BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF CITY CIVIL AND

SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 45), AT BANGALORE

OS No.5972/2020

C R Ramesh Plaintiff

And

Raj Permal Defendant

WRITTEN STATEMENT UNDER ORDER 8 RULE 1 OF

THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE 1908

1. Defendant very humbly submits that the suit is not

maintainable either in law or on facts of the case.
Hence, the same is liable to be dismissed.

2. Defendant partly admits the averments at para 2 of

the plaint. Defendant admits the averments that he
is a tenant in the schedule property under the
plaintiff. But he does not know that the plaintiff is a
land lord in respect of schedule property.

3. Defendant partly admits the averments in para 3 of

the plaint but denies further averments in the same
para that the rental agreement dated 16.09.2019
gets terminated on 31.08.2020 as false. But the fact
is that the tenancy under the rental agreement
dated 16.09.2019 required to be terminated by
issuance of 3 months prior notice to the defendant
as per the terms and conditions at para 16 of the
said rental agreement.

4. Defendant denies the averments in para 4 that on

31.08.2021 lease came to be determined and he did
not vacate the schedule property in spite of several
request as false. Defendant denies further
averments in the same para that the plaintiff’s
 daughter intends to occupy the schedule property
as false.

5. Defendant admits the averments at para 5 that the

plaintiff issued legal notice dated 10.10.2020 as
true. Wherein, the defendant has issued a reply
notice dated v14.10.2020 with appropriate reason.

6. Defendant denies the averment in para 7 of the

plaint that he did not receive any rents from the
defendant from 31.08.2020 as false.

7. Defendant denies the averment in para 8 of the

plaint that the cause of action arose on 31.08.2020,
10.10.2020 as false.

BRIEF FACTS

8. Defendant submits that he is the tenant under the

plaintiff by virtue of rental agreement dated
16.09.2019. Defendant has paid refundable security
deposit amount of Rs.2.50 lakhs which is
refundable at the time of the vacating the schedule
premises. Defendant is the tenant in the schedule
premises even before entering into the rental
agreement dated 16.09.2019 i.e., for the past more
than four and half years under earlier 3
agreements. Accordingly the defendant has been in
possession of the schedule property as a tenant in
continuation to the earlier agreements and the he
continues to be the tenant under the latest lease
agreement dated 16.09.2019.

9. Defendant submits that he has honestly paid rents

for all the months. But from the month of
September 2020. Even though defendant was ready
and willing to pay the rents, the plaintiff’s wife
namely Smt.Shakuntalamma who used to receive
rents regularly informed the defendant to pay the
rents to a person to whom she sends. The defendant
 was not allowed to transfer the rent amount as
usual to plaintiff’s wife’s account. Instead, she told
the defendant that she would send a person to
whom the rents are to be paid but not to transfer
the same. Due to this reason the defendant
continuously has been waiting to pay the rents to a
person whom she sends. The instructions given by
the plaintiff’s wife to pay the rents to a person sent
by her is recorded during phone conversation which
primarily acts as an evidence that the defendant is
not an intentional defaulter, who has been made to
wait and not to transfer the amount as usual.
Similarly, SMS message has been sent to stop
transferring the rents and instead, intimated to
send a person to receive the rents. Hence, the
plaintiff is put to strict roof to establish that the
defendant has not paid rents even though plaintiff
was ready and willing to accept rents by sending a
person.

10. Similarly, plaintiff also shall prove that his wife

has not instructed the defendant to stop
transferring the rents but to pay the same to a
person to whom they send.

11. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the

plaintiff’s wife always act on his behalf and
discharge the duties. She takes decision on behalf
of the plaintiff with regard to rental transactions for
which plaintiff did not have any objections as, they
both are husband and wife with good intimacy and
understanding with each other.

12. Defendant submits that plaintiff and his wife will

not be in Bangalore for most of the time and they
used to be abroad by travelling overseas for a period
of more than 6 months in a year. Plaintiff and his
wife will be in Bangalore for a very lesser period
which will not be known to the defendant. Hence
defendant is habituated to pay rents online via
 Google etc., whereas the defendant has been
restrained from transferring the rents in the name
of sending a person.

13. Similarly, plaintiff also shall prove that they have

sent person as per SMS and phone conversation
and in spite of it the defendant has failed to pay
rents.

14. The defendant submits that he has been waiting to

pay rents to the plaintiff or to the person of their
choice or to transfer the amount however they
prefer.

15. Defendant submits that he has re-bored the

existing water bore for sufficient supply of water.
Defendant has incurred expenditures to the tune of
Rs.3.60 lakhs. The same has been spent by the
defendant after getting written permission from the
plaintiff. The plaintiff has requested through the
said letter to undertake the re bore work so as to
facilitate water. The plaintiff has permitted the
defendant to do the same due to absence of the
plaintiff in India but in abroad. Hence, the
defendant is entitled for refund of Rs.3.60 lakhs
towards re-boring of existing water bore as, the
water exhausted.

16. Defendant submits that he has undertaken the

work of removing sanitary blockage and installed
new sanitary pipes for free water flow at his cost.
The defendant has done the same with permission
of the plaintiff. The defendant has sent photographs
of the work under taken by him over the what’s app
of the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff is liable to pay
and defendant is entitled for Rs.74,000/- towards
expenditures incurred by him. Defendant has
carried on the re boring work, clearing of sanitary
blockages, installation of sanitary pipes etc., only
with the instructions of the plaintiff for the reason
 that plaintiff will be absent in India but his presence
in overseas.

17. Defendant submits that he has carried on all these

works and created civic amenities under the
instructions of the plaintiff only by keeping in mind
the lengthy tenure of tenancy that has been assured
by the plaintiff. Plaintiff has assured the defendant
that he would not disturb the tenancy which
encouraged the defendant to co-operate with the
plaintiff.

18. Defendant submits that the plaintiff has issued a

legal notice dated 10.10.2020 in which the plaintiff
has stated in para 5, 6 & 7 that the defendant is
delaying in payment of monthly rents. It is further
stated that the defendant has made part payments
and states that he is a chronic defaulter in payment
of monthly rents. But the fact is that the defendant
has not delayed payment of rents. Defendant
further submits that he is not a defaulter in
payment of monthly rents. In spite of it, it is unfair
on part of the plaintiff to call the defendant as a
defaulter and to seek for eviction. Hence, the
plaintiff is put to strict roof to establish that the
defendant is a defaulter in payment of monthly
rents so as to evict him from the schedule premises.

19. It is submitted that the plaintiff has agreed for

payment of 50% of rents every month during COVID
19 period and accordingly the defendant has paid
50% of monthly rents from the month of March
2020 till December 2020 which being the COVID 19
impact period. The defendant has paid such part
payments i.e., 50% monthly rents on consent of the
plaintiff. The same has been consented during
phone conversation and the same is recorded.
Hence, the plaintiff is put to strict roof to establish
that the defendant has made part payments without
his consent.
 20. It is submitted that the plaintiff has taken a
different stand in his legal notice dated 10.10.2020
upon which the present suit has been filed for
eviction. But the various stands averred in the legal
notice dated 10.10.2020 are suppressed in the
plaint even though the present suit is initiated on
the basis of said notice. Hence, the suit amounts to
suppressio vary and suggestio falsie.

Wherefore, the defendant herein very humbly prays that

this Hon’ble court may be pleased to dismiss the suit.

Defendant Advocate for defendant

VERIFICATION

I, Mr.Raj Perumal, S/o Pacheyappan, defendant herein

do hereby verify and declare that the statements made in
paragraphs 1 to 20 and all other contents above are true
and correct to the best of my knowledge and information
on the basis of documents and pleadings.

Place: Bangalore
Date: Defendant
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 45), AT BANGALORE

OS No.5972/2020

C R Ramesh Plaintiff

And

Raj Permal Defendant

VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT

Myself namely Raj Permal, defendant herein aged about

57 years residing at No.87, 16 th Main, 18 Cross, MRCR
Layout, Vijaynagar, Bangalore 560040, do hereby
solemnly affirm and state as oath as follows.

I submit that I am the defendant in the above case and

hence well conversant with the facts.

I submit that the averments from para 1 to 20 In my

written statement and all the other paras and averments
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
information on the basis of documents and pleadings.

I submit that the signatures attested below are mine.

The contents what so ever above are true and correct.

Identified by me

Advocate Deponent

Place: Bangalore
Date: