VODAFONE ESSARS SOUTH LTD. Vs. VEERABHADRAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in this appeal instituted the suit O.S.5515/2015 in the City Civil Court, Bengaluru, for evicting the appellant from a premises bearing no.608, Banagiri Nagar, Banashankari III Stage, D.G.Petrol Bunk Road, Bengaluru-85 ('schedule premises'). He also claimed an amount of Rs.16,85,244/- towards arrears of rent, damages and power consumption charges with interest @ 24% p.a. By judgment dated 22.2.2017 the learned trial judge decreed the suit and ordered for eviction of the appellant besides directing him to pay arrears of rent and electricity charges of Rs.64,279/-. Aggrieved by this judgment, the defendant has preferred this appeal. In a nutshell the pleadings are as follows:-

(2.) The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the schedule premises. On 31.1.2005 a company called M/s Hutchison Essar South Limited became a tenant of the plaintiff in respect of the schedule premises on a monthly rent of Rs.40,000/-. The tenant also paid a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to the plaintiff as security deposit. The agreement contained a stipulation with regard to enhancement of rent at the rate of 15% over the last paid rent once in three years. In the year 2007, a new name called M/s Vodafone Essar South Limited was given to M/s Hutchison Essar South Limited. This Vodafone Essar South Limited is the defendant and it continued to be in occupation of the schedule premises. In the month of November 2013, when the lease period was coming to an end, an official of the defendant company namely Sri Venkatesh @ Venkatesh Babu approached the plaintiff and expressed an intention that the company would like to continue in the schedule premises with enhanced rent and told that the defendant would continue to pay the rent of Rs.52,900/- per month till a new rate was mutually agreed upon. According to the lease agreement dated 31.1.2005, the period of lease was for nine years. It is stated by the plaintiff that after expiry of nine years period, the defendant was liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs.90/- per sq.ft per month. The defendant became a defaulter in paying the rent and therefore the plaintiff caused a legal notice issued to the defendant terminating the tenancy. Since the defendant failed to vacate the schedule premises, the plaintiff brought a suit for evicting the defendant and recovering Rs.16,85,244/- being the arrears of rent and such other charges.

(3.) The defendant admitted that it occupied the schedule premises as a tenant, but denied that it had an intention to continue in the schedule premises after expiry of nine years. When the plaintiff demanded exorbitant increase in rent, it expressed its intention to terminate the tenancy, therefore in the second week of July 2014 it sent a letter to the plaintiff personally through one of its executives, namely Smt. Shilpa. The plaintiff received the letter, but it did not give acknowledgement for having received it. In the said letter it was made clear that the defendant terminated the tenancy with effect from October 2014. Defendant contended that it vacated the schedule premises during August 2014 itself and informed the plaintiff also. The defendant requested the plaintiff to return the security deposit by deducting an mount of Rs.1,58,700/- being the rent for the months of August, September and October 2014. The plaintiff did not refund the security deposit in spite of repeated demands. The defendant never defaulted in paying the rent and it enhanced the rent once in three years as per the terms of the lease agreement and Rs.52,900/- was the rent that was being paid at the time of termination of tenancy by it. Defendant has stated that the plaintiff has suppressed all these facts and has claimed an amount of Rs.16,85,244/- without any basis.