H.SRINIVAS Vs. M.KEMPAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant aggrieved by the judgment and decree dtd. 1/3/2006, passed in O.S.No. 7023/2002 by the XV Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore City, has filed this appeal.

(2.) Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. The appellant is defendant No.1 and respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and respondents No.2 and 3 are defendants No.2 and 3 before the Trial Court.

(3.) Brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal are as under: The plaintiff is the owner of land and building bearing No.13, 50 Feet Road, Avalahalli, Bangalore-26. Defendant No.1 was inducted as a lessee in the said premises under lease agreement dtd. 6/8/1993. Defendant No.1 was carrying on business in the schedule premises under the name and style 'Sri Lakshmi Electrical' and the lease was for a period of three years. Defendant No.1 sub-let the schedule premises to defendant Nos.2 and 3. Defendant No.2 was running a travel business under the name and style of 'Pallavi Travels' and defendant No.3 was running a business in the name and style of 'Fashion Corner'. It is contended that defendant No.1 has not paid the rent. The plaintiff got issued a notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ('the TP Act ' for short) terminating the tenancy of defendant No.1. Inspite of service of notice, the defendants did not vacate the premises as demanded in the notice. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed a suit for relief of ejectment against defendant Nos.1 to 3 and also sought for damages at the rate of Rs.1,210.00 per month from the date of filing of the suit till the defendants deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property. Defendant No.1 filed written statement contending that the suit was not maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction as the suit is valued for Rs.13,200.00, which is less than Rs.25,000.00. Further defendant No.1 has also taken a contention that plaintiffs had filed a suit against the defendants for the same cause of action and for the same relief in O.S.No.1401/1999 and the said suit came to be dismissed on 30/9/1999. As such, the principles of res judicata will apply and the present suit is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties, as defendant Nos.2 and 3 are not necessary parties. However, defendant No.1 admitted that he is a tenant and it is pleaded that he is paying rent regularly. He also pleaded that since the plaintiff refused to receive rent, he filed a petition in HRC No.1375/1998 and has deposited the rent. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.