IN THE COURT OF THE SMALL CAUSES JUDGE

AT BANGALORE 
S. C No.   /2011

PLAINTIFF : Parish Priest

                          Represented by Rev Fr. Martin Kumar,
Aged about 52 years,
                          St. Joseph’s Church,
Fr. Briand Square,
Bangalore-560 002.

Vs.,

DEFENDANT    : Smt. Nirmala,

House No.87, Municipal No.16,
Barline, St. Mary’s Church Compound,
Old Pension Mohalla,
Bangalore.

UNDER ORDER VII RULE 1 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, READ WITH

SECTION 106 OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, the Plaintiff submits as
follows: 

1) The addresses of the parties for the purposes of services of notices

summons etc., as stated above in the cause title and the Plaintiff can also be
served through, JVA Global Associates, Advocates, 468, 3 rd Cross, 8th Main,
Vijayanagar, Bangalore-560 040. 

2) The Plaintiff submits that the Defendant is a tenant as per the Lease
Agreement entered between the Parish Priest, St. Joseph’s Church, in respect of

1
House No.87, Municipal No.16, Barline, St. Mary’s Church Compound, Old
Pension Mohalla, Bangalore.

3) The Plaintiff submits that the Defendant is defaulter in payment of rents.

Prior to termination of tenancy the last rent was Rs. 150/= (Rupees One Hundred
and Fifty Only) for the House No.87, and the Defendant has not paid any rent
from September, 2008 to June, 2011. The Defendant is due in a sum of Rs.
5,100/= (Rupees Five Thousand One Hundred Only) for a period of 34 months,
from September, 2008 to June, 2011.

4) The Plaintiff submits that inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff
the Defendant has not made any payments towards the rent till this day. The
plaintiff has shown sufficient indulgence in this matter and hence he informed the
Defendant by way of Legal Notice on 01-06-2011, that requires him to vacate the
House No.87 premises under his occupation in order to demolish the building
and to construct a building therein for various church administration as the said
church is a shrine of Archdiocese of Bangalore and lot of pilgrim devotees visit
the church throughout the year. Hence it is required for our own use and
occupation.

5) The Plaintiff submits that the Defendant has received the said legal notice
and have given untenable reply, instead of complying with the demands made
therein.

6) The Plaintiff submits that the schedule premises is more than 50 Years old
and it is leaking and it is in very bad shape. 

7) The Plaintiff submits that HRC 10111/2008, was disposed off, as the
Plaintiff is a Religious Institution, and hence it cannot claim any relief under Rent
Control Act. Hence this suit.

2
8) The Plaintiff further submits that the suit schedule premises is residential
premises and hence this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try this suit. 

9) For the above said reasons the plaintiff got issued a Legal Notice dated
01-06-2011, by RPAD, terminating the tenancy of the Defendant and directed
him to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the schedule premises on
the expiry of 30-06-2011. Inspite of having received the copy of the Legal Notice
through RPAD, the Defendant did not comply with the demands made there in
and continued as unauthorized occupant from 01-07-2011 onwards. Hence the
suit for taking possession of the schedule premises and for other reliefs. 

10) The cause of action arose on the date of Lease Agreement entered
between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and on 01-06-2011 the date of Legal
Notice and on 30-06-2011, the date of termination of tenancy and subsequently
within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. 

11) The Plaintiff paid court fee on this plaint as per the suit valuation slip
annexed herewith. 

12) No other suit on the same caution of action is filed nor pending in any
other Court between the same parties. 

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased
to pass judgment and decree against the defendants. 

a) Directing the Defendant to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession

of the suit Schedule Premises.

3
 b) Direct the Defendant to pay the arrears of rent and the damages &
mesne profits for use and occupation of the suit schedule premises
from September, 2008 to June, 2011, onwards, amounting to
Rs.5,100/= (Rupees Five Thousand One Hundred Only).

c) Any other relief or reliefs that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant
in the circumstances of the case.

ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFF       PLAINTIFF 

SCHEDULE 

All that piece and parcel of residential premises bearing, House No.87, Municipal
No.16, Barline, St. Mary’s Church Compound, Old Pension Mohalla, Bangalore.

VERIFICATION

I, Rev. Fr. Martin Kumar, Aged about 52 years, Parish Priest, of the above
named Plaintiff church, do hereby declare that what all stated above is true and
correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. 
 
  

PLAINTIFF

Bangalore        

Date:

4
 IN THE COURT OF THE SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
AT BANGALORE 
S. C No.   /2011

PLAINTIFF : Parish Priest

                          Represented by Rev Fr. Martin Kumar,

Vs.,

DEFENDANT    : Smt. Nirmala

VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT

I, Rev. Fr. Martin Kumar, aged about 52 years, residing at St. Joseph’s Church,
Fr. Briand Square, Bangalore-560 002, do hereby solemnly affirm on oath and
state as follows:
1) I submit that, I am the plaintiff in the above case, hence I am well aware of
the facts of the case.
2) I submit that the contents of the plaint and the documents furnished in
support of the case are true and correct .
3) I submit that I have affixed my signature for this affidavit.
WHEREFORE, what all stated above is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief.

Identified by me
DEPONENT
ADVOCATE

Bangalore
Date: