Smt. Anusuya Bai vs Sri Veeranjaneya Temple

Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.—Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent. This petition is arising out of the judgment passed in S.C. No. 15514/2012 before the XVII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall, Bangalore where an order of eviction has been passed against this petitioner.

The defendant/petitioner is said to be a tenant under the plaintiff/respondent in respect of portion of premises bearing No. 8, Muthyalamma Temple "G" Street, Thimmaiah Road, Bangalore on a monthly rent of Rs. 900/-. Notice was served to the plaintiff on 16.10.2012. After service of notice and filing of the suit seeking ejectment of the defendant from the suit schedule property, the matter was contested and Trial Court raised 3 points for determination and held that there is due service of notice for termination of tenancy and directed the defendant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit property within one month from the date of judgment. Further, it directed the defendant to pay cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the plaintiff and to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 900/- per month from 10.1.2012 till the date of handing over the vacant possession of the premises to the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has no right to file the suit for ejectment or locus standi. They have issued notice without there being any authority of law and they do not represent the temple. Hence, petitioner has sought for allowing the petition.

The learned counsel for the respondent submits that there are several admissions admitting the relationship. Petitioner is said to be defaulter and Trial Court has held that there is due service of notice as per Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act and hence, there is no illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court.

It is seen in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court there is an observation that there is due service of notice and also petitioner is said to be a defaulter. Though it is denied, on the other hand it is submitted that petitioner was paying rentals to Poojari, but no one was examined in this regard. Ex. P-1 is the resolution said to have been passed by the Temple authorizing Sri. Venugopal and Srinivas to file a suit on behalf of the temple. The rent receipt is said to have been produced upto 9.1.2012 and no rent receipts are produced for the subsequent period. The Trial Court holding that notice issued to the defendant is sufficient and the Karnataka Rent Control Act is not applicable to the case on hand and that there is due service of notice for termination, decreed the suit.

As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is said to be in occupation of the suit property for more than 15 years and decision has been taken by the Temple authorizing the plaintiff to file a suit and also there is arrears of rent and tenancy has been terminated by issuance of notice. Hence, there is no illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court ordering for eviction. In order to enable the petitioner to find out an alternative premises, the petitioner is granted 1 year time from today to deliver and hand over vacant possession of the premises subject to filing an undertaking to this effect. The petitioner is also directed to pay rent/damages at the rate of Rs. 900/- per month for the said extended period. The petitioner is further directed to pay all the arrears within 4 weeks from today. If the arrears, is already paid, the same shall be deducted out of the remaining rent to be paid.

Accordingly, petition is disposed of.