R. F.A.N0.264 / 2008 -1- IN mm HIGH coum: or KARNATAKA AT DATED 'I'I~I.'£S TI-E 2ND DAY or' SEPTENEER 2010 'Q ~ BEFORE V L" 1 THE I-ION'BLE MRJUSTICE V BETWEEN: 1 N RAVINDRANATH S/O.LATE.NI-EIELAKANTA RAO AGED ABOUT 68 2 NSURESH * 'T '»_ . S/O.LATE.NEELAKAN'I'A mo ' AGED ABOUT 66 . BOTHARERF$S1I"J1NG§AT; ~ : NO.32,JAIP-iTTEM'PLE.VSTRI?,ET 4_ ' VISWESV»/;AR'A_P1;T.F'¥--é¢'_xM BANGALO_REj-560 00.<:._ ' ...APPELLAN'I'S (BY SRI SR1 BCVN __ - AND: SR1 SWAMI TEMPLE TRUST " 'A _REL.1'g:+ioIj.s AND CHARETABLE TRUST SUJ-JAN RA0' CIRCLE BANCiALOR£;'~.56OOG4_T.~ REP, BY ITS 'TR_U_ST;EES SR1 s.M.1RAMA1<R1sHNA RAO MRS MfALz--'=.'1"I-fl SHNA RAO C.S.RAMfAIAH SETTY A RKRISHNA RAO MANAY S1V£'};'.KASTURI SHAMASUDAR <S,M,.'ANANDA RAO RESPONDENTS
_..::’>’o’a’ yskcp to s—
SR1 VRAMESH BABU, ADV. FOR
, = —- SR1 CHALAPATHY & SRENIVAS, ADVS.)
Rggulgg Fia-g; Aggggg ” ‘V,
R. F’.A.NO.264/2008
-2-
THIS RFA FILED U/S96 OF cpc AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND DEGREE D’l’.30.11.2007 PASSED IN O.S.NO.7249/1996 ONTHE
FILE OF THE XIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (corms),
DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT I . f 2.
THIS RFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION. *1’H.I_s’~ : ‘
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOVVING:
JUDGMEfigs¥’
This appeal by the defen_daI1ts-[tenants7–I.s..Vidireeted
against the judgment dated biz the
Court of the XIV Additisnal
(CCPL28)inthe_sufi,tn_flS§¢E724§fi@98. By the
impugned the deemed the
ej eetrnent V . /landlord namely
Sn’ [Te’mple Trust by directing
the appellantsto liafIduve’r_Iracant possession of the suit
vschedI;{le” preiniseslto the respondent-Trust within three
Court has further held that the
“shall be entitled to recover from the
V appe1l”antsV:’.a”‘sum of Rs.I,O0O/– with interest thereon
it I’29/Q. pla. from the date of the suit till realisation and
.that: shall also be entitled for mesne profits @ Rs. 100/ —
R.F.A.NO.264 / 2008
.3.
pm. from the date of the suit till the date of delivery of
possession of the suit premises.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appeariirig .
parties, perused the impugned nu
record of the trial Court.
3. The suit premises is a garage’moretull_§ described in
the plaint. The plairitiif it religious and
Charitable Trust __is the i,_~–suit schedule
premises property
bearing Temple Street.
Visweswarap iirarnl The appellants / defendants
were the tenar1_tsV.1i’nd’erV”‘the respondent~trust and the
Vagreeddareritt was — per month with the tenancy
corrizrienciiig fror_ri_j..1Si of each calendar month and closing
on thefilast the month. As the suit property along
T thev.r__Aother adjacent properties was required for
residential accommodation to the staff
employed by it in the schools that are being run by it. the
R. F.A. NO264 / 2008
plaintiff trust terminated the tenancy of the
appellants/defendants with effect from 31.07
notice dated 9.7.1996 which was served on ~
10.7. 1996. The defendants rep1ied.:the..s&aid; if if
untenable grounds. As the defendai”1.ts:1.faiiedff
suit schedule premises. the in.s’titut–ed’v_th’eVsuit: for ”
ejectrnent. In response to.7t1ie:’: surnrnons, the
appellants/ defendants their counsel
and defendant?” which
defendant Nc=ii.43 fliing a memo to that
effect.
4. On Athe’ pleadinfgsf”of:”the parties, the triai Court
raised tneesfollowzing’ issues as arising for consideration:
Vifhether plainttff is a religious and
‘ _ Charitable Trust’? And competent to file
Witiether the 2146* defendant prove that
” _ “:.the plaintiff has no right to seek his
eviction from the schedule premises?
‘{3} Whether the tenancy has been lawfully
determined’?
R. F.A.NO.264/ 2008
-5-
(4) Is the plaintiff entitled to vacant
possession of the schedule premises? 9 ”
(5) Is the pzainufr entitled to Rs.1(19,391.__’__i’4″.j’
towards damages for Augus4t’96;_V¥_”
Rs.500/– towards notice charges,__’and._”
future mesne profits at Red O0/?-“f V’
The trial Court, on an appreeiattonhtvot;
on record, answered issue ‘Noel 81 .3’ -.to_: ‘the V
affirmative 8: issue No.2’ in the'”r1eg’ati’ve. hasvdecreed
the suit in terms stated a.b¢ve.t it _ p _ V __
5. Learned counsel 7 appellants in
support of me” Vpcontentions namely
(i) that :t_he._ resphtuidtenpt/tpiaintiff is not proved to be a
religious and hence the suit filed was
_not m.atntainabie’,w–.hi’) that there was no Iaridlord-tenant
betw_een the parties and accordingly, the trial
in decreeing the suit. However, the
learned a eounsel appearing for the respondent/trust
pvptortedhthe impugned judgment.
W/t
R.F.A. NO.26-ii»/2008
-5-
6. In View of the above, the two questions that would
fall for determination in this appeal is as to whetlj;el1:*_”«.tlhe’
trial Court was right in holding, (i) *
respondent/plaintiff was a I’€1igi011S””3.I1d ‘Au
competent to file the suit _f:fl1e1*e
1anci1orci~teI1ant relationship the pa,rt’§.es’;.Tl’I1 this ”
Context, it is relevant to refer to”the’–folloWing ‘reas’oning of
the trial Court:
“.9. proceed
to co;rtslLlef:. S’rtSabrao1anyeswara
V religious and
whether Trust is
colmoetelnt suit through its Trustees.
Rao, aged about 73
glyedrs, reseideat V. V.Puram, Bangalore has
‘I evidence in lieu of
V’ T. He deposed that the
A3Trust is a religious and charitable
is maintaining Sri.Subr-amanyeswara
as Sziiarrii Temple, Snlsatyanaraya Swami
…éTerr:ple situated at Sajjan Rao Circle,
Bangalore. It is also doing various charitable
activities. It is running schools for children
R.F.A.NO.264/2008
belonging to economically backward section. ._
He is one of the trustees of the plaintiff
They have produced original Trust dee,d~..lin..’__’_ A
O.S. 7247/ 96. Therefore, they have protiiicedli
copy of the Trust deed. It»
Ex.P.10. This Ex.P.10 goesfito 7
23.4.42, Sqjjan Rao: in this” deerih
mentioned about H l
Srisubramanyeswara l”f
Ganapathi Tempief strl§e;;;knlinij satyabhama
Temple, Sr_i.Krishria._ :Ternpiie a site
allotted to ‘jy;h’im glbyy unicipality
situatedflo-ni Circle and
appointed ;I*rr;:1.stee:sV._:tolmanaye the properties
and ._Terr:pl£S:jldedicated by him to the Trust.
.nam.ed-._they*Cl’fu,s’tees,one among them is
A piaintggr No.,=1 , Sri.S.M.Krishna Rao. The
‘lladefendant “himself produced rent receipts they
as Ex.D.1 to D.6. They
show that they are issued by
Sri;Sahramanyeswara Swami Temple Trust.
Iriithe bracket it is shown as ‘Sqyan Rao
it ‘*~.__Charities’. This shows that as property has
ll “been dedicated by Sqijan Rae, it is shown as
Sagjan Rao Charities. The defendant in the
crossexaminationl admitted that he is a
/
I
R.F.A.NO.264/ 2008
tenant over the suit schedule Dronertu. He
has no other rights over it, some of
trustees are his relatives. Under Ex.D.;I~-.tQw.’__’_’o”‘.j’
13.6 he has paid rent to Sri.Subramanues.L:Darg: via
Swami Temple Trust. SiT1C€'”l 960
he paid rent to Srisubramtinueswara.S’ujanii:”*~..
Temple Trust. ExceptuS.r_iSubramanucsliiga_i;g. it
Swami Temple Trust, ncfine derfiartded
from him After..Vrece.ilUfiia:’–a0t&:e ffom
plaintiff Trust, pheque for
Rs.300/- to me .p!ait1ti[V’fs~t_ril.st 26. 7.96.
That che”citi}:.t:l1.co1?i;~. is iiimeas .F,;i.p. 15. This
sufficeéfl ma:tl’:ne’ t pttu’.:1tiff Trust is a
The trustees
plaintiff §ire:”corm§etent to file this suit
anCi.._I ‘answejg’his4’issue in the Affirmative. ”
‘V U vlilnderlitiing supplied]
juiegal in the above reasoning.
ilidiiiittledilj’-«tlieiiappellants/tenants had been paying rent
_from””the..yeai:”” i960 to the respondent-trust. T his fact is
H H K ciispiigted by the appellants. This conduct would show
appellants had admitted the plaintiff–trust as
T -«lfitheir landlord. Le-ame counsel appearing for the
R.F.A. NO264 / 2008
-9-
respondent rightly relied on Section 116 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 in support of his submissionleltlhat
once the appellants / tenants had accepted the _
as their landlord, it was not open to them to”deny. title: it
of the landlord. In my opinion, thee o’fV”th’eV:case_aé
and having regard to the evi_de.nce on record; the
contentions of the appellant’sp__coAU.nsel above
are devoid of merit. j. in the
impugned judgment. Note the appeal.
The appeal is’aeccsrciingiy..jc1ism1s§se.d. V