VENUGOPAL Vs. M. RAJENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned second appeal is filed by the defendants questioning the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court wherein the judgment and decree of the Trial Court is set aside and suit is decreed directing the defendants herein to handover vacant possession of suit 'A' schedule premises.

(2.) For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.

(3.) The plaintiff filed a suit for possession in O.S.No.21/2005. The plaintiff claimed to be the owner of suit schedule 'A' property. The plaintiff contended that the property was originally owned by the father of the plaintiff herein. It was further pleaded that defendants are the widow and children of one late K.P.Bapu Mestry. The father of the plaintiff let out the suit schedule premises in favour of defendants ancestor by executing the rent bond dtd. 6/7/1955 on a monthly rent of Rs.6.00 payable by the end of every month. The plaintiff contended that the rent bond expired on 31/6/1956, however, the tenant continued to reside in the building premises as a tenant. The plaintiff further contended that the said K.P.Bapu Mestry made a false claim by filing Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal. The plaintiff contended that he has terminated the tenancy by issuing a quit notice on 18/4/2002 and consequently sought for possession from the defendants and also sought for mesne profits with effect from 1/6/2002.