SRI. MUZEEB ULLA SHARIFF v. M. SUGUMARAN

(BY SRI. G.K. SHIVA PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka AND:

#1. M. SUGUMARAN, S/O. SRI. M. MUNNY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.E-4/1, BSNL QUARTERS, GROUND FLOOR, KAVALBYRASANDRA, R.T. NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560032. (BY SRI. N. DEVARAJ AND SRI. SABARISH GANDHI, ADVOCATES - ABSENT) THIS C.R.P. IS FILED UNDER SEC.18 OF THE SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE …RESPONDENT - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:25247 CRP No. 24 of 2020 HC-KAR DATED 11.11.2019 PASSED IN SC NO 15171/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MAYO HALL UNIT BENGALURU ALLOWING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 11.11.2019 passed in S.C.No.15171/2019.

#2. Heard Sri. G.K. Shivaprakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have perused the material on record.

#3. The respondent has remained continuously absent.

#4. This Court, on 05.06.2025, had passed following order: "At the request of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, list this matter on 19.06.2025. It is made clear that no further adjournment would be granted in the matter. In the event submissions would - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:25247 CRP No. 24 of 2020 HC-KAR not be made, the interim order would get automatically vacated. Interim order granted earlier stands extended till the next date of hearing."

#5. The respondent was not present on the said date.

#6. Again on 19.06.2025, the matter comes to be adjourned.

#7. On 03.07.2025, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard and there is no representation on behalf of the respondent. In that light, the observation is as follows: "Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent. In the event, the respondent would not be represented on the next date, petition would be disposed on hearing the counsel for the petitioner. List this matter on 10.07.2025. Interim order granted earlier is extended till the next date of hearing." - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:25247 CRP No. 24 of 2020 HC-KAR

#8. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is heard.

#9. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent, the landlord. A suit comes to be instituted by the respondent - landlord seeking eviction of the petitioner. During the subsistence of the suit, it transpires that the petitioner has vacated and delivered vacant position of the property. Thus, the issue is not with regard to eviction, it is with regard to the payment of arrears of rent. The concerned Court on hearing the parties, has passed the following order: plaintiff produced "10. The property documents Ex.P.5 to Ex.P.9 and established that he is the law full owner, and there is no dispute in relationship of land lord and tenant. The Ex.P.10 is the Statement of Account produced by the plaintiff for the defendant paying him rent, (entry highlighted). It is the prima facie evidence of defendant paid rent to plaintiff until the month of May 2018. Thereby, though defendant has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiff herein, there is no strong prima facie case in favour of defendant. In view of Defendant is chronic defaulter to pay rent, even after termination of tenancy, the landlord/plaintiff is entitled for expressed arrears of rent Rs.18,000/- pm as damage and it is reasonable for a house in Bengaluru city. The petitioner has issued legal notice Ex.P.3 on tenancy. The terminating 8/3/2019 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:25247 CRP No. 24 of 2020 HC-KAR defendants neither cross examined the PW1 or entered witness box and allegations made against them in the plaint. Even otherwise the defendant is due for arrears of rent is valid ground to seek ejectment by the landlord. Therefore, I answer Point No.1 in the AFFIRMATIVE. impliedly admitted thereby

#11. POINT No.2:- The Ex.P.1 is the certified copy of the Order sheet, required Rent enhanced every year by 5%. The notice was terminated on 31/03/2019. As on the date, the plaintiff claim that 25% towards use and occupation of the schedule premises. In view of the defendant is chronic defaulter and the Defendant did not enter the witness box, Rs.18,000/- expensed damages is just and reasonable and it shall be paid by the defendant from the date of petition till the date of vacating the premises. In view of it, I answer Point No.2 is also in the AFFIRMATIVE.

#12. POINT NO.3: In view of above discussion and findings, I proceed to pass following: ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby allowed with cost. The defendant is directed to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the plaintiff within 30 days of passing this order. Further, the defendant shall pay for use and occupation of the schedule premises at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per month from the date of suit till deliver of vacant possession of the schedule premises. Draw decree accordingly."

#10. Learned counsel appearing the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not afforded adequate opportunity to submit his defence before the concerned Court. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:25247 CRP No. 24 of 2020 HC-KAR

#11. A perusal at the afore-quoted order would indicate the petitioner was indeed not granted sufficient opportunity to present his defence. The paragraph with regard to Exhibit P3 as quoted hereinabove, would clearly indicate that the petitioner had his defence and was not permitted to submit his defence.

#12. In that light, to afford one opportunity to the petitioner, the matter stands remitted back to the hands of the concerned Court to hear the petitioner afresh and pass necessary orders, in accordance with law.

#13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: (i) (ii) ORDER The petition is allowed. The order dated 11.11.2019 in S.C.No.15171/2019 passed by the Court of V Additional Small Causes Judge and XXIV A.C.M.M., stands quashed. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the hands of the concerned Court to hear the petitioner afresh and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:25247 CRP No. 24 of 2020 HC-KAR pass necessary orders, in accordance with law bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33