K SURENDRA KUMAR Vs. S YASHODAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the defendant aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 1.8.2013 passed by the XXVI Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore in O.S. No. 26842/2011 directing him (appellant - defendant) to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises within three months. At the very outset Sri. H.C. Shivaramu, the learned counsel for the appellant fairly indicates that the appellant is only pressing for the grant of reasonable time for vacating the suit schedule premises. He submits that the appellant is eking his livelihood by doing his car re-selling business in the suit schedule premises.

(2.) Sri. Nisar Sab, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that 3 to 6 months' time may be granted to the appellant to vacate the suit schedule premises. He submits that the appellant is paying the monthly rent at the paltry rate of Rs. 12,000/- per month, though the prevailing monthly rent for the suit schedule property in the area in question is more than Rs. 50,000/-.

(3.) The parties have subsequently settled the matter. The appellant has filed the affidavit. The operative portion of the affidavit reads as follows: