P RCHIKKA SUBBA RAO Vs. NAMA RAMASWAMI SETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These six Regular Appeals and two Second Appeals relate to as many suits filed by one Nama Ramaswamy Setty in the Court of the Munsiff of Kolar for ejectment and enhanced rents by way of damages for use and occupation till possession of the premises concerned in each of them is delivered by their respective tenants who are defendants in those suits. All those suits were decreed by two different Munsiffs who heard them, Messrs. Hanumanthegowda and Thimmapparaj Urs. On appeals in Regular Appeals Nos. 88 and 89 of 47-13 two of the earlier of these judgments in Original suits Nos. 135 and 136 of 46-47 were reversed by the Subordinate Judge of Kolar. The two Second Appeals by the plaintiff arise out of a common judgment in those two appeals. Six regular appeals which were filed against the judgments in the other six suits were got transferred to this Court and have been heard as Regular Appeals in this Court. They can all be disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) The plaintiff is the second of three brothers who are sons of one Rangiah Setty who is now dead. The premises concerned in these suits are shops which are attached to a choultry or Dharma Chatram. The deceased who admittedly was the owner of the choultry and the shops, left a registered will dated 1-7-1922 under which he has directed that out of the rents realized from these shops, the maintenance expenses of the choultry such as kandayam, lighting, cleaning and other charges should be met and the surplus utilized for feeding people free. There is a further provision in the will which runs as follows :

(3.) It is admitted that each of the defendants who were already in occupation as tenants executed in favour of the plaintiff lease deed dated 7th, 8th and 9th July 1843 agreeing to pay rents at Rs. 8-5-4 per month and to vacate and deliver possession of the premises after 11 months. That the plaintiff was then in sole management of the choultry is not disputed and the lease deeds themselves recite that the shops are appurtenant to the choultry. The defendants appear to have paid some rents and then fallen into arrears. The plaintiff issued notices to them terminating the leases and calling them to vacate and deliver over possession of the premises and to pay damages at the rate of Re. 1/- per day. The defendants pleaded more or less uniformly. They alleged that the lease deeds were nominal and that they were not meant to be acted upon; they had come into possession as tenants earlier, before the plaintiff took up the management and were not liable to vacate and deliver over possession of the premises to him as this term of 3 years for which he was authorized or was entitled to manage the choultry had expired; on account of quarrels between the plaintiff and his younger brother Naranappa and his elder brother's son Ramadevasetty regarding the management of the choultry, proceedings had been initiated and were going on belore the Sub-Division Officer, Kolar, and the defendants had received notice from that officer not to pay rents to the plaintiff; the plaintiff's suit was not maintainable as his other two brothers had not joined with him in bringing this suit and as his period of management had expired; the notices issued for eviction also, it was pleaded, were not in accordance with law.