JUDGMENT
This Regular First Appeal is filed by the defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2023 passed by the XLII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, (henceforth referred to as 'the Trial Court') in O.S.No.5990/2021, decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff for ejectment of the defendant from the suit schedule property.
2. For the purpose of convenience, ranking of the parties is referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.
3. Heard arguments of both sides on admission.
4. The respondent being the plaintiff has filed a suit for ejectment praying to pass a decree of eviction against the defendant/appellant herein and handover
- 3 -
vacant possession and also for grant of mesne profit and also grant for damages.
5. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property and the defendant is the tenant over the suit schedule property situated at BSK III Stage, Bengaluru. The said property has been let out to the defendant on monthly rent of Rs.19,000/-, and a security deposit of Rs.1,50,000/-. The plaintiff has filed a suit stating that the suit schedule property is required for his use hence, he issued notice to the defendant by terminating the tenancy and directed him to quit and deliver the possession of the premises. After service of notice, the defendant has not complied the demand and instead sent an untenable reply and the defendant become defaulter of the rental amount.
6. The trial Court after appreciating evidence and hearing arguments by the plaintiff and defendant decreed the suit for vacation directing the defendant to surrender the vacant possession and also to pay the damages.
- 4 -
7. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submitted that the notice sent by the respondent/plaintiff is not proper as it is not in compliance of Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as 'TP Act' for short). Further submitted that plaintiff has not produced documents to prove the ownership of the property. Hence, prays to allow the appeal and set aside the decree passed by the trial Court.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the appellant/defendant in his written statement has admitted that the plaintiff is the owner and defendant is the tenant over the suit schedule property. Therefore, the trial Court is correct in passing the ejectment decree against the defendant. Further submitted that the notice issued by the plaintiff is fully in compliance with Section 106(3) of TP Act and the trial Court is justified in passing the decree. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal.
- 5 -
9. The case is heard on admission as to whether any good ground is available for admitting the appeal.
10. Though the plaintiff has not produced the documents to prove his ownership of suit schedule property, but, the defendant himself in his above stated written statement has admitted that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property. Further the defendant has admitted that he is the tenant under the plaintiff over the suit schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs.19,000/- and paid Rs.1,50,000/- as a security amount. These facts of owner and tenant relationship of plaintiff/respondent and defendant/appellant prescribed as under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 need not be proved. The defendant has admitted that the jural relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant as owner and tenant of the suit schedule property.
11. Further the plaintiff has issued a legal notice to the defendant as per Section 106 of TP Act on 22.07.2021 calling upon the defendant to handover possession of the
- 6 -
vacant premises by giving fifteen days time. The suit is filed on 09.11.2021 before that defendant has given reply to the notice as per Ex.D.1. Therefore, there is compliance of Section 106 (3) of TP Act. Hence, on this count also there is no merit found in the grounds urged by the defendant/appellant.
12. Therefore, where the jural relationship of the owner and tenant is proved as per the pleadings made by the defendant as discussed in detail by the trial Court and also there is compliance of Section 106 of TP Act, the trial Court has justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff as per the order dated 04.11.2023.
Hence, there is no good ground available to admit the appeal. Accordingly, appeal is disposed of at admission stage itself. Hence, appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BVK; List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24