AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.D. Waingankar, J.—1. By the judgment and decree dated 15.10.2009, the suit filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 5245/2004 on the file of the XII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, this appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs.
The parties are referred to their ranks before the trial court:-
"The appellants are referred to as ''plaintiffs'' and the respondents as ''defendants''. The case of the plaintiffs as made out in the plaint is that the plaintiffs are Idols-Sri Nagareswara and Sri Kanyakaparameswari temple, No. 27, Jewellers Street, Bangalore. The plaintiffs are the owners of the schedule property. It was let out to one Late Sri. H. Narayana Setty for occupation on a monthly rent of Rs. 13/- in pursuance of the lease agreement dated 1.8.1954. He was residing in the schedule property alongwith his wife and children, who are the defendants. After the death of Narayana Setty, defendant Nos. 1 to 4 being the wife and children of deceased H. Narayana Setty stepped into the shoes of H. Narayana Setty and thereby the defendants became the tenants of the schedule property under the plaintiffs on a monthly rent of Rs. 13/-. The premises was very old and was in a dilapidated condition. The Managing Committee of the temple wanted the schedule premises for the use and activities of the temple. Therefore, the defendants were asked to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants declined to vacate the schedule premises. As such, by issuance of legal notice dated 3.3.2004, the tenancy was terminated and defendants were directed to deliver the vacant possession of the schedule premises. Since the defendants declined, the plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S. No. 5245/2004 on the file of XII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore."
The defendants contested the suit. In their written statement, they have denied that the plaintiffs are the owners of the schedule property; that it was let out to Narayana Setty on a monthly rent; they also denied having paid rent at any point of time by them or H. Narayana Setty to the plaintiffs; the defendants have also contended that the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 12 are in no way connected to the affairs of the temple and that they have no locus-standi to file a suit for ejectment.
In view of the written statement filed by the defendants and the contentions taken therein, the plaintiffs in order to prove their case examined one T.N. Prasanna Kumar -Secretary of the temple committee as PW-1 and since he died before he could be cross-examined, the plaintiffs examined one G.B. Venkatesh-the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the temple as PW-2. Exs-P1 to P21 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, their power of attorney Sri. S. Krishnamurthy was examined as DW-1, Power of Attorney was marked as Ex-D1. The trial court on appreciation of evidence recorded a finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendants, which resulted in dismissal of the suit by judgment and decree dated 15.10.2009. Challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree, the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal.
I have heard the arguments addressed by both the learned counsel appearing for the appellants-plaintiffs and the respondents-defendants. Perused the records.
The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs is that though the plaintiffs produced the lease deed entered between the temple committee and late Sri. H. Narayana Setty, the letter written by Narayan Setty to the Committee as per ExP-1 dated 25.11.1969 requesting to carry out urgent repairs to the property in his occupation and rent receipt book for having paid the rent by H. Narayana Setty, the court below wrongly recorded a finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the jural relationship of landlord and the tenant and hence the learned counsel sought to set-aside the judgment and decree by allowing the appeal.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-defendants would submit that the plaintiffs have not produced documents to show their title over the schedule property, the number of the property shown in the schedule of the plaint is different from the property shown in the alleged lease deed; the plaintiffs have not produced documents for having received rent from H. Narayana Setty or from the defendants and therefore the trial court has rightly recorded a finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the jural relationship of landlord and the tenant. Learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiffs issued a notice terminating the tenancy way back in the year 1985 as per Ex-P-2 and therefore the suit filed after expiry period of 12 years from the date of issuance of termination notice is barred by time, the learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiffs are in no way connected or concerned to the temple or the affairs of the temple and that they have no locus-standi to file a suit. For all these reasons, the learned counsel has sought for dismissal of the appeal as devoid of merits.
Having heard the submission made by both the learned counsel and on perusal of the material on record, the following points would arise for my determination:-
"1. Whether the finding recorded by the court below that there has been no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendants is contrary to evidence on record?
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree as prayed for?"
Re-Point No. 1:-
It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that Sri Nagareswara and Kanyakaparameswari temple is run by a Executive Committee consisting of 12 members; that the schedule property is the property of Sri Nagareswara and Kanyakaparameswari temple. It was let out to the grand father of defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and father-in-law of defendant No. 1 Sri. M. Hanumantha Setty in the year 1954 in pursuance of lease deed dated 1.8.1954 marked as Ex-P-8. It is further submitted that after the death of original tenant- M. Hanumantha Setty his son H. Narayana Setty and after his death defendants being the wife and children of Late Narayana Setty have stepped into the shoes of H. Narayana Setty and became the tenants of the schedule property. It is true that the property shown in Ex-P8 lease agreement is Door No. 3, F. No. 2 Street whereas the property in plaint schedule is property No. 20 situated at F. No. 2 Street, Thoppa Mudaliar Street Cross, Bangalore. The lease agreement is signed by one Satyanarayana on behalf of the temple and by Hanumantha Setty. The defendants are not disputing that they are in occupation of the schedule property. When the plaintiffs have specifically contended and produced lease deed Ex-P8 that the property was let out to M. Hanumantha Setty as tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 13/-, initially, it is for the defendants to say in what capacity, they are in occupation of the schedule property, but the defendants have utterly failed to establish their status in the schedule property. They are not claiming to be owner of the schedule property. They have not spelt out to whom they are accountable or answerable. In that case, the evidence placed on record by the plaintiff is sufficient to hold that the defendants being the wife and children of H. Narayana Setty the original tenant have stepped into the shoes of H. Narayana Setty and became the tenant of the schedule premises. The plaintiffs have produced the delivery book for the year 1985, wherein rent receipts issued to various tenants including H. Narayana Setty is recorded. The receipts were issued to H. Narayana on 7.9.1985, 9.11.1985, 14.12.1985, 15.1.1986, 19.2.1986, 2.6.1986, 18.7.1986, 11.8.1986 and 8.9.1986 under Exs-P9 to P17 which find place in delivery book for the year 1985-1986. The plaintiffs have also produced the resolution book as per Ex-P19 wherein the resolutions of the managing committee of the temple are recorded on different dates. From the resolution book, it is abundantly clear that the temple is being managed by managing committee since 1985. Thus all these documents are sufficient to hold that the plaintiff temple- managed by the managing committee is the owner of the schedule property, which has been let out to defendants on monthly rent. Further PWs-1 and 2, who are the Secretaries of the managing committee of the temple have also spoken in their evidence that the temple is the owner of the schedule property which is in occupation of the defendants as tenants. It is not the case of the defendants that the temple is not owner of the schedule property nor it is the case of the defendants that some other person is the owner of the schedule property. In the absence of any such contention taken by the defendants, the oral and documentary evidence on record is sufficient to establish the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The trial court, without taking note of Ex-P8 lease deed, Ex-P-1 letter written by Narayana Setty, Exs-P9-17 the delivery book for the year 1985 and the name of H. Narayana Setty shown therein has wrongly held that the plaintiffs failed to prove the jural relationship of landlord and the tenant. The finding to that effect by the trial court is contrary to the evidence on record and therefore it is liable to be set-aside.
During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the defendants submitted that the notice of termination of tenancy was issued in the year 1985 and therefore the time runs from the date of issuance of a notice. Since the suit is filed beyond the period of 12 years from the date of issuance of notice, the suit is liable to be dismissed as barred by time. This contention taken by the defendants has been negatived by the trial court while answering Addl. Issue No. 1 by assigning cogent reason. The finding on the Addl. Issue No. 1 is not challenged by the defendants. Even otherwise, the suit of the plaintiffs is based on the termination notice dated 1.3.2004 as per Ex-P4 and as such the suit filed by the plaintiffs is well within time. Further it is to be noted that the defendants have executed Power of Attorney in favour of DW-1 to look after the court proceeding on their behalf and it is the Power of Attorney holder of the defendant Nos. 1 to 4, who is prosecuting the case for the reasons known to the defendants. Further, it is submitted by the counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants that the structure is no more in existence and the schedule property is now a vacant site being used by the general public for dumping garbage. Though no concrete evidence has been produced to substantiate the same, I have no reason to reject the said submission made by learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs. The structure must have been constructed much prior to 1954, the year the first notice to termination of tenancy was issued as per Ex P-2. It was an old structure. By letter dated 25.11.1969 as per Ex-P1 addressed to Nagareshwara temple, H. Narayan original tenant had requested the temple authorities that the house wherein he was residing requires urgent repairs as it was in a dilapidated condition and that the roof may collapse at any moment. As such, though there exists no structure and the defendants are not at all residing in the schedule property, they have executed power of attorney to a third person who is taking keen interest to prosecute the case for the reasons best known to the defendants. Thus the plaintiffs by oral and documentary evidence have established ownership over the schedule property, the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The Court below failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. The approach of the Court below is perverse and contrary to evidence placed on record. As such, the judgment and decree passed by the court below are liable to be set-aside.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants- plaintiffs is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 15.10.2009 in O.S. No. 5245/2004 on the file of XXII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore are hereby set-aside. O.S. No. 5245/2004 is decreed. The respondents/defendants are hereby directed to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the schedule property in favour of the appellants-plaintiffs managing committee of the plaintiff temple within a period of one month from the date of this judgment, failing which, the plaintiffs are at liberty to enforce the order.