B. MOHAN BABU Vs. SRI. R. RAMACHANDRA RAJU S/O. RAMAKRISHNA RAJU R/A 47, 1 FLOOR, 11TH CROSS RANAGASWAMY TEMPLE STREET BANGALORE 560 053

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPEAL is by the Defendants/tenants challenging the order parsed by the XXVI Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore in OS 15278/2004 in a suit filed for ejectment.

(2.) ACCORDING to the Plaintiff, one Ramakrishna Raju who is the original landlord had let out the premises to the father of the Defendants on a monthly rent under an unregistered) lease deed of 1987 and rent was enhanced from time to time and they were paying Rs. 3,000/ - p.m. After the death of the original landlord, Plaintiff is collecting the rents in the alternative being one of the sons of Ramakrishna Raju. It is also the case of the Plaintiff, on the death of the Defendants' father, his children also continued in possession. After issuing notice of ejectment terminating the tenancy, suit came to be filed. The matter was contested contending that there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant. There is a dispute among the brothers and also the suit is filed by them based on the Will executed. The Will has also been contested. Another suit is also filed by other Plaintiffs seeking for ejectment as such, the suit is not maintainable and also contended that there is a genuine dispute as to relationship of landlord and tenant. The trial court, based on the pleadings, raised as many as four issues for consideration. After inquiry, the trial court while ordering for ejectment, ordered to pay damages of Rs. 200/ - per day from the date of the suit till handing over possession as against which, this appeal on various grounds.

(3.) LEARNED Senior Counsel has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of D. Satyanarayana Vs. P. Jagadish, AIR 1987 SC 2192 to contend that rule of estoppels does not apply to the case on hand as the property was not originally let out by the Plaintiff and also to contend that as per Section 116 of the Evidence Act, estoppels does not apply when the tenant is under the threat of eviction by a person claiming title. Learned Counsel has also relied on the decision in the case of Subhash Chandra Vs. Mohammad Sharif and Others, AIR 1990 SC 636 , once again on the issue of estoppels.