B VISHWANATHA SHETTY Vs. P N PADMAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) these two revision petitions are directed against the common order on la. Nos. Iii and vi in o.s. No. 1061 of 1984 on the file of the city civil court, Bangalore. The facts leading to these two petitions, briefly stated, are as under:

(2.) plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3 in o.s. No. 1061/1984 before the city civil court, Bangalore are the legal heirs of late p. Narayana hebbar. The suit property was the absolute property of narayana hebbar. It consists of three storeyed building where narayana hebbar was running a hotel by name 'eastern lunch home'. Since his health deteriorated, he and his eldest son p. Parameshwara hebbar-defendant 2 formed a partnership firm and the management of the hotel was left to the latter. Since, however, (be business did not improve, the hotel was leased to M/s. Elengikal brothers, by a registered deed dated 25-3-1964. However, the same was subleased by the latter to defendantl-b. Vishwanatha shetty, who is the petitioner in both these revision petitions. It appears that having regard to the said development, the partnership firm was not receiving the rents regularly. They, therefore, after discussion and due deliberation with M/s. Elengikal brothers and defendant 1-b. Vishwanatha shetty struck a new deal according to which it was agreed by all the parties that defendant 1 should take the hotel 'eastern lunch hone' on lease from the firm comprising of narayana hebbar and his son parameshwara hebbar. Accordingly, a registered lease deed dated 4-11-1968 came into existence, the lease being for a period of 10 years with a right of renewal subject to certain terms and conditions. Sometime in the year 1971, narayana hebbar died. After the expiration of the lease period plaintiffs who are the legal heirs of the deceased narayana hebbar, 1st plaintiff being his wife and the rest of the plaintiffs being his children, demanded vacant possession of the premises from defendant 1 since they wanted to restart the hotel business. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that defendant 2-parameshwara hebbar had by a release deed dated 7-7-1980 gave up his right in the estate left by narayana hebbar. Defendant 1-vishwanatha shetty, however, did not comply with the request of plaintiffs to quit even the quit notice issued to him on behalf of the plaintiffs did not yield any dividend. Under these circumstances, plaintiffs filed the aforesaid suit praying for a decree for possession and other reliefs like, mesne profits, damages, etc., as enumerated in the relief column of the plaint.

(3.) defendant 1 resisted the suit of the plaintiffs. He took up the contention that the lease was taken by him from the partnership firm comprising of narayana hebbar and parameshwara hebbar and since defendant 2, the surviving partner has given his consent in writing to renew the licence, plaintiffs cannot maintain the suit. He has also challenged the validity of the quit notice. He has denied the allegation made by the plaintiffs leading to the claim of mesne profits and damages. He prayed for the dismissal of the suit.