K SAVITHRAMMA Vs. E YELLAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein is the 2nd defendant in O.S. No. 4841/2004. The suit in question was filed by the plaintiff therein seeking for the judgment and decree for ejectment. The suit was initially filed only against the 1st defendant therein. The 2nd defendant namely the appellant herein impleaded herself thereafter as the 2nd defendant to contend that she in fact is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule premises as a tenant. The Court below after considering the rival contention has decreed the suit by its judgment dated 18.02.2009. The 2nd defendant alone had assailed the said judgment and decree.

(2.) THOUGH, the 2nd defendant has putforth the contention that she in fact is the tenant in respect of the suit schedule premises, the only documents relied on by the 2nd defendant is the license marked as Ex. D1 and the Voucher marked as Ex. D48, though the other Vouchers were also produced before the trial Court. A perusal of the license would no doubt indicate that, the 2nd defendant was carrying on business in the premises. Apart from the said documents, there is no document to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant. In that context, the Court below taking note of these aspects of the matter has arrived at the conclusion that the 1st defendant in fact is the tenant of the premises under the plaintiff/landlord and the 2nd defendant is only carrying on business under the 1st defendant as authorized by him. In this regard, having noticed the Voucher at Ex. D48, which is similar to the other Vouchers, it only indicates that it is the receipt issued in the name of "M/s. Meenakshi Bar and Restaurant" for having paid the rent and it is not issued in the individual name of the 2nd defendant. Therefore the 2nd defendant has failed to prove before the trial Court that she in fact is the tenant of the premises and that she has independent right.

(3.) IN that view of the matter, the contentions urged on the merits of the case is treated as not pressed. However, the appellant is granted time to vacate and hand over possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on before 30.06.2013. It is made clear that if the appellant fails to vacate on the said date as undertaken before this Court, the plaintiff apart from being entitled to execute the judgment and decree will also be entitled to initiate proceedings for contempt for violating the undertaking given to this Court. It is also made clear that during the said period till 30.06.2013, the appellant shall pay the rents without default though she is not the tenant but has been permitted time by the Court. She shall not induct any other persons into the premises.