Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 963 (KAR)

A. Nagendra v. K. Nagaraj

2011-09-26

N.KUMAR

body2011
Judgment : 1. This is a plaintiff’s appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court which has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for injunction. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the plaint. 3. The subject-matter of the suit is the schedule premises situated in front of ITA notified area belonging to the first defendant. The case of the plaintiff is that he is proprietor of Kapali Traders situated at Krishanrajapuram. Bangalore-36. He has taken the shop premises on lease basis from the first defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 450/- per month. The first defendant is the owner of the premises. He has executed a lease agreement in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has taken the possession of the said premises on 20-8-1990. From that day onwards, he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. He has paid rents regularly to the first defendant. Rent receipts are produced. Licence is issued by ITA notified area, copies of which are also produced. Two weeks before the filing of the suit, the second defendant who is the Chief Officer of the ITA Notified Area started to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the schedule shop premises by the plaintiff. The second defendant has no manner of right, title or interest over the suit shop premises. The first defendant is the owner of the shop premises and plaintiff is paying rents regularly. The second defendant along with his men warned the plaintiff not to run the provision stores in the said shop premises and he has threatened forceable eviction on the ground that the suit shop premises belongs to the ITA notified area. The second defendant has taken some of the blank signatures on the blank papers stating that the same will be utilized if plaintiff does not vacate the schedule premises. The plaintiff has clearly stated that said property exclusively belongs to the first defendant. He is paying rents regularily. The second defendant is acting at the instance of the local people and at the behest of the sub-ordinates only with an intention to harass the plaintiff to see that his name and his business is spoiled. The plaintiff is a helpless person and he cannot withstand the high handed action of the defendant. He is paying rents regularily. The second defendant is acting at the instance of the local people and at the behest of the sub-ordinates only with an intention to harass the plaintiff to see that his name and his business is spoiled. The plaintiff is a helpless person and he cannot withstand the high handed action of the defendant. Therefore, he filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the second defendant from interfering with the schedule shop premises. The second defendant filed the written statement contesting the claim. He denied all the allegations made in the pliant. The lease agreement and the rent receipts produced are all created documents for the purpose of the case. The first defendant is not the owner of the premises in question as contended by the plaintiff and the lease set up by the plaintiff was denied. It is the specific case of the second defendant that the shop was auctioned under Section 72(2) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act on 11-9-1990 fixing the terms and conditions of auction of the said shop and called the public to participate in the public auction. The auction was held on 11-9-1990. The plaintiff was the highest bidder. The rent was fixed at Rs. 2850/-. Possession was also delivered to the plaintiff. The lease was for a period of five years from October 1990. The plaintiff also executed an agreement in favour of the second defendant. The plaintiff was paying the rents regularly. Subsequently, he stopped paying the agreed monthly rents. He is in arrears of rent from October, 1990 till date of the filing of the written statement amounting to Rs. 89,750/-. Therefore, the second defendant issued a notice dated 27-10-1990 calling upon the plaintiff to pay the arrears of rent. The plaintiff after receiving the said notice undertook to pay any arrears of rent in this letter dated 25-4-1991 on or before 28-4-1991. But he did not pay any arrears of rent. He committed breach of the undertaking. On 9-5-1991 the Revenue Inspector had gone to the shop. It was seized and mahazar was drawn. The plaintiff has paid Rs. 7,000/- on 9-5-1991. After deducting Rs. 7,000/-the plaintiff is in arrears of Rs. 82,750/-as on the date of the suit plus interest at the rate of 6% per month. He committed breach of the undertaking. On 9-5-1991 the Revenue Inspector had gone to the shop. It was seized and mahazar was drawn. The plaintiff has paid Rs. 7,000/- on 9-5-1991. After deducting Rs. 7,000/-the plaintiff is in arrears of Rs. 82,750/-as on the date of the suit plus interest at the rate of 6% per month. Thereafter, one another notice dated 3-6-1991 was issued to him to clear the arrears of rent, copy of which is also produced. The second defendant did not interfere with the plaintiffs possession as alleged. The first defendant has nothing to do with the suit shop and he is not a necessary party to the proceedings. He is unnecessarily dragged into the suit. The plaintiff is the permanent defaulter in payment of rents. They have no objection for the plaintiff to continue his occupation provided he pays arrears of rent upto date and also agrees to pay the current rents regularly. Therefore, they contended that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.