N.K. MUTHU KUMARA MUDALIAR AND SONS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR. S. SRINIVASAN Vs. RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR. M.K. NARANG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these appeals are preferred by the Defendants in the respective suits i.e., O.S. Nos. 17503/2006, 17471/2006 and 17426/2006. All the said suits filed by the Plaintiff, who is common, for ejectment of the respective Defendants, came to be decreed and the Defendants are also directed to pay damages at the rate fixed by the trial court and they were directed to band over vacant possession of their respective schedule premises which are shop premises situated in Mohan Building, Chickapete, Bangalore. Therefore, these appeals are also disposed of by this common judgment as the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the Appellants also being one and the same.

(2.) THE facts which are common to all these appeals arc trial, the Respondent -Plaintiff herein purchased Mohan Building, which comprised of 43 shop premises, and the said purchase was under a public auction held by the Income Tax Department on 8.3.2004 and the sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff was executed on 9.2.2005 as per Ex.P -5. Thereafter, the Defendants, who are the Appellants in the present appeals, and other tenants of Mohan Building questioned the auction sale before this Court in W.P. No. 12450/2004 (Ex.P -3) and the writ petition was dismissed and the writ appeal filed in W.A. No. 3494/2005 (Ex.P -4) was also dismissed as withdrawn following a memo filed jointly by the parties thereto.

(3.) THE Defendants, who are the Appellants herein, took up the stand that there existed no landlord -tenant relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants and there is no arrears of rent payable and further, the Plaintiff had agreed to sell the respective shop premises to the respective Defendants but., that was not to be, as the Plaintiff had not come forward to finalise the terms of contract. The Defendants, however, arc ready to vacate the premises in case the Plaintiff furnishes details of construction of the new building in view of the M.O.U. agreed to between the parties. It was also contended in the written statement that the suits are also not maintainable.