JYOTHI NARAYAN DAS Vs. DEVATHA SAREE BHANDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the defendant in SC No. 192/2013 on the file of the XIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (for short, 'the Small Causes Court'), has impugned the judgment and decree dtd. 5/6/2018 in such proceedings. The Small Causes Court by this impugned judgment has directed the petitioner to quit and handover vacant possession of the commercial premises bearing No.21 in Property No.7, Devatha Market, Chickpet, Bengaluru - 560 053 ('the subject premises'). The Small Causes Court has also directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.250.00 per month as rental arrears for the months from March 2010 until 22/8/2012 and a sum of Rs.8000.00 per month as damages from 22/8/2012 till the date the petitioner vacates and hands over vacant possession of the subject premises. The Small Causes Court has concluded that the petitioner's possession of the subject premises from 22/8/2012 is unauthorized.

(2.) The respondents have initiated the proceedings in SC No. 192/2013 for ejectment contending that the second respondent, Sri D.K. Panduranga, is the owner of the subject premises. He has acquired title to this property under the Partition Deed dtd. 14/8/1980. In terms of this partition deed, the immovable properties that are described in Schedules - C, D and E appended to such deed are allotted to him, and the subject premises is mentioned in Schedule-D. He has contributed the subject premises towards the capital of the firm, M/s Devatha Saree Bhandar [the Firm], and this is borne out by the terms of the Partnership Deed dtd. 1/4/1988. The terms of the partnership are revisited with effect from 1/4/1992 when Sri D.K.Panduranga, who was managing the Firm's affairs until then, expressed his inability to supervise the affairs of the Firm, and his son, Sri D.P. Vinay Mohan [the third respondent] took over the responsibilities. The Firm is reconstituted in the year 2006 admitting the fourth respondent, Smt. Vani Vinay, the wife of the third respondent.

(3.) The respondents contend that the petitioner, who is in possession of the subject premises as a tenant, was paying monthly rent at the rate of Rs.210.00. When the petitioner stopped paying rent from the month of March 2010, they have caused legal notice dtd. 22/8/2012 terminating the tenancy and calling upon her to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the subject premises. The petitioner has caused reply notice dtd. 27/8/2012 denying that she is in possession of the subject premises as a tenant under the respondents; M/s J.N. Textiles, a partnership firm with she as one of the partners, is in possession of the subject premises as the tenant. However, they do not recognize any person other than the petitioner as the tenant because of the express agreement [as part of the lease agreement dtd. 15/10/1969] and that the petitioner can alone occupy the subject premises for the purposes of running business under the name and style, M/s Jyothi Narayandas.