SHARAN KUMAR Vs. KIRAN R KABADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 2/8/2022 passed in S.C.NO.521/2019 on the file of the IX Additional Small Causes Judge, Small Causes and Additional MACT, Bengaluru.

(2.) This petition is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that he is the owner and landlord of the entire property bearing old No.15/21, thereafter No.15 situated at Balepet, Tulasi Thota road, OTC road cross, Bengaluru consisting of shops and residential building. The said property along with some other properties originally belonged to his father who had derived the said properties through release deed dtd. 5/2/1996. His father Raghu H Kabadi was in possession and enjoyment of the properties and later he settled his properties to his wife Anasuya R Kabadi by executing a settlement deed dtd. 22/5/2014 and mother was in possession and enjoyment of the properties. Later, out of love and affection, she settled the properties in favour of her son as such property bearing No.1, Thulasi Thota road, Bengaluru along with some other property was settled in his favour by executing settlement deed dtd. 30/4/2015. Thus, he became the absolute owner of the entire property. The defendant is a tenant in occupation of Shop No.1, in the ground floor of the said property under him and originally the defendant was inducted by his father as tenant in the schedule shop premises and the defendant had paid refundable rental deposit of Rs.2,00,000.00 to his father at the time of inception as a tenant. After the transfer of the ownership of the property in his favour in pursuance of the said registered settlement deed dtd. 20/4/2015, he became an absolute owner of the entire property including the schedule shop premises and the defendant became his tenant and the rental deposit of Rs.2,00,000.00. The defendant desired to continue the tenancy of the schedule shop premises under him and he agreed to lease the schedule shop to the defendant and both of them entered into a rental agreement on 14/2/2017 with certain terms and conditions.