RAMALAL MOHANLAL MANDOTH PAWN BROKER AND JEWELLERY REPRESENTED BY NAVRATHAN MAL AND SRI NAVRATHAN MAL, RAMALAL MOHANLAL MANDOTH Vs. SRI T.R. DHANANJAYA, S/O. T. RAMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the Defendant challenging the judgment and decree passed by the XLIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No. 7411/2007 by order dated 8.3.2011.

(2.) PARTIES are referred according to their rank before the trial Court.

(3.) ACCORDING to the Plaintiff, he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property as per the registered Gift Deed dated 5.7.2003 executed by his mother in his favour and also the khata stands in his name. According to the Plaintiff, Defendant was a tenant in respect of portion of the property on a monthly rental of Rs. 800/ - and notice of ejectment was issued to the 1st Defendant on 16.1.2006. Since the Defendant has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, another notice came to be issued on 24.03.2006 terminating the tenancy calling upon him to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the premises. Since the Defendant has not sent any reply, suit came to be filed. The Defendant has filed the written statement denying the jural relationship and sought for dismissal of the suit stating that, no legal notice is served on him as per the requirement and that Plaintiff does not know who is the tenant and that the Defendant has become the owner by adverse possession since he is in possession since 3.12.1982 having taken over the business from one Sri. Parasmal and thereafter, the 2nd Defendant continued in possession. Since the then owners had some dispute among themselves regarding ownership, O.S. No. 523/1983 had been filed, which came to be dismissed on 3.4.1998. The 2nd Defendant neither paid rent to the Plaintiff nor the Plaintiff has issued rent receipts to the 2nd Defendant. The recitals in the sale deed dated 5.11.1999 executed by Smt. Bramaramba in favour of Neelamma does not show the delivery of possession of suit schedule property and Neelamma had never got possession and there is no delivery of possession by way of symbolic possession to the donee. As such, the Plaintiff has no authority to claim himself as landlord of the suit schedule property. Based on the pleadings, following issues were framed; 1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that the Defendants are tenants under him in respect of the suit schedule premises? 2. Whether the Plaintiff proves the valid termination of tenancy of the Defendants in respect of the suit schedule property by issuing a legal notice dated 24.3.2006? 3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a decree of possession as prayed for? 4. Whether the Defendant proves the alleged interference of the Plaintiff in enjoying the suit schedule property?