PANDURANGE GOWDA S/O SRI. RANGAPPA Vs. SRI. M. SOMASURDAR S/O. LATE K. MARIYAPPA MAJOR D. NO. 442/1 CHAMARAJA DOUBLE ROAD CHAMARAJA MOHALLA MYSORE-570003

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has challenged the judgment and decree for eviction passed by the Trial Court and confirmed in appeal by the First Appellate Court. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under: - Parties will be referred as per their rank in the original proceedings for the sake of convenience. The appellant is the defendant whereas the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit instituted for eviction of the appellant. The plaintiff is the owner and landlord of the portion of property bearing No. 442/10, CH -21/3 with the description and boundaries mentioned in the schedule to the plaint. The defendant is the tenant in occupation of the premises on the basis of lease agreement dated 12.11.1994 on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,250/ -. As the landlord wanted the premises for his own occupation, he issued a notice terminating the tenancy. As the defendant did not vacate the premises even after the termination of tenancy, the plaintiff was constrained to institute a suit for eviction.

(2.) THE defendant appeared and filed the written statement denying the allegation made and admitting the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Trial Court framed the issues and recorded the evidence. After hearing the counsel for parties and on appreciation of the material placed on record, it granted a decree for eviction. The said judgment and decree was challenged in appeal in RA No. 1007/2010. The said appeal was also dismissed on merits. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) AT the outset, counsel for the appellant requested that if a year's time is granted to vacate the premises, the appellant is ready and willing to vacate and hand over the possession of suit property. He submits that as the appellant is running a liquor business in the said premises and the license has been obtained for a period of one year which expires by the end of June, 2013 and as he has paid a huge sum to obtain the license, he submits that it is just and reasonable in case if a year's time is granted to vacate the premises. He also submits that in case if so much of time is not granted, the appellant will be put to great injustice.