Bangalore District Court
Shashikala Balaji vs Fan Hospitality Services Pvt Ltd, Rep By … on 2 April, 2025
KABC0A0009662021
IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CCH-21)
PRESENT: Sri H. SHASHIDHARA SHETTY,
B.A.L., LL.M.,
IV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Dated this 2nd day of April, 2025
O.S. NO. 25388/2021
Plaintiff:- Mrs. Shashikala Balaji
W/o Late Balaji,
R/at No.107,
1st A Main Road,
East of NGEF,
Kasturi Nagar,
Bengaluru-43.
(Rep. By - Sri G. Raghunandan, Adv)
V/S
Defendant:- Fan Hospitality Services Pvt., Ltd.,
No.796/A, 8th Main, 4th Block,
Koramangala,
Bengaluru - 560 034.
Rep. By its Managing Director,
Navaj A Sharief.
(Rep. By - Sri. N.G., Advocate)
Date of Institution of the suit 09.03.2021
Nature of the Suit Ejectment Suit
Date of the commencement of 27.07.2022
recording of the Evidence.
2 OS.No.25388/2021
Judgment
Date on which the Judgment 02.04.2025
was pronounced.
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration -04- -00- -23-
IV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
MAYOHALL UNIT: BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit for ejectment, recovery of
areas of rent and damages.
2. In brief, the plaint averments is as under:
The defendant company is the tenant of the plaintiff
under rental agreement dated 01.05.2019, on a monthly
rentals at Rs.85,000/- and security deposit of Rs.8,50,000/-.
The lease period was 11 months with an option to extend the
same up to a period of 10 years. As per the lease agreement,
the lease period had lapsed in the month of March 2020, as it
was not renewed, so the subsequent lease was month-to-
month tenant. The defendant had taken the suit schedule
premises on rent to run a restaurant ‘Sharief Bhai’. In clear
violation of the terms of the lease agreement, the defendant
made structural alterations to the building by breaking the
internal staircase, by opening two new restaurants-cafes by
name ‘Saapad’ and ‘Chai Shop’ and also blocked the fire exit.
During Covid-19 period, the plaintiff provided rent-free period
of 4 months. When the plaintiff demanded to pay full rentals
3 OS.No.25388/2021
Judgmentfrom August-2020, the defendant issued untenable letter
dated 21.09.2020 asserting that Rs.50,000 per month is
maintenance amount towards security services, power
backup, water and electricity charges and common area
maintenance. As per the agreement clause, power backup
and security charges are exclusive of the monthly rentals. The
defendant is a chronic defaulter in payment of rentals. Thus,
the plaintiff was constrained to issue legal notice dated
15.10.2020 terminating the tenancy of the defendant. The
defendant did not vacate and hand over the possession of the
suit property. However, in order to solve the dispute, keeping
in mind larger business interests, an attempt was made to
enter into a fresh rental agreement. But, it did not yield to
any result. The defendant did not pay the damages demanded
by the plaintiff. On the contrary, he started to make payment
of rent at Rs.36,750/- per month. The plaintiff issued
termination notice dated 08.02.2021, demanding the
defendant to quit and hand over vacant possession of the suit
property. It was duly served on the defendant. The defendant
is liable to pay an amount of Rs.10,32,000/- towards arrears
of rent and damages. Hence, prays to decree the suit.
3. The defendant, a private limited company,
through its MD appeared and filed written statement, which
in brief as under:
The defendant company admitted that it is a tenant in
suit property under the plaintiff, under lease agreement dated
4 OS.No.25388/2021
Judgment01.05.2015. It also admitted the payment of security deposit
Rs.8.5 lakhs. However, it contend that the monthly rent
payable was only Rs.35,000/- and the remaining Rs.50,000/-
was towards maintenance and security charges, as per the
agreement. The rental agreement dated 01.05.2019 is for a
period of 10 years with the renewal at every 11 months from
01.05.2019 on an increment of 5% of rent. Accordingly, from
01.04.2020, the defendant paid an advance of Rs.36,750/-,
which the plaintiff had accepted. Thereby, the plaintiff has
agreed that the lease period is for 10 years. It denied that it is
a chronic defaulter in payment of rentals and contented that
it has paid monthly rentals regularly and credited to the
account of the plaintiff after deducting TDS as reflected in
Form 16-A issued by the Income Tax Department. There is no
question of entering into a fresh rental agreement as the
agreement is for a period of 10 years. The defendant denied
that it has to pay amount of Rs.10,32,000/- towards arrears.
Though the defendant admitted the receipt of the legal notice,
contented that the tenancy cannot be terminated, since two
separate legal notices are issued terminating the tenancy with
the different allegations. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the then
Presiding Officer has framed issues on 13.02.2023 as under:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she has let
out the suit schedule property to defendant
as per rent agreement dated 01.05.2019?
5 OS.No.25388/2021
Judgment
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that she has
terminated the tenancy of the defendant?
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief of
eviction of the defendant from the suit
schedule property?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for arrears of
rent and damages as claimed for?
5. What order or decree?
5. On behalf of the plaintiff, she herself got
examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P8. On behalf of
the defendant, an authorized officer got examined as DW.1
and got marked Ex.D1 to D4.
6. Heard learned counsel for plaintiff. The learned
counsel for the defendant has filed written arguments.
Perused the materials on record.
7. The findings of this court on the above issues are
as under;
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the affirmative
Issue No.3 : In the affirmative
Issue No.4 : In the affirmative
Issue No.5 : As per the final Order,
for the following:
REASONS
8. Issue Nos.1 to 3:-
These issues are taken up together for common
discussion to avoid repetition of facts.
6 OS.No.25388/2021
Judgment
PW.1- Smt. Shashikala Balaji, the plaintiff in this suit
has filed in-lieu of her examination-in-chief and reiterated the
plaint averments. The fact that plaintiff is the landlord and
defendant company is the tenant in respect of suit schedule
property under rental agreement dated 01.05.2019 is not in
dispute. It is also an admitted fact that the suit property
consists of ground floor, first floor and two shops in lower
floor situated at Indiranagar, 2 nd stage, 13th cross. The suit
schedule property was rented out to the defendant Fan
Hospitality Services Pvt., Ltd., to run a restaurant by the
name and style ‘Sharif Bhai’. The fact that the defendant
company paid refundable security deposit of Rs.8.5 lakhs in
favour of the plaintiff is also admitted.
9. However, there is dispute with regard to rate of
rent and period of lease. According to the plaintiff, the rent
per month was Rs.85,000/-. The period of lease was 11
months with an option to extend the same up to a period of
10 years. It is the further case of the plaintiff that as per the
lease agreement, the tenancy had expired in the month of
March 2020, since it was not renewed as per the terms of the
rent agreement, so it is continued as month to month
tenancy. During COVID-19 pandemic, plaintiff provided rent
fee period of 4 months and the defendant was liable to pay
rentals from August-2020, but the defendant issued an
untenable reply dated 21.09.2020 at Ex.P6 and took a
contention that out of rent amount, Rs.50,000/- per month is
towards maintenance, such as security services, power
7 OS.No.25388/2021
Judgment
backup, water and electricity charges and common area
maintenance and balance of Rs.35,000/- is towards rent.
But, it is a false contention, in contrary to the lease
agreement, wherein it is specifically stated that the electricity
and water charges are exclusive of the rent.
10. DW.1-Mr. Naseer, claiming to be the authorized
officer of the defendant company produced the board
resolution at Ex.D1 and filed affidavit in lieu of his
examination-in-chief and reiterated the written statement
averments. He has produced Form No.16-A, quarterly
statement issued by the Income Tax Department from April-
2022 to September-2024 along with Section 65 certificate at
Ex.D2. He also produced his bank statement issued by
Saraswath Cooperative Bank Limited for the period June-
2019 to January-2025 at Ex.D3 and bank statement of ICICI
Bank for the month of February-2025 at Ex.D4.
11. The plaintiff has produced the rental agreement
and it is marked at Ex.P1. Subsequently, the defendant filed
an application requesting the court to impound that Ex.P1 as
it is insufficiently stamped document and impose duty and
penalty to the plaintiff. After hearing both the parties, the
then Presiding Officer of the court allowed the application and
impounded the lease agreement 01.05.2019 (Ex.P1) and
directed the plaintiff to pay duty and penalty of
Rs.16,01,765/-. Subsequently, the counsel for the plaintiff
filed an application under Sec.151 of CPC to review the order
dated 19.01.2024 on the ground that the plaintiff is an aged
8 OS.No.25388/2021
Judgment
lady, widow and she has no money to pay duty and penalty
and that as per law the lessee has to pay the stamp duty, so
sought for exemption from paying duty and penalty. After
hearing the parties, this court vide order dated 14.02.2025,
directed the office to send the original rental agreement dated
01.05.2019 to the District Registrar, Bangalore Urban for
further steps and ordered that the plaintiff cannot rely upon
that rental agreement dated 01.05.2019 in support of her
case, unless the duty and penalty paid. As submitted by the
learned counsel for the plaintiff, the duty and penalty is not
paid by the plaintiff. The net result is that since the plaintiff
did not pay the duty penalty, she cannot rely upon that rent
agreement.
12. At the same time, the defendant company also
did not produce the said rent agreement, which it admits and
tried to rely upon the conditions stipulated therein. According
to the defendant, the said rent agreement is for a period of 10
years and not 11 months, though there is a condition for
renewal, it automatically gets renewed once the defendant
company paid enhanced rent of 5% after March-2020. That
contention of the defendant company is denied by the plaintiff
and contended that the lease was only for 11 months with an
option for renewal and it was not an automatically renewal,
but at the option of lessor.
13. It is settled law that under Section 107 of
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 a lease of immovable property
from year to year or for any term exceeding one year or
9 OS.No.25388/2021
Judgment
reserving a yearly rent can be made only by a registered
instrument. All other leases of immovable property may be
made either by a registered instrument or by oral agreement
accompanied by delivery of possession. In case, the defendant
wants to contend that the lease of the defendant company is
for 10 years, then there should have been a registered lease
agreement. Admittedly, Ex.P1 is not a registered lease
agreement. Moreover, in respect of any lease exceeding one
year, even if there is a written lease agreement, such lease
agreement cannot be looked into except for collateral
purposes and no party to such agreement can rely upon the
terms and conditions enumerated in that lease agreement,
such as term of lease or period of lease or rate of rent. At this
stage, this court relies upon a decision in the case of G.
Kusuma Devi Vs Gowramma & Ors (AIR 2006 KAR 295),
wherein, Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held as under:
” The terms of the lease deed in question including the
term of lease period of 30 years cannot be looked into
because of non-registration of the lease deed. The
defendant lessee cannot rely upon the said clause
relating to thirty years lease period by using the same
under the garb of collateral purpose. The term relating
to period of lease is not a collateral purpose within the
meaning of Proviso to S.49 of Registration Act.
Collateral purpose is only to see the nature and
character of possession. No lease exceeding one year
is created by virtue of unregistered lease deed. The
lease between the parties is a monthly lease and the
term stipulated in the lease deed fixing the period of
lease as thirty years will not be of any help to the
lessee, as the same is inadmissible on account of non-
registration of the lease deed. In view of the above,
the lessee cannot take advantage of the provisions of
10 OS.No.25388/2021
JudgmentSec.53A of T.P. Act to protect his possession for 30
years.”
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi Motor
Company And Ors. Vs. U.A. Basrurkar And Ors. (AIR 1968
Supreme Court 794) held that, if the lease period is for One
year or more, then registration is compulsory under Sec.107
of the T.P. Act and therefore, right under an unregistered
lease deed cannot be enforced by the parties. In view of the
position of law as explained above, the contention of the
defendant company that, it is lawful tenant, because as per
rent agreement, the lease period was for longer duration does
not hold good. Such a claim is contrary to the provisions of
Transfer of Property Act and Registration Act. Hence, this
court is of the considered view that both the parties to suit
cannot rely upon the lease agreement (Ex.P1).
15. Of course, the learned counsel for the defendant
has filed written argument wherein he has highlighted much
about the payment of stamp duty and penalty. In support of
his contention, he has relied upon the decision reported in
Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra in
(2009(2), SCC 532), wherein the Hon’ble court held about the
power of court to impound insufficiently stamped instrument.
As discussed above, in this case, already Ex.P1-lease
agreement has been impounded and duty and penalty has
been directed to be paid by the plaintiff. As she failed to do
so, the original lease agreement has been sent to the District
Registrar under Section 37 of Karnataka Stamp Act for
11 OS.No.25388/2021
Judgment
further action in that regard and ordered that the plaintiff
can not rely upon Ex.P1. Therefore, the defendant cannot put
up any further grievance about impounding of the document.
Even otherwise, when the lease is admitted by the defendant,
but failed to produce the lease agreement on its behalf, it has
no right to harp upon the stamp duty again and again. Thus,
the above decision is not helpful to the defendant company.
16. The learned counsel for the defendant has relied
upon the decisions in the case of K.S. Bhoopathy and
Others Vs. Kokila and others in (2000(5) SCC 458) and in
Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State Transport Appellate
Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior and others in (1987(1) SCC 5).
The said decisions are relating to Order XXIII Rule 1 of the
CPC. It is not understandable why the defendant counsel has
relied upon these decisions as there is no application filed in
this suit, under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of CPC, seeking
permission to withdraw this suit. Therefore, the said
decisions are not applicable to the facts of the case.
17. Further, the learned counsel for the defendant
has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in R.N. Gosain Vs. Yashpal Dhir in (1992(4) SCC 683).
Wherein, the Hon’ble Court held that law does not permit a
person to both approbate and reprobate. This principle is
based on doctrine of election, which postulates that no party
can accept and reject the same instrument and that a person
cannot say at one time that a transaction is valid and thereby
obtain some advantage to which he could only be entitled on
12 OS.No.25388/2021
Judgment
the footing that it is valid and then turn around and say it is
void for the purpose of securing some other advantage.
However, in the case on hand, the plaintiff has been
precluded from relying upon Ex.P1 lease agreement. In fact, it
is other way round, the defendant company wanted to rely
upon that lease agreement to contend that lease is for 10
years and rent payable is only, 35,000/- p.m. but it did not
produce the lease agreement. Thus, above judgment is not
helpful to the defendant.
18. Though the parties to suit can not rely upon
Ex.P1-lease agreement, just for more clarity and better
appreciation of the case of the parties, this court has gone
through that lease agreement(Ex.P.1), wherein it is mentioned
at clause 1.1 that, the lease shall be monthly, once
commencing from 1st day of the English calendar month,
starting from 1st May 2019. At clause 1.2, it is mentioned that
the rent agreement is valid for a period of 10 years with
renewal at every 11 months from 1st day of May 2019.
Further at clause 1.4, it is mentioned that the tenant shall be
entitle to opt for continuing the occupation after a period of
11 months upon the terms and conditions that may be
stipulated by landlord regarding rate of rent, period of
continuation etc., in writing. Thus, it is clear that as per the
rent agreement also, it is not a lease outright for 10 years.
But a conditional lease, initially for 11 months with an option
to continue for 10 years, at the option of the tenant, but
subject to the terms and conditions that may be stipulated by
13 OS.No.25388/2021
Judgment
the landlord regarding rent and period of continuation and it
shall be reduced into writing. If the defendant company
intended to continue the tenancy, it should have put forth its
option before the landlord and if the landlord agrees for it,
then such renewal of lease shall be reduced into writing,
where again the rent and period of lease should be stipulated.
That being so, the contention of the defendant that lease was
for a period of 10 years cannot be accepted.
19. In so far as the monthly rentals is concerned,
the defendant company has denied that it is liable to pay
Rs.85,000/- p.m. towards rent, but contended Rs.35,000/-
was towards rent and remaining Rs.50,000/- was towards
maintenance charges. The plaintiff has categorically denied
that defence of he defendant. In the cross-examination of
PW1, she has specifically stated that the maintenance
amount of Rs.50,000/- is in fact rent, because there was
nothing to do maintenance, but for Income Tax purpose, it
has been shown as maintenance. The defence of the
defendant company is that the plaintiff failed to provide
proper maintenance, so the defendant paid only the rental
amount Rs.35,000 p.m. and not the maintenance amount. In
fact, such a contention was taken after more than a year from
the date of entering into lease agreement by issuing letter at
Ex.P.6. If that contention were to be true, at least, from the
date of lease agreement till the date of Ex.P6 i.e. from May-
2019 till August-2020, the defendant company ought have
paid rentals at the rate of Rs.85,000/- P.M. But, as per
14 OS.No.25388/2021
Judgment
defendant’s own documents at Ex.D2 and Ex.D3, from the
very beginning of the tenancy i.e. from May-2019, the
defendant company was paying only Rs.35,000 p.m. and it
never paid Rs.85,000 p.m. to the plaintiff, at any point of
time. This fact would clearly demonstrate that the defence
taken by the defendant company that, as the plaintiff failed
provide proper maintenance, it stopped to pay maintenance
amount of Rs.50,000 p.m. is totally a false and untenable
contention, just to escape from its legal liability.
20. For the sake of clarity and better appreciation,
this court verified relevant recitals in Ex.P1. At clause 2.1, it
is clearly mentioned the total agreed rent and maintenance is
Rs.85,000/-. Of course, at clause 2.2 and 2.3, it is mentioned
the rent component shall be at Rs.35,000/- per month and
Rs.50,000/- towards the common area maintenance and
security charges and at clause 2.4, it is mentioned the rent
shall be exclusive of water and electricity charges. Though
there is split up of rent and maintenance, but both put
together, it constitutes total rent payable at Rs.85,000/-.
Assuming that Rs.35,000/- towards rent and Rs.50,000/-
towards maintenance, mere mentioning so, it will not absolve
the liability of the tenant to pay the monthly rent and
maintenance Rs.85,000/-. Just by sending a notice stating
that the plaintiff has failed to provide the common area
maintenance, the defendant company can not escape from its
legal liability. If the landlord failed to do so, the tenant had
right to sue for that purpose. The tenant without notice to the
15 OS.No.25388/2021
Judgment
plaintiff cannot unilaterally take a decision and contend that
it made such arrangement on its own, so it will not pay the
amount of Rs.50,000/- towards maintenance charges.
Moreover, absolutely no piece of document is produced by the
defendant to show that it has spent Rs.50,000/- every month
towards common area maintenance and security charges of
the rented premises. That being so, bald contention of the
defendant company that the plaintiff has failed to provide the
common area maintenance and security charges, so it is not
liable to pay Rs.50,000/- towards maintenance charges has
to be rejected.
21. In fact, in the said Ex.P1 lease agreement, there
is also a stipulation that the defendant company shall not
carry out any construction or structure alteration in the suit
schedule property and it shall run the restaurant only in the
rented premises. PW.1 has produced two photographs at
Ex.P2 and P3, which clearly show that the staircase is
removed/altered and some construction work has been
carried out inside the rented premises. This fact is not denied
by the defendant company. DW.1 in his cross-examination,
though denied that they have put up illegal construction, but
at page-4 of his cross-examination he says, the defendant
company has invested huge amount and renovated the
building in the suit schedule property. He also admits, he has
no document to show that plaintiff has authorized the
defendant to carry out the renovation. It is also the case of
the plaintiff that the defendant has started two new outlets
16 OS.No.25388/2021
Judgment
and illegally running a ‘Chai shop and Saapad shop’ without
the consent and concurrence of the plaintiff and in breach of
the agreement. In this respect, a suggestion was made to
DW.1 and he denied it. Anyhow, there is breach of contract
between the parties. In such circumstances, under Section
111(g), a lease of immovable property will determine by
forfeiture, in case, the lessee breaks an express condition
which provides that on breach thereof, the lessor may re-
enter. Thus, the defendant company having violated the lease
condition, sets up a defence that it is not liable to pay
maintenance charges. This is totally unjustified. It is also a
matter of common knowledge that a property such as the
schedule promises, situated in prime area like Indiranagar,
Bangaluru, having ground floor, first floor and two shops in
lower floor would be given on rent to run commercial
business of restaurant for meager rent of Rs.35,000/- p.m.
Thus, this court is of the considered opinion that as per the
lease agreement, the total rent payable was Rs.85,000/- both
towards rent and maintenance. Hence, the defendant is liable
to pay that agreed rent to the plaintiff.
22. As admitted by the defendant and as per Ex.D2,
from May-2019 till August-2020, the defendant company paid
rentals at Rs.35,000/-p.m. and from September-2020 at the
rate of Rs.36,750/- per month. In fact, after September-2020,
the defendant company, on its own, started to pay, increased
rent at 5% per annum. As already discussed above, after
expiry of first 11 months, it was at the option of the parties
17 OS.No.25388/2021
Judgment
and as per the conditions stipulated by the landlord, lease
could have been renewed, in writing. Therefore, this court is
of the considered view that as per the agreement, the
defendant has failed to pay the rentals as agreed between the
parties at Rs.85,000/- per month and it has paid only partial
rent. That being so, the defendant company shall pay arrears
of balance amount towards maintenance, which is part of
rent to the plaintiff from the beginning of the tenancy till the
date of termination of tenancy.
23. PW.1 has further stated that as the defendant
company became chronic defaulter in payment of rentals, she
issued legal notice dated 15.10.2020 at Ex.P4 terminating the
tenancy of the defendant and that notice was duly served on
the defendant. However, there was an attempt by the plaintiff
to settle the dispute keeping in larger business interest and
that also went futile. Therefore, PW.1 issued the second quit
notice dated 08.02.2021 at Ex.P5 terminating the tenancy of
the defendant and also demanding to pay the arrears of rent
and that notice was duly served on the defendant company,
but no reply was given. Ex.P7 is the postal receipt and Ex.P8
is the track consignment issued by the Indian Postal
Department, as per that the RPAD notice was duly served on
the defendant on 09.02.2021. Ex.P8(a) is the
certificate/declaration under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence
Act stating that the postal tracking was downloaded in the
personal computer of the plaintiff. Anyhow, the fact of receipt
of legal notice is clearly admitted by the defendant company,
18 OS.No.25388/2021
Judgment
even in the cross-examination of DW.1. Since it was month to
month tenancy, the plaintiff by issuing termination notice has
legally terminated the tenancy of the defendant as per law.
The learned counsel for the defendant has relied upon the
judgment reported in Ganga Dutt Murarka Vs. Kartik
Chandra Das and Ors., (AIR 1961 Supreme Court 1067).
In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that mere
accepting the rent from the tenant did not acquire rights of a
tenant holding over. In the case on hand, the plaintiff has
terminated the tenancy of the defendant by issuing valid quit
notice. So, thereafter, even if the defendant company has paid
partial rent, that will not invalidate the termination of
tenancy. Therefore, the above decision is not helpful to the
defendant.
24. For all these reasons, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the tenancy of the defendant
company has been validly terminated by the plaintiff by
issuing quit notice, but the defendant company did not vacate
and hand over the possession of the suit schedule property in
favor of the plaintiff, so the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of
eviction of the defendant as prayed for. Accordingly, Issue
Nos.1 to 3 are answered in the ‘affirmative’.
25. Issue No.4:-
The plaintiff has prayed for arrears of rent and
damages at Rs.10,32,000/- from the date of termination till
the date of suit. However, there is no proper explanation
19 OS.No.25388/2021
Judgmentgiven by the plaintiff, how she has calculated to arrive at sum
of Rs.10,32,000/- claimed by her. Further, the plaintiff has
not denied the account statement and Income Tax Form
No.16-A issued by the Income Tax Department at Ex.D2 and
D3 respectively. Thus, the court has to rely upon the
documents Ex.D2 and D3. As per the said documents, the
defendant has transferred regular rentals to the account of
the plaintiff, after deducting the TDS. Of course, the
defendant was not paying the entire rent of Rs.85,000/- per
month, but it restricted it to Rs.35,000/- till February-2020,
then from September-2020 it started to pay Rs.36,750/-. As
mentioned in Ex.D.2 and Ex.D.3, from May-2019 to
February-2025, the defendant company paid in all
Rs.24,72,750/- at the rate of Rs.35,000/- from May-2019 to
February-2020 and from September-2020 to February-2025
at the rate of Rs.36,750/-. As already held by this court, the
defendant is liable to pay Rs.85,000/- per month which
includes rent and maintenance. As it failed to pay the full
rent amount, the balance amount is to be paid by the
defendant to the plaintiff, after deducting the payment which
it already made as per the statement at Ex.D2. The plaintiff
can not claim for enhanced rate of rent at 5%, once in every
11 months, since she can not rely upon terms of lease
agreement-Ex.P1, as it is unregistered and for non-payment
of duty and penalty as ordered by the court. Further as
pleaded in plaint para-6 and as agreed by the plaintiff, she
has provided rent free facility to the tenant for four months
during Covid-19 pandemic lock down period, so
20 OS.No.25388/2021
JudgmentRs.3,40,000/- shall be deducted. Actual rent ought to have
been paid by the defendant from May-2019 to Feb-2021, i.e.
from the date of tenancy till the date of termination of
tenancy would be Rs.18,70,000 (Rs.85,000 X 22) minus four
months free rent during Covid period comes to Rs.15,30,000
(Rs.18,70,000- Rs.3,40,000).
26. From the date of termination till the date of
handing over the possession, the plaintiff has sought for
damages at the rate of Rs.2 lakh per month. In this respect,
in the cross-examination of DW.1, it was asked that
Indiranagar being prime locality, the building rentals would
be Rs.120 to Rs.150 per square feet, for that the DW.1 said
he has no knowledge about that. However, he admits that in
Indiranagar locality, a three bedroom house would fetch
Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/- rentals per month. As per Ex.P1,
the schedule premises in all measures 3000 square feet
consisting of first floor, ground floor and two shops in lower
floor. It is also an admitted fact that it is situated in a prime
locality. The defendant company did not adduce evidence to
counter the case of plaintiff about the damages claimed by
the plaintiff. It is settled law that, once the tenancy is
terminated, it is the duty of the tenant to quit and deliver
vacant possession of the suit schedule property. Subsequent
to the termination, he being tenant holding over, is liable to
pay damages as claimed by the landlord. Though the plaintiff
has asked for damages at Rs.2 lakhs per month, court has to
consider all aspects and arrive at a figure which should be
21 OS.No.25388/2021
Judgment
reasonable and balanced one. In the instant case, considering
the facts and circumstances of the case, the previous rent
paid, the measurement of the premises, the nature of
business i.e. restaurant business in the schedule premises,
this court is of the opinion that if damages at Rs.40 per
square feet is calculated, it would come Rs.1,20,000/- for
3000 square feet and it is reasonable amount. As mentioned
above, DW.1 did not deny the suggestion that the schedule
premises would fetch about Rs.120 to Rs.150 per square feet.
He just shows his ignorance and that is not a clear denial.
Therefore, this court holds that the defendant company shall
pay damages at Rs.1,20,000/- per month from the date of
termination, that is from March-2021 till the date of handing
over the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of
the plaintiff. From March-2021 till March-2025, total
damages payable would be Rs.58,80,000. On final
calculation, total arrears of rent plus damages payable minus
partial rent already paid and refundable security deposit of
Rs.8,50,000, the total balance payable would be
Rs.40,87,250(58,80,000+15,30,000-24,72,750-8,50,000). Of
course, in respect of the damages so determined, the plaintiff
shall pay deficit court fee after deducting the court fee already
paid, in the office, before drawing up the decree. Accordingly,
the above issue is answered in the ‘affirmative’.
27. Issue No.5:-
Having thus discussed in detail, this court proceeds to
pass the following:
22 OS.No.25388/2021
Judgment
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with
cost.
The defendant company is hereby directed
to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit
schedule property in favour of the plaintiff within
two months from the date of this order. Failing
which, the plaintiff is at liberty to get back the
possession through the process of the court.
The defendant shall pay towards arrears of
rent and damages till March-2025 in all
computed at Rs.40,87,250 and further at the rate
of Rs.1,20,000 per month till the date of handing
over of vacant possession of the suit schedule
property in favour of the plaintiff.
However, the plaintiff shall pay the deficit
court fee on the damages so determined in the
office within a week from the date of this order.
Thereafter, the office shall draw up decree
accordingly.
[Dictated to the Stenographer, after his transcription, corrected, signed and then
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 2nd day of April, 2025].
(SRI H. SHASHIDHARA SHETTY)
IV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
MAYO HALL UNIT; BANGALORE.
-:ANNEXURE:-
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF:
P.W.1 : Shashikala Balaji W/o Late Mr. BalajiDOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.P1 : Rental Agreement
Ex.P1(a)&(b) : Signatures
23 OS.No.25388/2021
Judgment
Ex.P1(c)&(d) : Signatures
Ex.P2&3 : Two photographs
Ex.P4&5 : Legal Notices
Ex.P6 : Reply Notice
Ex.P7 : Postal Receipts
Ex.P8 : Postal track consignment
Ex.P8(a) : Certificate U/s 65B of Evidence Act
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANTs:
DW.1 : Naseer S/o Kunz Ahamed
DOCUMENT MARKED FOR DEFENDANTs:
Ex.D1 : Board resolution dtd: 26.02.2023
Ex.D2 : Form No.16(A)
Ex.D3 : Bank statement of Saraswath Bank
Ex.D4 : ICICI Bank statement for the month of February-
2025
IV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
MAYO HALL UNIT; BANGALORE.