BHARATHI SHETTY Vs. B HANUMANTHAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two regular second appeals are preferred against the common judgment dated 09.10.2012 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sorab, in R. A. Nos. 31/2012 & 35/2012. Appellant and the respondent in these two appeals are the landlord and tenant. Plaintiff-respondent herein instituted O.S. No. 250/2008 for possession of the suit schedule property, recovery of arrears of rent and also for damages from the defendant/tenant.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the suit schedule property bearing Khatha No. 342/240 carved out of Sy. No. 1/3 measuring 150' North East and 110' East West situated at Sorab was leased in favour of the defendant-appellant herein for the purpose of running a petrol bunk vide registered lease deed dated 15.03.2002. The duration of the lease was 15 years. It was stipulated that annual rent shall be Rs. 10,000/- per annum for the first five years and Rs. 25,000/ - per annum for the next five years and Rs. 35,000/- per annum for the remaining 5 years.

(3.) Though the tenant was allotted dealership to run a petrol bunk, the said allotment was cancelled in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in M/s. Sharma Metal Co's case, which had general application to all such allotments. The landlord issued a quit notice dated 07.06.2005 vide Ex.P-4 terminating the lease and calling upon the defendant to hand over possession of the premises. The legal notice was replied contending that there was one more agreement dated 16.03.2002, whereunder a sum of Rs. One lakh had been paid by the tenant as advance deposit with a stipulation that interest accrued thereon shall be utilized as rent. The plaintiff did not institute the suit immediately. He filed the suit on 16.12.2008 alleging that the tenant did not pay any rent right from the inception and therefore, was in arrears. It was also urged by the plaintiff that tenancy having been validly terminated and the tenant having committed default in paying the rents accrued, he was liable to be evicted from the premises. The so-called second agreement dated 16.03.2002 setup by the defendant was denied.