M/S Z.K.Enterprises vs. Sri.Mahaboob Pasha
Original PDF →Facts
These two Civil Revision Petitions (CRPs) were filed by M/s Z.K. Enterprises and Sri Imtiyaz Shareef (petitioners/tenants) against the judgments and decrees passed by the Small Causes Court, Bengaluru, in SC No. 15212/2021 and SC No. 15068/2022. The petitions arise from eviction suits filed by Sri Mahaboob Pasha (respondent/landlord). The petitioners were tenants in two premises under rent agreements dated 02.12.2020, for 11 months, paying monthly rents of Rs. 12,500/- and Rs. 10,500/- respectively, with an advance of Rs. 1,25,000/- for each. The landlord terminated the tenancy by a notice dated 10.10.2020. The Small Causes Court found the petitioners in arrears of rent and directed payment of arrears and damages. The petitioners are aggrieved by these orders.
Held
The High Court held that the scope of revision is limited to examining the legality and correctness of the Trial Court's order. It noted that a rental agreement existed between the parties, which was marked as evidence. The legal notice for termination of tenancy and postal acknowledgments were also on record. The Court observed that while the petitioner produced some documents (Ex.D1 to D3, including an interim order in OS No. 5519/2021 and GST registration), they failed to produce any documents to prove rent payments after the termination of tenancy. The Trial Court considered the date of termination and the non-production of rent payment documents to determine arrears and damages. The Court found no error in the Trial Court's assessment, particularly as the rental agreement and termination notice were not disputed by the petitioner. The Court also noted that the petitioner had paid Rs. 23,000/- twice after termination, which should be deducted from payments made to the landlord, and that a total advance of Rs. 2,50,000/- was paid. Therefore, the revision petitions lacked merit.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Trial Court committed an error in passing the judgments without considering documents produced by the petitioner, making the orders illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law? (Question of law and fact, turning on the appreciation of evidence and procedural fairness). The petitioner argued that the Trial Court solely relied on the landlord's documents, ignored the petitioner's evidence, and failed to consider that the landlord troubled the petitioner, hindering business operations. The petitioner also claimed regular rent payments via postal order. 2. Whether the Trial Court correctly determined the arrears of rent and directed payment of damages, considering the evidence on record? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of rent agreements and evidence of payment). The respondent argued that rents were not paid after termination, except for a partial payment of Rs. 69,000/- and subsequent payments from January to June 2023, as directed by the Court. The respondent contended that the Trial Court correctly considered the termination notice and the lack of documentary proof of rent payments by the petitioner.
Sections Cited
Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R
The parties are one and the same in both the petitions and hence, the said petitions are taken up together for common disposal.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
These two revision petitions are arising out of the judgment passed by the Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru in S.C.Nos.15212/2021 and 15068/2022 dated 01.02.2023 respectively.
The factual matrix in both the cases that the revision petitioner is a tenant in respect of the premises which is shown in the schedule on monthly rent of Rs.12,500/- and Rs.10,500/- respectively in both the premises in terms of the rent agreement dated 02.12.2020 and the tenant had paid the advance amount NC: 2023:KHC:26653 of Rs.1,25,000/- to each premises and the tenancy is for a period of 11 months commencing from 01.12.2020. The landlord has terminated the tenancy by issuing the notice dated 10.10.2020. There is no dispute with regard to the rental agreement between the parties. It is the contention of the landlord that after termination of the tenancy, rents are not paid and the Trial Court also while considering the material on record comes to the conclusion that he is in arrears of rent for a period of four months in S.C.No.15212/2021 that is Rs.50,000/- and also directed to pay the damages of Rs.50,000/- from the date of termination and so also in S.C.No.15068/2022, the plaintiff is entitled for arrears of rent for a period of five months at the rate of Rs.10,500/- per month and also directed to pay the damages at Rs.20,000/- from the date of termination till the realization. Being aggrieved by these orders, the present revision petitions are filed before this Court. NC: 2023:KHC:26653
The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the Trial Court has committed an error in passing the judgments without considering the documents which have been marked by the respondent and the said orders are illegal, arbitrary and capricious and it is not sustainable in the eye of law since the Trial Court only relied upon the documents produced by the landlord. It is contended that from the date of inception of tenancy, the respondent was troubling the petitioner by one or the other reason and even the petitioner is refrained from running his business in the schedule premises during the tenancy tenure and he was unable to run his business and hence, he has filed the suit in O.S.No.5519/2021 wherein an interim order was granted and the same also not considered by the Trial Court. The counsel for the revision petitioner also contends that he was regularly paying the rent by way of postal order without default and hence, the impugned NC: 2023:KHC:26653 orders passed by the Trial Court in both the suits are liable to be set aside.
Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that after the termination of the tenancy, rents are not paid except payment of Rs.69,000/- subsequent to the termination and when this Court directed to pay the arrears of rent, rents are paid from January 2023 to June 2023. The counsel also would submits that the Trial Court has not committed any error and taken note of the notice issued for termination of tenancy on 10.10.2021 and the same is also not disputed by the revision petitioner and the Trial Court in detail discussed the same.
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record, it is clear that this Court has to examine only legality and correctness of the order of the Trial Court and admittedly, there is a rental agreement between the NC: 2023:KHC:26653 parties and the said document is also marked before the Trial Court and the legal notice and postal acknowledgments were also marked in both the cases with regard to termination of tenancy. The respondent produced the documents of Ex.D1 to D3 that is an interim order passed in O.S.No.5519/2021 and also Ex.D2 – certified copy of PCR and GST registration certificate at Ex.D3 and though he claimed that he has paid the rent up to date, not produced any documents before the Trial Court. The Trial Court having taken note of date of termination and also non-production of any documents for having paid the rent after termination determined the arrears of rent and also directed the petitioners herein to pay the damages at Rs.12,500/- per month in S.C.No.15212/2021 and Rs.10,500/- per month in S.C.No.15068/2022 and the same is also based on the documentary evidence of rental agreement and both of them have not disputed the fact that there was a rental agreement between them which was marked before the NC: 2023:KHC:26653 Trial Court and when the petitioner herein has not produced any documents for having paid the rent except payment of Rs.23,000/- that is evident from bank statement and also another two payments of Rs.23,000/- that is after termination and the same has to be deducted out of the payment made in favour of the landlord and also admittedly there was a deposit of Rs.1,25,000/- each in respect of both the premises i.e., an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid to the landlord and also no dispute to the said fact. The scope of revision is very limited. When already the Trial Court has considered the rental agreement and also termination of notice and the same is acknowledged by the petitioner herein, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in passing an order of ejection against the petitioner herein and hence, there is no merit in the revision petitions to set aside the impugned orders of the Trial Court.
In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: NC: 2023:KHC:26653 ORDER The revision petitions are dismissed. The revision petitioner is given three months time to quit and vacate the premises and also the landlord is given permission to adjust the arrears of the rent in advance amount which he is having to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- in respect of both the premises. If any short of rent, the landlord is at liberty to file an execution petition against the revision petitioner herein. The revision petitioner herein is also directed to pay the rent regularly till vacating the premises without committing any default. JUDGE
SN
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.