Smt.M.Sumathi v. Sri.R.Dhruva & Ors.

This appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 26.09.2005, passed by the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in O.S.No.4092/2003.

2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the Trial Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and has directed the defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs within three months and enquiry regarding future mesne profits also has been ordered.

3. Aggrieved by that, the appellant–defendant has 3 filed this appeal.

4. The respondents are the plaintiffs in the Trial Court. The parties will be referred to with reference to their rank in the original suit O.S.No.4092/2003.

5. Briefly stated the facts are: The respondents - plaintiffs filed suit in O.S.No. 4092/2003 for ejection of the defendant and for mesne profits. The case of the respondents - plaintiffs was that the first plaintiff is the husband of the second plaintiff. The first plaintiff is the owner of the property bearing No.78/707, MIG, 4th Phase, Yelahanka, Bangalore. During the relevant period, the first plaintiff was bed-ridden and therefore, the second plaintiff leased the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant. An agreement dated

1.1.1998 was entered into between the second plaintiff and the defendant. The agreement was got prepared by the defendant and the second plaintiff signed the agreement. After three years, the defendant did not 4 vacate the premises. Therefore, legal notice was issued calling upon the defendant to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs and to pay the damages at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month. The tenancy was terminated with effect from

31.12.2000. The defendant did not vacate the premises and approached the Civil Court in O.S.No.249/2001 for permanent injunction. The first plaintiff initiated criminal proceedings against the defendant and others for forgery. The filing of the suit was delayed as the defendant tried to settle the matter. The lease agreement dated 1.1.1998 has been manipulated with several interpolations and manipulations. The defendant is squatting on the property illegally. Therefore, the plaintiffs have prayed for ejection of the defendant and mesne profits.

6. The defendant has filed his written statement denying the plaint averments and contending that the plaintiffs were present at the time lease agreement and 5 the document was typed on the stamp paper brought by the first plaintiff. The first plaintiff did not sign the agreement saying that he is a Government servant and therefore, the document was executed by the second plaintiff for herself and on behalf of the first plaintiff. The suit schedule premises was in a dilapidated condition and it was not fit for use and occupation. Therefore, the building was renovated at the cost of the defendant. It was agreed that the cost of renovation shall be paid to the defendant after three years and the defendant shall vacate and deliver possession to the plaintiffs. The defendant in her legal notice has stated that she is ready to vacate the premises if the plaintiffs pay the cost of renovation of Rs.5,00,000/- as per the agreement dated 1.1.1998. The plaintiffs have filed false case and created all sorts of troubles. It is stated, when the plaintiffs tried to dispossess the defendant, she filed O.S.No.249/2001 and obtained temporary injunction. Even today, Rs.5,00,000/- is paid towards renovation, the defendant is 6 ready to vacate the premises. Therefore, the defendant has prayed for dismissal of the suit.

7. The Trial Court has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the plaintiffs legally and validly terminated the tenancy of the defendant in respect of suit schedule property?

2. Whether the defendant proves that she renovated the suit premises by spending Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs.Five lakhs)?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs as sought for?

4. What decree or order?

8. The Trial Court has answered issue No.1 in the affirmative, issue No.2 in the negative and consequently has decreed the suit of the plaintiffs directing the defendant to vacate and deliver vacant possession to the plaintiffs within three months and also for mesne profits. 7

9. Aggrieved by that, the appellant–defendant has filed this appeal.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment and decree cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the Trial Court has failed to consider the evidence on record in proper perspective. Further he submitted that it was agreed between the plaintiffs and the defendant that the defendant should renovate the premises and occupy it and at the time of vacating the premises, the plaintiffs would repay the amount spent towards renovation. The defendant has spent a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards renovation and if the plaintiffs pay Rs.5,00,000/-, the defendant is ready to vacate the premises. Further he submitted that the Trial Court has erred while holding that the lease agreement has been manipulated. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and decree cannot be sustained in law. 8

11. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the impugned judgment and decree does not call for interference. He also submitted that the Trial Court on proper consideration of the material on record has rightly decreed the suit holding that the defendant has failed to prove that she has spent a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards renovation and the document has been forged and therefore, the impugned judgment and decree does not call for interference. He also submitted that the appellant has not paid rents from 1.1.1998 till

1.11.2007 and the lease agreement has been forged and charge-sheet has been filed against the defendant and others. The lease was for three years and it has come to an end on 31.12.2000 and the defendant is squatting on the property unnecessarily and therefore, the impugned judgment and decree does not call for interference.

12. I have carefully considered the submissions 9 made by the learned counsel for the parties.

13. The points that arise for my consideration are,

1. Whether the Trial Court was justified in holding that the tenancy has been duly terminated?

2. Whether the defendant has proved that she has renovated the building by spending Rs.5,00,000/-?

3. Whether the impugned judgment and decree calls for interference? Point No.1:

14. It is relevant to note, the suit is for ejection and mesne profits. It is not in dispute that the lease agreement dated 1.1.1998 has been entered into between the second plaintiff and the defendant and the lease was for a period of three years. The lease has expired on

31.12.2000. Thereafter, the plaintiffs have requested the defendant to vacate the premises and legal notice exhibits 10 P1 and P2 have been issued terminating the tenancy. Inspite of that, the defendant has not vacated the premises. Ex.P.9 is the lease agreement dated 1.1.1998. It is alleged Exhibits D.1, D.2, D.3 and D.4, have been inserted by the defendant. Charge-sheet has been filed. It is not appropriate to discuss about it. Suffice it to say, the tenancy has been duly terminated and the lease period has come to an end. Therefore, the defendant cannot continue in the premises. The Trial Court was justified in holding that the tenancy has been duly terminated. Point No.1 answered accordingly. Point No.2

15. The defendant contends that she has spent a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for renovation of the building and she is entitled for refund of the said amount. The defendant has produced exhibits D.1 to D.6. Ex.D.1 is the photograph. It shows old structure, Ex.D.2 shows new structure. Exhibits D.3 and D.4 are paper publications. 11 Ex.D.5 is the letter addressed to the Assistant Executive Engineer, KHB, Yelahanka, requesting the allot adjacent piece of land. Ex.D.6 is the postal cover. Except these documents, nothing is produced to show that the defendant has spent a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for renovation. Absolutely there is nothing on record to show that the defendant has spent Rs.5,00,000/- for renovation the building. Therefore, the Trial Court was justified in holding that the defendant has failed to prove that she has spent a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards renovation of the building. Point No.2 answered, accordingly. Point No.3:

16. The defendant is a tenant. The tenancy has been duly terminated. The defendant cannot continue in the premises. The Trial Court on proper consideration of the material on record has rightly decreed suit. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree does not call for interference. There is no merit in this appeal and 12 therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.

17. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs in the circumstances of the case. The defendant is granted time till 31.8.2012 to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs. Sd/- JUDGE Bss.