SURYANARAYANA M Vs. R K RATHNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's second appeal. He was the defendant in O. S. No. 458 of 1975 on the file of the Addl. Munsiff, Civil Stn., Bangalore. Having suffered a decree for eviction by the judgment and decree dated 19.1.1979 of the Munsiff in the above suit, he had preferred an appeal before the I Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in R. A. No. 862 of 1980 on his file. The learned City Civil Judge has confirmed the judgment and decree of the Munsiff. In this second appeal the aforesaid decrees are under challenge. Repon dents herein were plain'iffs in the 'rial court.

(2.) Plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule property bearing Mun. Door No. 8, situated in Millers Road, Civil Stn., Bangaloer The building is under the occupation of the defendant as a tenant. Claiminig possession of the premises the plaintiffs, purporting to have terminated the lease by issuing a notice as contemplated under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, brought this suit for possession of the premises for arrears of rent, and other consequential reliefs. In his written statement the defendant, amongst other pleas, has also stated that the lease was for manufacturing purposes and the notice issued terminating the lease in question was bad in law and that, therefore, the suit was not maintainable.

(3.) The learned Munsiff had framed as many as seven issues. On behalf of the plaintiff three persons were exa- mined including plaintiff No. 1 (P. W. 2), and 35 documents were marked as Exs. P. 1 to P. 35. On behalf of the defendant two persons were examined including the defendant (D. W. 2) and 18 documents were exhibited as Exs. D. 1 to D. 18. The Munsiff answered the relevant issues in favour of the plaintiffs-landlords and granted a decree as sought for. It may be noted that the Munsiff had held that the lease was a monthly one and that the notice dt. 4.6.1975, Ex. P-8, issued, in order to terminate the lease, was a va1id one. It was also his finding that the lease was not for manufacturing purposes as contended by the defendant. In the appeal before him the leanned City Civil Judge, having focussed his attention only to two questions, the first concerning the duration of the lease, and the other as to the validity of the quit notice, answered both the questions in favour of the landlords and confirmed the decree of the Munsiff. On the question whether the lease was for manufacturing purposes the learned City Civil Judge was of the view that it was a lease for manufaeturing purposes. But, in his view there was "a contract to the contrary" within the mearing of sec. 106 of the Transfer of Properly Act, 1882 (the Act) creating a monthly tenancy.