MODIRAJU SETHURATNAM RAJU Vs. K N PADMAVATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPEAL is by the defendant/tenant challenging the order passed by the XXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore in OS 2270/2004 on 5.2.2010.

(2.) ACCORDING to the appellant/defendant, respondent filed a suit for ejectment and for damages of Rs.20,000/- p.m. stating that she is the owner of the entire ground floor of the property bearing No.380, Kamakshi Kourts, 13th Cross, Sadashivanagar, Upper Palace Orchards, Bangalore. Appellant is the tenant in respect of the south western corner of the ground floor. He was inducted by one E Sathyanarayana, erst-while owner on a monthly rental of Rs.5,000/- . The erstwhile owner had raised loan from Canara Bank by mortgaging the property and since he was unable to repay the loan, property was the subject matter of attachment before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore and the Debt Recovery Tribunal has proceeded to auction the property as the erstwhile owner did not comply with the terms. The respondent purchased the ground floor of the property bearing No.380 in the auction. The plaintiff stating that she is the owner of the ground floor and that the defendant has failed to pay the rents in respect of the shop premises, issued a notice to the defendant to quit and vacate the schedule premises and to pay arrears of rent of Rs.70,000/- . This has been denied by the appellant by contesting the matter. Based on the pleadings, the trial court having raised as many as nine issues, while answering the relevant issues in favour of plaintiff / respondent has decreed the suit directing the appellant to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises as against which, this appeal by the defendant.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondent has contended that the trial court has rightly decreed the suit. In the auction held by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, 2090 sq.ft. space has been purchased in the ground floor and the petition premises measuring about 10 x 10 ft. is part and parcel of the property purchased by the respondent. It is also admitted by the appellant that he was a tenant under E Sathyanarayana and the said E Sathyanarayana having borrowed loan and being unable to repay, property has been auctioned and accordingly, it is submitted, as per S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act, on purchase of the property in the auction held, the respondent becomes the owner and also confirmation deed has been executed as such, the respondent steps into the shoes of E Sathyanarayana. Except the notice that is required to be issued as per the provisions of S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the appellant being a third party to question the title, has no locus. Only to dodge the proceedings this appeal has been filed and accordingly, he has sought for dismissing the appeal.