Sri Dawood Shariff vs Sri B M Mohd Noor on 17 June, 2008

1

IN THE HIGH comm' OF KARNATAKA AT  

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY»VO.I§  2:::oL3    A "

BEFORE?  * 
THE HONBLE MR.JUsT1<jE (3 
REGULAR FIRST APPEz';§:'NGA?37 'oF»29i)8

BETWEEN :

Sri.Dawood 31231111' ' .

Aged 60 years  V _    _  "
S/:3 SI'i.}¢':1§t"§V1"riN§'<_«'2£i'L'£fi-#5';   ' V
At Sephia  PI'1flia1'f.? 
And   *?f€ffliS&S ' "

Site N.os.Fs4';<S; 8; E2V;)Iv<)13«::;'ty _'
Sjy'.N0.'88;'3 '    " __
Situated .3fenka%.eshap1"niani
Bangalore 553 045.,  ...APPELLAN'I'

 (35: 3:1: M;G.e.Iaveed Ahmed Khan, Adv)

 NW
S/3.2008 passed in 08
No. 154461200 the XXVI Addl. City Civil

and VS¢ss:i'dizsV_"J1;dgAé;;_» Métyo Hall, Bangalore (CCI~I--20)

 ..   the suit "" 'fbr possession and future mesne

 pmjms% [%4   

  .' 'fhough this mattei' is listed far admission,

'A 'V V' consent sf learned Counsei for the appellant as

  $3 leamed Cxmnsei for the oaveator, this matter is

 '  "  on merits. 'i'h¢ material placed before thifs Court

9./'



is sufficient to dispose of the case at the 'pf

admission.

4. The parties wiil be 

the status in the Trial Cmlrt  .

5. The conte1'1j£fjon,ef t1;e"£he Trial
Court is as foliowsz  < E V V'  %'
The  sbsolute owner of

the premises  6, property Suzvey

N088 -»:13';Eefyksteshpuram, Bangalore-560

G45, and  c.vefends:i't.:f1erei11 is the tenant in respect of

 A_ the_»»'-3peei12isesV.'  is morefully described in the

 *sV:,heduJee"~s1f;efeunder (hereinafter zeferred to as the

 The defendant is the tenant in the

«:_ps"emises on monthly rent of RS.75Q/- and the

VA  commences from 20th of each month tn the 1931

A'   0f';sue<:eedi11g month of English Calendar. The schedule

u premises is nowresiclezztial premises. The plaintiff'

states that he requires the schedule premises for his

9/



4

own bonafide use and occupation and to start the

Computer Insfitute.

The plaintiff further states that he   

a. legal notice dated 16.08.2001 .tei'I}:1i.n.;;£1iI1g:« 

ef the defendanton 20.09.2001 end"eelIed@:.pen'~ 

vacate and deliver the vacant'-vetgesseseiexj ef seheduie 'V

premises on 21.09.i20Q_}. _He_  steites" that the
defendant despite receipt'-def   has not

  therein. The copy of
the leged__net;iee__.d;efted"-..§6.'i)8.200}, the pestal receipt,

acIe1.eznz1edgdhei}t'e .':i'or."  served the notice dated

.    receipt of letter sent under

  are all produced aiong with the

pleim.  Apiaintifl" submits that the mnancy of the

  Jdefe;1d311;t herein has been terminated and therefore the

 -_d.efeu*1de;1t becomes the trespasser in the schedule

Vt  'xitemisee. The defendant is also iiable te pay the

damages at the rate of f~2s.3.00{)/-- per month from the
Q]!



5

date of terminafion of tenancy till the date of

schedule premises. The cause of action   

defendant has failed ta quit, Vacate, 2 

vacant possession of the schedixlet'-pfemiSe.s '~iz1:s;5it'e..Vei'

receipt of Iegaf. notice dated'  3... '    
6. The defendant has 'w_:_-ittetzi' szmemen: in
the Court below as  t' V V

The afleg:-itiens  were al} denied

as false. Thettes1¢fendatxjt« ~.f_1_.1.".t1j1er states that the plajntifi"
is the é1bee]uteV..  the premises bearing Site

Ne.1§'g4', 5 .ef 'tpreperty bearing survey No.88/.3,

  vvenkateshpuram, K.G.Ha}}i, Bangalore-

__ further states that the defendant is a

V _ tee:-int   of the premiees described in the

 on a monthly lfiflt of Rs.750/-- and that the

--   commences fiem 20131 of each month it} 19th of

" "7s'ueeeeeii2"zg month. The echeduie premises is a non-

residential premises. The defendant took; the schedule

1

'Z/'



premises in the year 1981 to run a school. At the time of

inception ef tenancy the rate of rent was Rs.5{).G,/_

month and the defendant has also paid__  'l _

deposit of Rs.5,000/~« te the pIaiI;j;ifi'. The » 

enhanced the rent from  

periodically. The defendant'  'etetes . file    *

building comprises of   the

ground fleor is  .  ldlefelndant to run the

above   and style of "SOPHIA
NURSERY PRIMA§§l3V.:l§lGH SCHOOL" which is aided

and Vreeoglzijeed. _¥3yAA'f_l1e"'llVState Government. Kejmada

  Sehoel 'iS""a1so run 2311 the premises. The

   that the plajntifi' issued a legal notice

  has suitably replied for the same.

t' The fmdings of the Trial Court is as under:

'A      The Trial Court has framed the fofiowing issues:

"1. Whether the plaintiff prove
that he has validity terminated the
Q2"



"F

tenancy of the defendant ever the
schedule p1'€I1}iS€S in aomrdance 

law?

2. Whether the  :g    

entitled to future mfajans  « _
damages at: ¥€s.3.()(}:%:',?/ 
prayed'?   t t' "  K

3. whet1iez{#it*g1}g   is
entitled t<3*"t},jte I'3iiéI""s§ for?" 

 _ H  hat Dééme or Order?
Thé' "answered the above issues as

foliows: xx

 Iaéua Netti' -----  Affixmafive

  _ Iss§§1¢é"1~{o;:}2 ; maimir is entitled for future
  V  Mesne profit at the rate
of 1,000/~ per month

"issue No.3 : Afiitmafive

V H Issue No.4 : As per the final Order.
K./t



8

On behalf of pzainen'. the plaintiff is   

PW}. Ex.P1 to P32 are  

examined as DWI and othef; tied' 'T  " Lfweiee.

examined as DW2 and DW3 1  to.__D5. 

The Trial  that  Hcxk-'rfendant
admitted the re1afions§1i11:ef.   tenant. He
has also  from 2031
of    ef succeeding month
and _/e... During the evidence of
Will, t1eeVv..efif:ce   netice is marked as Ex.P3.

The _; Vackfiewledgaent for service cf nofice is

  L:Aa,s% Ex.P4. The plaintiff issued a notice on

%:e;:}e«;e  as per the netzice, the plaintiff has

V' .V te1:ei'ina£ed'fhe tenancy of defendant and on the expiry of

H K  ' "V.:e"L1:er1a:;c§}; the plaintiff demanded the defendant to deiiver

--   possessicm of the schedule premises on 215*

 '  " "deg of September 2001. The defendant is liable to pay

damages at the rate of Re.3,{)OO/-- per month finm the
Q;



9

date of termination of tenancy till the dfiffilidéiflt '~Vf3tCé{¢S

and hand over the possession of the   

The Trial Court has come to the .oonciiioi'oo'jV  K V'

termination notice issued by  -- 

vaiid and the Court: has aisooozxge to the  ' L'

the defandant is liablo to  "at-..1:h=<:* rata of
Rs. 1,ooo/- per mont:h;   has decreed the

suit diroctsing t'r:;:o..   deliver vacant

possessio-*1, :';{'.   to the piaintfif
within    was also directed to

pay mesfié'-firofif rate of Rs. 1,000 / - per month

 v   date  mxiiz' till handing over of possession of

   to the piajntjfi'.

 arj' . ieamed Counsel for the appeflant fairiy

 oubxglitiéo that he mquires four years time to vacate the

_  firomises in question, since he 13 ruzming 3. schoo}.

T  "Except this, loamzod CO{1I"iS€I.f£}I" the appellant does not

urge any other wounds.

Q/_



10

9. Learned Counsel for the caveatofstibizijtged 

that the appellant is not rzmfipg any" I;§e" 

schedule premises and  ..fizé;.i_'beV'g,ré:i'te&*I1io

vacate the schedule premises.'-..

10. In ordtixr' lac,  V'V»"myse]f' H e1s V to the
soundness of the decisiez; "  below, I have

examiraed the flexipuéned  The tenancy in

question  EX.P.3 is copy of the
legal  ackfiewledgement for having
receives the    court has held that the

teI:ni:1atA1'01"¥"ofAtefiarieyés Iegai and Valid. Even in the

. V. ufged  memorandum of appea} it is net

I-i1ici_i!:ai'tc':§i«~..1f1{;%z£?-i;??1e notice issued is defective. Such being

the"-seeasve,' Iifde not find any infizmity in the impugaed

 I 1. However, since learned Csunsei for the

  -apspeflant has sought fer time to vacate the premises as

A' they are rumling a School, in my view, sufficient} time

42/



E}

has to he wanted and 8CC(}I'diI1gl}". time   

the end of December 2009 to»e«~.v,z.'4'F'?*"'=1't:11A'£0 {fie landdord /' respondent.

V C)” The is directed to file an
by way of undertaking that he
V ‘ vacate the. schedule premises.

éiiifeé
Eeefigg