovation, for these
reasons, no Tenancy Agreement is produced by the plaintiff
committee.
42. It is further stated that, it cannot be denied that, the
landlord should keep the tenanted premises in good habitable
position, when a tenant has made improvement at its instance,
the plaintiff has to honour his commitment towards its tenant
keeping in mind the long standing business relationship. But, the
plaintiff committee has chosen to evict the defendant. The
plaintiff committee has failed to prove the terms and conditions
of the tenancy and also failed in its attempt to prove the Issue
Nos.1 and 2. No default clause is made applicable in the absence
of the production of the Rental Agreement dated 09.06.2022 as
alleged by the plaintiff committee. The defendant has capable of
33 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
paying monthly rents regularly subject to the condition that his
tenant improvement allowance in commercial reality determined
by the plaintiff committee. The defendant is a bonafide tenant
and all his investments is on the tenanted premises as stated
above, now he is unable to provide even curtains to his office
premises. The defendant has vision to run the business at the
tenanted premises for a minimum of 10 years. He has pointed
out towards the provisions of Sec.108(f) of Transfer of Property
Act, the landlord - plaintiff committee is under express liability to
effect repairs.
43. After hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff and
after going through the written arguments by the learned counsel
for the defendant, I have perused the pleadings of the parties
and the evidence of the parties as well as the documents
produced on behalf of the parties. There are some admitted facts
in the suit on hand, the plaintiff committee is the owner of the
schedule premises, it consists G + Two floors, it was gifted in the
year 1974-75, earlier there was a tenant and he had vacated the
premises. The parties have agreed for repairs / renovation of the
tenanted premises. Another admitted fact is, monthly rent is
Rs.76,680/-. The total area of G+Two floors is 4630 Sq.ft. One
more admitted fact is, the defendant has paid advance amount of
Rs.5.00 lakhs. The plaintiff committee has paid an amount of
Rs.5.00 lakhs towards the said repairs of the said premises.
34 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
44. The serious dispute between the parties is
commencement of the tenancy, amount spent for
renovation/repairs by the defendant.
45. By going through the evidence of the parties and
DW2, neither the plaintiff committee nor the defendant have
produced the Rent Agreement. The DW1 and DW2 have denied
their signatures on the said copy of the Rent Agreement. The say
of the plaintiff committee is, the original Rent Agreement is with
the defendant, which is denied by the plaintiff. But, after going
through the evidence of PW1 and DW1 and pleadings of the
parties, it can be borne that there was an Agreement of Rent
between the parties. But, there is no evidence produced either of
the parties regarding the duration of the rent. Admittedly, the
schedule premises is a Commercial Complex and not a residential
building. It can be gathered from the evidence of PW1 as
discussed supra that, there may be talks regarding the period of
tenancy is for Ten years, but, the Rental Agreement shows 11
months. Copy of the Rental Agreement is produced along with
the plaint. It shows 11 months. The rent is fixed at Rs.71,000/-,
the advance paid by the defendant is Rs.5.00 lakhs on
19.05.2022 and 24.05.2022 also mentioned in the copy of the
Rent Agreement. Even after going through the evidence of DW1
and defence by the defendant, it can also be gathered that, there
was a Rent Agreement in respect of the schedule premises. It is
also mentioned in the Rent Agreement, the defendant wants to
run the business of his own in the name and style of Moniflix
35 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
Audio, Moniflix Studios and Visual Magic. Here, this is also not in
dispute.
46. As per the plaintiff committee, the commencement of
tenancy is from 01.05.2022 for 11 months, but, the defendant
has denied the same. As could be seen from the evidence of DW1
as discussed herein above, because of the pressure by the
members of the plaintiff committee, he has paid the agreed rent,
it does not mean that, the tenancy commenced from 01.05.2022.
By going through the evidence and materials on record, the
renovation / repair to the schedule premises is not in dispute.
After perusing the Ex.P8 to P14, these are the rent receipts dated
16.06.2022, 11.07.2022, 20.08.2022, 01.03.2023, 16.08.2023,
11.09.2023 and 06.11.2023. By going through these documents,
there was no payments of rents from September 2022 to
February 2023. The said duration is about Six months. The
Ex.P15 i.e. the statement of bank account pertaining to the
plaintiff committee goes to show that, the advance amount of
Rs.3.00 lakhs and Rs.2.00 lakhs by the defendant has been paid
and rent of Rs.76,680/- also paid on these aforesaid dates. It is
for Seven months. The PW1 has admitted the Ex.D10 i.e. the
calculation regarding repairs/renovation of the schedule
premises. An amount of Rs.9,24,292/- is shown in the document.
The Ex.D11 is particulars regarding the repairs/renovation and
also total amount. The total amount mentioned is Rs.19,52,940/-
and he also shows that, Rs.14,49,600/- has been paid as an
advance. It has also come in the evidence of PW1 that, the
36 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
plaintiff committee has paid an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs towards
the repairs / renovation. There is no dispute regarding this aspect
as stated supra.
47. The documents produced on behalf of the defendant
are, the Ex.D1 to D7 are the photos pertaining to the schedule
premises before repairs / renovation. As could be seen from
these photos, the schedule premises was in very old condition.
Even simple steps could be seen, no granite and railing are seen.
The Ex.D12 (consists Four copies of photos), goes to show
regarding the renovation and applying granite as well as steel
railings to the staircases. The Ex.D16 to D18, consists photos,
these photos go to show regarding the fully furnished and
renovated schedule premises. The Ex.D19 is the pendrive. The
said pendrive is also exhibited in the presence of the Advocate
for the parties and also DW1. The Ex.D19 regarding the condition
of the schedule premises prior and after renovation / repairs of
the schedule premises.
48. The Ex.P8 is the copy of the Whatsapp
communication, which is also admitted by PW1 during her cross
examination. It shows regarding the renovation of the schedule
premises like compound wall painting, compound grill painting,
compound wall outside and inside plastering, building outside
painting, parking wall removing, car parking area tiles fixing, roof
tiles fixing, 7 toilets, staircase and landing area granite, staircase
railings. The Ex.D9 that is also the list regarding the repairs to be
37 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
carried out to the schedule premises. This Ex.D9 is also admitted
by PW1 during her cross examination. It is in her hand writing.
After going through the Ex.D9 some repairs to be carried out to
the schedule premises are mentioned, some denied and some
admitted. The Ex.D21 also consists Four photos pertaining to the
schedule premises / tenanted premises, prior to the repairs /
renovation. After going through these photos as well as Ex.D19,
the building was admittedly in an old condition, it ought to
require a major repairs and renovation. The Ex.D19 and the
aforesaid photos also go to show regarding the Modern Look
given after renovation / repairs by the defendant by spending
some money.
49. The Ex.D14 is the bank statement pertaining to the
defendant. His say is that, he has spent huge amount for
renovation of the schedule premises. The say of the plaintiff
committee is that, there was no Agreement and no consent by
the plaintiff committee. The Ex.D14 shows that, the defendant
has made some bank transfers from 09.06.2022 to 30.10.2023.
It amounts to Rs.26,36,925/-. These amounts were transferred
in favour of Suresh Icon company who has undertaken the
renovation / repairs. Apart from this bank statement, the
defendant has not produced any Bills regarding the amounts paid
towards labour charges and other purchase of materials. The
DW1 has also categorically admitted during his cross examination
as stated supra, that he has not produced the Bills pertaining to
the labour charges and Bills pertaining to purchase of materials.
38 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
50. The documents produced on behalf of the plaintiff
committee, the Ex.P1 is the copy of the legal notice dated
16.05.2023, the Ex.P4 is the another legal notice i.e. notice of
termination dated 11.12.2023, the Ex.P2, P3, P5 and P6 are the
postal documents. The Ex.P8 to P14 are the Seven Rent receipts,
the Ex.P15 is the statement of account, Ex.P16 is the copy of the
Memorandum of Association of the plaintiff committee.
51. It is also admitted by PW1 during her cross
examination that, the DW1 is not claiming the amount spent
towards the fixing and installation of the Sound System and Mini
Theater, Editing, Audition Hall, which amounts to Rs.1.00 Crore
apart from the amount spent for repairs and renovation.
52. The Ex.D8 is the copy of the Whatsapp message,
which is dated 08.06.2022, the Ex.D9 to D11 do not consist the
dates. But, there is no dispute regarding the repairs / renovation.
The only difference between the parties is the amount spent by
the defendant, without the consent of the plaintiff committee.
But, as could be seen from the evidence of PW1, it is forthcoming
that, the committee members had visited the schedule premises
at the time and after completion of the repairs and renovation.
But, her say is that, they came for collection of rents. As rightly
pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendant that, for
collection of rent dues, the committee members of the plaintiff
need not come. Their visit is only because to see the
repairs/renovation of the schedule premises. By considering the
39 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
facts of the case and evidence on record, this argument has
some weight. Even after going through the evidence of PW1, who
is the Secretary of the plaintiff committee, tried to ignore some
material facts. She has evaded the answer to the
questions/suggestions put to her.
53. Much argued by the Advocate for the parties orally
also, that since the tenancy period was only about 11 months
and the defendant has to vacate the schedule premises /
tenanted premises. The arguments advanced on behalf of the
defendant, admittedly, the building which consists G + Two floors
is a Commercial building, and the defendant also wants to
running his Film Editing, Dubbing, Mini Theater as well as
Audition Halls, which could be seen from the photographs as well
as Ex.D19. It is argued a person who invested lakhs of rupees for
the renovation of the building, moreover invested Rs.1.00 Crore
for creation of Audition Halls, Mini Theater, Sound System and
Editing, the tenancy should not be for 11 months, minimum
period of tenancy is Three years in all Commercial purpose. But,
PW1 has categorically deposed that, there might be Agreement
for Ten years, but, it is not so in the Rental Agreement. By
considering these aspects, it cannot be said that, the tenancy
period is only for 11 months as pleaded and submitted on behalf
of the plaintiff committee.
54. I have gone through the decisions relied upon by the
learned counsel for the plaintiff. The principle laid down in these
40 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
decisions are well founded. As stated supra, though the plaintiff
committee has not produced the Rental Agreement, but, copy is
produced which is not marked, since the DW1 has denied his
signature. Even the plaintiff has not taken any pain to get
produce the document i.e. Rental Agreement from the defendant,
no notice has been even given to the other side. But, after going
through all these aspects, it is pertinent to note that, without any
Rental Agreement, the plaintiff committee cannot give the
schedule premises on Rental Basis. In the same way, the
defendant would not paid the amount under Ex.P8 to P14 and
also advance amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs, if there is no tenant and
landlord relationship. Therefore, it cannot be disputed that, there
is some Agreement - Rental Agreement between the parties. The
decisions applicable to the suit on hand. Moreover, the plaintiff
committee has not produced the suit document. Since, there is
no document i.e. Rental Agreement is produced by the plaintiff, it
cannot be said that the defendant was put in the possession of
the schedule premises from 01.05.2022 and it cannot be said
that, the defendant is a chronic defaulter and he has not paid the
rent amounts and violated the terms and conditions of the
alleged Agreement dated 09.06.2022. Since he has paid the rent
for some months, towards the schedule premises and it has come
in the evidence that, because of the pressure by the plaintiff
committee, he has paid the rent for some months and during
renovation period, he has stopped making payments towards
rent pertaining to the schedule premises. Accordingly, I answer
41 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
the Issue No.1 in the negative and Issue No.2 partly in the
affirmative.
55. Issue No.3: The burden of proving this issue lies
on the defendant. The DW1 has produced the aforesaid
documents including photographs, Whatsapp chats, bank
statements for the amounts paid to Suresh Icon, pendrive and
sheets for calculation of amounts for repairs and renewal of the
schedule premises. The defence taken by the defendant is, the
DW1 has spent Rs.47,51,925/- towards repairs and renovation of
the schedule premises during One year Three months period.
But, as could be seen from Ex.D1, that is the Whatsapp message
forwarded by the PW1, it is dated 08.03.2022. It can be said
that, the renovation and repair works of the schedule premises
commenced atleast from the month of June 2022. The say of the
defendant is that, the renovation and repair works ended in
October 2023. As stated supra, the DW1 has produced the
Ex.D14 regarding the bank transfers towards charges paid to
Suresh Icon, the defendant has not examined the said
Sri.Suresh. But, the statement goes to show that, the DW1 has
transferred amounts to Suresh Icon. The amounts transferred
from 09.06.2022 to 30.10.2023. It shows that, the renovation /
repair works were in progress from June 2022 to 30.10.2023.The
said amount spent for Carpenter, Electrician, providing arc
Fabrication, sewage pipelines, drainage pipelines. It cannot be
denied.
42 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
56. The DW1 has not produced any bills towards purchase
of materials and payment of labour charges. According to him, he
has paid Rs.21.15 lakhs towards purchase of granite slabs, cost
of staircase and railing, for all the Three floors, vetrified tiles,
labour charges, purchase of carpentry items, paints, electric
items, arc fabrication, purchase of drainage pipes, bathroom
pipes for all the Three floors providing Seven new toilets and
bathrooms. Moreover, as stated supra, DW1 has categorically
admitted regarding non production of bills. Mere pleading is not
sufficient to say and to come to a conclusion that, the defendant
has spent Rs.21.15 lakhs towards these expenses. It has come in
the evidence of PW1 as discussed supra, admittedly, the plaintiff
committee has also paid Rs.5.00 lakhs towards the proposed
repairs / renovation of the schedule premises and it has also
come in the evidence of PW1 as stated supra that -
"ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಯು ದಾವಾ ಆಸ್ತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸ್ಟು ಡಿಯೋ ಪ್ರಾರಂಭ ಮಾಡುವ ಉದ್ದೇಶ
ಹೊಂದಿದ್ದು , ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ತಕ್ಕ ಹಾಗೆ ದುರಸ್ತಿ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಡಬೇಕೆಂದು ಕೇಳಿದ್ದ ರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
ಆದರೆ ನಾವು ಏನು ಮಾಡಿಕೊಡುತ್ತೇವೆ ಎನ್ನು ವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನಿಡಿ-9 ರಲ್ಲಿ ನಮೂದು
ಮಾಡಿದ್ದೇವೆ ಅಂತ ಉತ್ತರಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಬೇಕಾದರೆ ನೀವು ಮಾಡಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳ ಬಹುದು ಎಂದೂ
ಹೇಳಿದ್ದೇವು ಅಂತ ಕೂಡ ಉತ್ತರಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ."
Therefore, in the light of discussions made supra, the
defendant is able to prove this issue in part by producing Ex.D14.
Accordingly, I answer Issue No.3 partly in the affirmative.
57. Issue No.4: The defendant has raised a defence that,
the suit of the plaintiff committee is premature. The say of the
plaintiff committee is the tenancy commences from 01.05.2022
43 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
and it was for 11 months. But, Tenancy Agreement is not
produced and not marked also. The plaintiff committee has
issued legal notice as per Ex.P4 dated 11.12.2023 regarding
termination of the tenancy. It has given 15 days time to vacate
the schedule premises. The said notice is not replied by the other
side. The said notice served on 12.12.2023, as per Ex.P6. Even
prior to institution of the suit, PIM No.206/2024 came to be filed
on 25.01.2024, the defendant / respondent appeared therein and
it was submitted that, he is not ready for mediation. Hence, the
petition was closed. By considering the materials on record, the
plaintiff committee has issued notice in accordance with law as
per the provisions of Sec.106 of TP Act, therefore, the suit of the
plaintiff committee is not premature one. Accordingly, I answer
the Issue No.4 in the negative.
58. Issue No.5: The plaintiff has sought for the aforesaid
reliefs - directing the defendant to quit and vacate and handover
the vacant possession of the schedule premises, direct the
defendant to pay the entire arrears of rent of Rs.7,66,800/- for
the months of March 2023 to December 2023 and also damages
of Rs.85,000/- per month from the date of suit till handing over
the possession. After perusing the bills at Ex.P8 to P14, the
plaintiff committee had received rents for the months of May,
June, July October, November, December of 2022 and January,
February 2023. The plaintiff committee has failed to prove the
Issue No.1 and able to prove the Issue No.2 in part by placing
cogent document regarding Rental Agreement.
44 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
59. In regard to damages of Rs.85,000/- per month is
concerned, admittedly, there was an Agreement/Contract
between the committee members and the defendant (DW1)
regarding renovation. But, the DW1 has spent huge amount, the
Ex.D14 goes to show this aspect. It is needless to say that, the
DW1 has not produced the Bills pertaining to purchase of
materials for repairs and renovation and labour charges. I am of
the opinion that, since the PW1 has admitted that, "there might
be an oral discussion regarding tenancy period for 10 years",
moreover, the DW1 has renovated the schedule premises which
consists Three floors (G + Three + terrace) about 4630 Sq.ft. If
there was no discussion between the committee members of the
plaintiff and DW1, why he had proceeded with for
renovation/repairs by spending huge amounts? It is only because
to run his business of film industry referred above, he has spent
huge amount. It is also come in the evidence that, the DW1 is
capable to pay the monthly rents as agreed. One more point
urged by the learned counsel for the defendant that, the
defendant is entitled for tenancy improvement allowance in
Commercial Reality during the period of repairs, renovation
period. There is no concrete proof regarding this aspect. But, one
thing is certain that, the plaintiff committee also agreed for
renovation / repairs. But, the thing is amount spent without
written permission of the plaintiff committee. Therefore, in the
light of discussions made supra, the plaintiff committee is entitled
for monthly rents due from the defendant towards the schedule
premises. But, the plaintiff committee is not entitled for vacating
45 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
the schedule premises and also since there is no proof regarding
damages, the plaintiff committee is also not entitled for
damages. In view of the discussions made supra, accordingly, I
answer the Issue No.5 partly in the affirmative.
60. IA Nos.1 and 6: These applications filed on behalf of
the plaintiff committee under the provisions of Sec.151 of CPC.
In IA No.1 the arrears of rent sought is from the month of March
2023 till June 2024, amounts to Rs.13,03,560/- and IA No.6
arrears of rent sought from the month of January 2024 till
October 2024 amounting to Rs.7,66,800/-. The PW1 has filed her
affidavits in support of these IAs.
61. The other side has filed detailed objections to these
applications. I have perused the same. Since the DW1 is capable
to pay the rents for month as agreed, if there is no direction to
the defendant to pay these arrears of rent, much hardship will
cause to the plaintiff committee who is the owner of the schedule
premises. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the plaintiff is
entitled for the arrears of rent as sought in these IAs.
62. The amount sought in IA No.1 for the months of March
2023 to June 2024. The agreed rent is Rs.76,680/-, for 16
months it is Rs.12,26,880/-. In IA No.6 the amount sought for
the month of January 2024. Already in IA No.1, March 2023 to
June 2024 has been covered. Hence, in IA No.6 the plaintiff
committee ought to have claim the rent for the months from July
2024 to October 2024. Now we are in December 2024. Hence,
46 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
the defendant is liable to pay the rent from July 2024 to
December 2024, it amounts to Rs.4,60,080/-. Total amount of
Rent due is Rs.16,86,960/-. The said amount is deducted in the
amount spent by the DW1 i.e. Rs.26,36,925/-. The difference
amount is to be adjusted in the rents from the month of January
2025 at the agreed rate till further Agreement between the
parties if any. 50% of the agreed rent is to be deducted from the
amount spent by the DW1 and the remaining 50% is to be paid
by the DW1 to the plaintiff committee. Accordingly, IA Nos.1 and
6 have been disposed of.
63. Issue No.6: In the result, I pass the following :
ORDER
Suit of the plaintiff is decreed in
part.
The defendant is directed to pay
50% of the agreed rent per month to
the plaintiff committee from the
month of January 2025 and
remaining 50% of rent per month
shall be deducted from the amount
spent by DW1 for renovation/repair
of the schedule premises.
The prayers for quit, vacate and
handover the vacant possession of
the schedule premises and also
damages are rejected.
Draw decree accordingly.
Issue copy of the judgment to
the parties through email as provided
47 Com.O.S.No.495/2024
U/Or. XX Rule 1 of CPC if email ID is
furnished.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected
and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of
December 2024)
(RAMAKANT CHAVAN)
LXXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
(CCH-85) Commercial Court, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
PW1 Smt.Shylaja Udayashankar
List of documents marked for the plaintiff:
Ex.P1 Office copy of the legal notice dated 16.05.2023
Ex.P2 Postal returned cover
Ex.P3 RPAD
Ex.P4 Office copy of the legal notice dated 11.12.2023
Ex.P5 Postal receipt
Ex.P6 Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P7 PIM report dated 01.03.2024
Ex.P8-P14 Rent receipts
Ex.P15 Copy of the account statement
Ex.P16 C/c of the MA of the plaintiff
Ex.P17 C/c of the of the letter head of the plaintiff Samiti
48 Com.O.S.No.495/2024List of witnesses examined for the defendant:
DW1 K. A. Suresh DW2 Ravichandra Kumar
List of documents marked for the defendant:
Ex.D1-D7 Photos
Ex.D8 Copy of the Whatsapp chats
Ex.D9 Copy of Particulars of work to be done
Ex.D10 Copy of Calculation sheet
Ex.D11 Ruff sheet regarding calculation
Copies of Photos regarding suit schedule property
Ex.D12
after renovation.
Ex.D13 Certificate U/Sec.65-B of Evidence Act.
Ex.D14 Bank statement of ICICI Bank
Ex.D15-
Copies of 20 digital photos
D18Ex.D19 Pen-drive containing photos and videos
Ex.D20 Certificate U/Sec.65-B of Evidence Act
Ex.D21 Photos
Ex.D22 Copy of the letter dated 09.01.2023
(RAMAKANT CHAVAN)
LXXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
(CCH-85) Commercial Court, Bengaluru.