IN THE axaa COURT OF KARRATAKA.AE BAma§§Qfi$; x%
DAIEB T313 was 2o"'nAx OF §cv2gggfi;2cQS. '
PRESENT}
THE Honzngs M. auswxgn 'H L Mnfiafiggyfi E.
TEE HOK'BLS M.JUSTICE s a,sAmyanARAxaNA
R.F;i§Ho.i:3éi20G6,
BETWEEN: V _Wf._ A h
1 STATE BARK OF MY$0EE"; " *3» W5
no s44,,zEg§EGGwna_RgA5';v
BANGALOREe§9 * '/{¥fiRq: %
REPRESENTED E: ITS MERAGEKG nxaxcwqa
2 srara BAEK CE nyscaa _
HAIfi RQAfl,KQDUR;_EAGDI tALuK
BANGALORE RURAL 9:5?
RBFRESENTED BY ITS Bfihficfi MANAGER
~+v ' "~. V ... APPELLAETS
{3y ss;:_ARa§1HB KUMAR,ADv. )
."pnvAND':
'L_";. K €.éuB®3MAR2A SETTY
xsxo KQV. RAJAPRA ssrwy
,» A353 65 YEARS
}'G£fiERAL MERCHANT
'go 733, MAEE RGAD
.<KUDUR, MAGEI TALUK
aanaazaam RURAL DIST ... RESPONDEHT
(By 8131: K. PRADEEP 1'='£AIK;ADVi)
R}
TEES RFA FILE U/S.96 03' CPC AGAINST THE
JUDG1-fi'N'£ AND DEGREE DT..5.4.2006 PASSED IN
0.s-No.1mJ20o3 on TI-E FILE 0? TE Aapzgj-.4¢_:'cIvIL
JUDGE (312,913), RAMA1~IAsARA2~£, nE13.intiff along with
"at 18% p.a. ccarwounded. with quarterly
.'_A;:e:§51V:Ts"A-- from the date mf suit till the date «of
» tealizat1on.
€~/
"-tlkiifia "jazzy; "
2 .. For the sake of canvenience
wculd be referred to as per their _.3t§7ii:3,1s:.A_?.:'i>§f:f¢§r€=a5
the Ccmrt belew.
3. The resyoncient filed ég émit T,a%g;:;ti2ist1*.
State. Ban}: of Mysore for ~.c$f?-V-jaftjears of
rent of Rs.3.99,138/~:fi§ta é§}@:§fifi3 wiéh interest
at; the rate of 18% recsovary of
damagas at the égfie ¢£;R§;3i;$eaz%per nnnth fra
Hay 2003 till tfig data 5: nanagng aver of the suit
property * suit was filed far
posseasion %A 4V3;:1:ss-gtriazlse yroyerty alscu During
fang of "the____$.uit, the State Bank cf Mysore
\%'a._§:a.1:;é:.1V a.1}t*3y1'1g:§;'::<_i_lx=.2cS. over passession Qf the jgrogzaerty
'ta thsé*.p1é:i;i§;j§.:iA'_-if-la.n.?:c3,. Therefrbre, the reliefs
oii V thé ..p°3,Vaii1t3.ff has been restricted only for
€>f arrears of rent and damages frcxn the
f.§#t駧fi suit tili the actual date of dgliverg of
V '- A §x'>s$ession .
3"
4. Accarding to the plaint avenuents, the suit
schemle property was leased cut to the appe:'l 3.a.nt.-
Bank on a monthly rent of 123.800] -~
31.1o.19s3. Initially the lease was
of five years and an opticitiwwas; 1VE:.'~'.*2.e V
tenant to renew the lease' t:é£it13 'o£
five years each. Even. "'a£'i;e:: .c:*.r.>a:a;... {bf 15
years of lease periimi, .53..'.i.LfiC;«.:é:' d£;f'e£idant-Bank
did. nut vacate the prezmisest, terminating the
tenancy {of _ the suit was instituted.
According' _ the! "averruents, the defendants
had aggx-e'® five'-. Ttzhe rate of Rs.6,0GO,'-- pen:
:'%':s;.,_11.::,§éa and though it was agreed. to
pé1y F;é: month, the same» was not paid. by
the 'a1L?£a:iA went an paying the rent last paid.
:7 "p;VrV;?:i.¢:>::{ 1.11.1998. It was also cantended that
4'_'tiieV_V'plainti£f is entitled far a. sum. czf Rs.31,8G0/-
menth as ciamages consiwring the prevailing
tent in the area. whare the suit sczhedxile praperty
situated .
{V
that this Court has no jurisdictican to try the
suit? _
5) Whether: the plaintiff is entitled. the
vacant posaession of suit propexty
for? .
6) What order car decree? ._
'I. Thereafter: on bev:ha.lf;__z plai'xi:tiff_,
plaintiff was exami'ned it i"i:'ié$n
that he relied uponV<t*1f;e iitwowézitnesses
who were examined as' VA fitnd plaintiff
relied 'S-1P<'J_1'1e 912. on behalf of the
defendantfi 4' , 011:5-'V":..AY§_4i€z_cEi:é&i§.rana, official of the
defenc$;9;nt,sf--Bé:Lrfl§ '#35 as aw}. . He relied
of lease deed which was marked
a.?s"' _E:~:[_.trial caurt after: apyreciating the
argunie-nt$" by the parties, decreed the
:".v4."s1.i'i?;Vi_.d.irs=.%ct:Lng the defendant to pay a sum of
4'_'R_§;~4;3@,938/-- with intezraat at 18% p.a. vzxowunded
ifiritzi quarterly rests from the date of suit till
the date f realisaticn. Challenging the Judgment
W
'JV
and chacree of the trial ccmrt, the pre.sg+:zaté'VVw.5a ,_j;:j5;:~§az1
is filed.
8 . We have heard. the learz{aad:1.A_§:i$un:se;,i
for the parties .
9 . '§.'hc-ugh severaT3_;_.":'~ by the
appellants in the the course
of argumentS_,§-iv are urged by
the mafia?
1) The a serizsus EIEOI'
in knit cailing upon the
dgfiéndangs sum me R:s.4,:-313,938 /--- along
18% 9.2;. inc: he conpouncaed
"' V V
10. «:3: is contenwd. by the agspellants, there
<._w:§'§~.s. Lr"i:3 agreement to gay rent at the rate mi
"=./._"1§s.'5,0${J/- per mxrxth after expiry .._ ;§~.ea.:3e period and that the plaintiff did mat prove
that the defiendant is liable to pay a sum of
Rs.31,800l- fer the use and damages frcxn May
«V
2:303 1:111 the actual date 9:? n*::h .__6n may 2963, the trial caurt has
error in deareeing the suit. I The
ifizzfther contend that no evidsezzae was
1et: ""'--in 'afiéi without there being any pleading
'A44"'uf1ne:¢:es$'a£ri1y the remarks ara made against the
"as if the Bank is «El cheater. Therefore, he
this Court to set aside the decree by
U allowing the appeal.
('V
11. Fer contra, 1~£r.Pz:adeep Naik, 1:~..'<:.e:-:"_«*
- r
counsel for the respondent contends ti; " the t3é1-:i3V.'
._:,;e (5 –
court is justified in dacraezing 09 ‘4
anti Ex.P12. Since Ex._P9 arm”-V. Ex.1-§>1..2’A’ Laré; .”‘n¥)’t
dislfiuted, the maintifr claizt
arrears of rent at :’the — per
month along with thereon till
A9311 2903 a.f:d;’~~,;éroz{:§._ plaintiff 13
entitled to’ at the rate of
123.31 ,ao._:cwi’,’/”–V_V on the proof and
evidehng ‘*.lVxefi ¢ ‘”p1a1n2;1££. It is also
ccntencieafi _ thét». thé efidfience of P935 4 2 and 3 and the
pVi:c>d3.1A_ cecvsiwtby the plaintiff to show the
rent near the vicinity ¢:>f the
Z “”3che<m}..e fvfaperty as can May 2003, are neat
the a.ppe}.1.a.nt.s–defenda.nt3. Therefore,
4t1f:é:.V"tr'ial court is justified in granting the
Since the San}: has not paid the arrears.-3
%~:-°i1V.i5*1:, 7-22¢:
dismiss the suit.
12. aaving heard_ thé=r déunsel ” for the
appellants, the fbllawing §5%ht§7§©fiid arise for
consideration q£»rh3s§Court ifi th;§ appeal:
1) Whether Sfihra trial; éofirfir was fiustified in
decreeing rue rare for 3 arm of R3.4,30,938/–
alongr with: rfit¢r§sr_.at 18% p.a. to be
aompundrd as qrérrérly rests tram the date of
>»_$ui§it;il_thr astral data of realisatian?
2) ,fihétherL’tfi§~ trial court was justified in
@fir§hg firgrfiargeab1e remarks against the
‘,gppeil$ntS/defendants Bank?
{3}_X%$¢£her the Judgment and decree of the trial
rN_rrcéurt are required to be modified or reversed?
é?
El
13 . Having heard the counsel for f1j”Pxe«’
this court has noticed the £o11ow3;:;§gg’*vv_ué:i§:i1s;§ute,gvr§=:d.a eéiafenciants to continue
in pcs3essT§._¢.”§r:j_gaffI::§:he:.’.Va§r€2ed….:;*%:nt. 8211: the disgaute
is The plaintiff claims rent
at the r:é£ue§%._1§s:_V.”6.;.’300_/m per month along with
_.1vv:i..4n1:e;:e1~.st;1_”‘apt¢””–V3Q__,_4.2oc3 and from 1.5.2003 the
pAla§Lr;1:if.£”~Vis “‘claiming the damages at the rate of
as.’3i”;v%8oO’;”-¥j-;_;%é:L: xzxmth.
124 In ordex to pmve the respective
é.§5:€3:.é1’&.3;ions, the pxaxntiti has been exaxnmed as
“We have seen the evidence of P931. In the
the plaintiff has not explained. how he
is entitled to claim interest at 18% p.a. or at
r°~/
12
any other rate uptca 30″‘ April 2003 c1aim3.!’f§;’.._:’?r;ant
at the rate of Rs.6,000/– per mnth fzamf1;:1;:a9a
and similarly no positive :’:i.’s= in
the plaintiff to show that tun bgigaingnnf flim’was
fetching Rs. 31 ,800/– ~;. ‘éxcegsftfi’
the certificate issned cf
Kudmc to show that let cut its
building at Rs 2,65%}; Pg: gngtgfignr a shqp of
1.25 Sq. Thn In oraer tau
prcéve P8__,. also examined FW2
K.E$wara;3:.5a._, ‘ Kudrur Grazia Panchayat.
He has’ gbean drasgénéxémined by the Advocate for the
:9 show that the {:3-rama Panchayat,
Knnnrfhan int nut a shop cf its to a tenant at the
” rate éf nspafiese/–pnz month, no other daumnnt i$
“fir: show actually the same has been leased.
fig a particular tenant and such tenant is being in
In View cat’ the suggestion made by the
L’, énunse1 for the appellants-Bank, it is not
possible to acute to the aonaluaion that Ex.P8 has
8*’
been proved by examining P962 and it is Wa;l::§_V not
1n the evidencee that the __3′;:>r .V’_*7.$éer;__”9f
the plaintiff can be eoxgarecl
which is in front of the
claim the rent at ‘1:he.»l’z:_z;teAV”§’f’
month. we premzises by the
plaintiff to the al Hcozrmercial
building. Ex§P4 1s_th§ pl#fi df gag building which
was leased From looking
into Ei,p4; fit ls cigar that it is more in the
nature of’=–_.3* building let: cut to the
_VVBa.r11:,._§lV ‘i’11eré’f:E a similar dimensions in front of
–_[a. stand, which is used fer mainly business
*«..:;pfi:Epose. Therefore without aggreciating the
levidentza 01? PW1, P932 and so alas PW3, the trial
court has granted a. decree as prayed for by the
8/
plaintiff. In addition to that tni:ai..$’_:’§ic:iz§_::4:-;__j’ i-ms’
seen there is no prayer in the p1.s;i’mi} ‘-awairii.
interest at 18% with quart§.=r].;y..ji’rés_’tsL’
withaut there: being any ifisue, 2withoutV:”tha.1;£;
any evidence, the Ciouzct the
cieeree. The trial vz:¢:§’;11:t–_L l’3{.:3..’5u not given its
findings hcw it vI1as:.”‘t’:x3>3.!ié3 V’t§:;,_ Qiixalusion that
the h.:4.$_ ,t1iém£:1ecreta1 amount.
ccnsidering that
the Baxuefiyhad’ pay mm: at Rs.5,€3l’30/-
per zagnth .3,’99E3_ ‘as! yer Ex.P9 and Ex.P12; we
gfiiafire the ‘o.pini¢:n””that the plaintiff is entitled
t<'::__. T. claimng rent at the rate of
i mcmth less the amzmnt: already paid.
the 33:3: with interest. at 18% p.a.. SQ far: as
V' '–th£=; v.af:;'..'eara of rent is concerned, in View taf the
,,,t,._.j;;;_w"t§of limitation, the plaintiff can claim arrears
v"VA'~»._<.§nly for three years prim: tn the tiate 0f the
institution. Since the suit is filed only in the
month of June 2833; the plaintiff is entitled 'be
43/
35
claim the difference cxf Rs.6,G00/— with interest
three yeast pricxr to 1.6.2993 from 1″‘ dupe ZOQO
till the date of vacating the pr«m.i.5e$..::’biy~V.Vv the
Bank .
16. In the <::ircumsta.nc§es,_:"
cieczree of the trial mutt is"—Ani£.*~difi¢é(1. réfiilriing
that the plaintiff is ""i'»:::':':i~::.:;.1;1.<e':'<:e._ 'z~,..»:s iiigltim the
arrears of rent at "v~A_th<S. ;9:a**:.._e,n"'rzx.£ R.éi{6;000/– pea:
month 1.~ess~._§.}';e gaid by the Bank. to
be caléuiagtgg' 2:111. the Bank has
vactated. * and has delivared the
toav'the….«'p1.aint:.Lff with interest at 18%
'3g3'a."=
iearned counsel for the a.ppe1lant–1ba.nk
"*;_tha.t the Bari}: delivered posse.-ssian on
._ . 6i".'*.?GO5. Therefore the plaintiff is entitled. 1:9
fir"
the arrears from 1.6.2083 upto 30.6.2005
ujjless the amount paid. by the Bank: with interest at
K,—‘
11%} p.a. 5/
19. It is seen by as that without:
any evicixance and pleadings, the 1ha.§f§
q. . . 0L«fl~Y(kM.> I::.»¢”T
111.34% u remarks againfitfj. ‘*
Batik, the same has u#’.,
Accxardingly, the remarks ifi
paragraph 16 of the ‘ mutt is
hereby expungedf’ , , _
20. allowed–in-par:t.
to be refunded.
Sinzilarljf,’ ” ._ H is entitled far
pxoportignattz. cmgté amount in deposit shall
———- –«t3:3.al ccurt ta enable the
to» withdraw the same.
Sd/–%
Judge
501/ -e
Iiudge