The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14879 RSA No. 457 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 457 OF 2025 (EJE) BETWEEN: KSR WOOD INDUSTRIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETORS BEGAUM DILSHAD SHAKILA, W/O. LATE JANAB R. SHAKIL AHMED, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.23, MAIN ROAD, GARGESHWARI VILLAGE, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT. REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, R. SAGHEER AHMED, S/O LATE K.S. REHAMATHULLA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT MAIN ROAD, GARGESHWARI VILLAGE, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 110. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. Y.K. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NARAYANA SHARMA, ADVOCATE) AND:
Legal Reasoning
9. There is no dispute regarding relationship between the plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff terminated the tenancy by issuing notice. Even after termination of tenancy, the defendant continue in possession of the suit schedule properties. Both the Courts below have held that plaintiff terminated tenancy by issuing valid notice. Both the Courts below have rightly passed the impugned judgments. 10. I do not find any error in the impugned judgments or any substantial question of law arise for consideration. 11. The defendant filed an undertaking affidavit of the G.P.A, wherein the G.P.A. holder of the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14879 RSA No. 457 of 2025 appellant/defendant, stated that the defendant had undertaken to deliver the vacant possession of the premises on or before 31.03.2026 and will not sublet and create 3rd Party interest on the suit schedule property. It is stated that the defendant paid the rent upto 31.07.2017 and undertakes to pay the entire arrears of rent within four weeks. 12. As the defendant has undertaken to vacate the premises on or before 31.03.2026, in view of the same, nothing survives for consideration in this appeal. 13. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-
Arguments
1. SRI. JANAB MUDHASIR IQBAL, S/O LATE JANAB B IQBAL AHMED, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14879 RSA No. 457 of 2025 2. SRI. JANAB MUTHAHIR IQBAL, S/O LATE JANAB B IQBAL AHMED, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING AT MAIN ROAD, GARGESHWARI VILLAGE, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 110. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.12.2024. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, T. NARASIPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.03.2024 PASSED IN OS.NO.4/2020, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, T. NARASIPURA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2024 passed in R.A No. 27/2024 by the Senior Civil Judge, T.Narasipura and the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2024 passed in O.S.No.4/2020 by the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, T.Narasipura. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14879 RSA No. 457 of 2025 2. For convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. The appellant was the defendant and the respondents were the plaintiffs, where the plaintiffs filed a suit for relief of ejectment and recovery of possession against the defendant. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: It is a case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the open commercial space, bearing Khatha No.167 of Gargeshwari Village, Kasaba Hobli, T.Narasipura Taluk, Mysore District. 4. The said suit schedule property was leased out in favour of one Sri. Janab Shakeel Ahamed, the husband of the defendant under the registered lease deed dated 01.08.1992 for a period of 25 years and the lease period was expired on 31.07.2017. Even after the expiry of the lease period, the defendant continued to be in possession of the suit scheduled property. The plaintiffs issued a notice, terminating the defendant's tenancy. Despite - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14879 RSA No. 457 of 2025 terminating the tenancy, the defendant continued to be in possession of the suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for ejectment and accordingly, pray to decree the suit. 5. Defendant filed a written statement contending that the plaintiffs are not the absolute owners of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property was belonged to one Sri. B. Mohamed Fazlul Huq and Sri. B.Iqbal Ahmad and the aforesaid persons had leased the suit schedule property in favour of Sri. P.Shakeel Ahmed and his father, Sri.K.S.Rahamathulla for establishing K.S.R Wood Industries, a saw mill industry. It is contended that the original lessor had got issued quit notice dated 21.04.2018. the said notice was not replied by the plaintiffs and others. There is no cause of action to file the suit. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the suit. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14879 RSA No. 457 of 2025 6. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, recasted the issues. The plaintiffs to substantiate their case examined plaintiff No.1 was PW-1 and marked 9 documents as Ex.P-1 to P-9. On the other hand, the G.P.A. holder of the defendant was examined as DW-1, examined one witness as DW-2 and marked 12 documents as Ex-D1 to Ex-D12. The trial Court on the assessment of the verbal and documentary evidence, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs with cost and directed the defendant to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs within three months from the date of the order. If the defendant failed to vacate the suit schedule property within the prescribed time, the plaintiffs are at the liberty to vacate the defendant from the suit schedule property in due process of law. 7. The defendant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.4/2020 preferred an appeal in R.A. No.27/2024, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, T.Narasipura. The First Appellate Court, on reassessment - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14879 RSA No. 457 of 2025 of the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 07.12.2024. The defendant, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendant and perused the records.
Decision
ORDER The appeal is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A. No.1/2025 does not survive for consideration. VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33 Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE