GIRIDHARASA Vs. JAGADGURU GANGADHAR DHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant challenging the order dtd. 20/12/2018 passed in S.C.No.35/2015 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi whereby the suit of the respondent/plaintiff is decreed directing the petitioner herein to vacate and handover the suit premises.

(2.) The facts leading to the case are as under: The respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit a for eviction of vacant possession of suit schedule property and also claimed mesne profits at the rate of Rs.5,000.00 p.m. from the date of termination of tenancy till handing over of vacant possession of the suit schedule property. The respondent/plaintiff claims that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and plaintiff being a holy and spiritual institution is conducting various educational and religious activities for the welfare of the Society. It is further pleaded in the plaint that it owns educational institutions and commercial complex and has inducted tenants to run their business according to the agreements entered into by the parties. The respondent/plaintiff has specifically contended that the present petitioner/defendant is a tenant under the plaintiff-institution and he was inducted as a tenant in the suit property on 19/6/1987 on the basis of yearly rent of Rs.2,182.00 payable to the respondent/plaintiff on or before expiry of three months of the next year. The respondent/plaintiff has alleged that the petitioner/defendant has violated the terms and conditions of the agreement and thereby has committed breach of contract. It is also contended that the petitioner/defendant has committed default in not paying arrears of rent. It is also stated that the respondent/plaintiff intends to develop and expand the area and needs additional space and therefore, requested the tenants to vacate and handover the suit property. It is also stated that since the petitioner/defendant refused to handover vacant possession, a legal notice was issued on 3/12/2011 terminating the tenancy. Since the petitioner/defendant showed no inclination to vacate and handover the suit schedule property, the present suit is filed.

(3.) On receipt of summons, the petitioner/defendant tendered his appearance and filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. The petitioner/defendant contended that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. The petitioner/defendant disputed the description of the suit property. The present petitioner on the contrary specifically contended that he is regularly paying the rent to the respondent/plaintiff and it is the respondent/plaintiff who has been refusing to accept the rent tendered for the reasons best known to him and therefore, the petitioner/defendant has contended that if there is any violation, the same is on the part of the respondent/plaintiff. The petitioner has also specifically contended that there is no condition in the lease deed that the petitioner/defendant cannot sub-let the suit schedule property and therefore, the question of violation of lease deed would not arise at all. On these set of defence, the present petitioner/defendant sought for dismissal of the suit.