KARTHIKEYAN Vs. SMT. M.S. BHARATHI SRIKANTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel representing the parties. This petition is arising out of the order dated 1-4-2013 passed by the XIII Small Causes Judge, Bangalore, in S.C. No. 1872 of 2011, decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiff-respondent and directing the defendant-petitioner herein to evict and deliver vacant possession of the residential premises bearing Old No. 134-B, New No. 116/5 (rear portion of the second floor), situated at 2nd Main Road, formerly 3rd Main Road, Vijaya Layout, Chamarajpet, Bangalore.

(2.) The defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs. 4,000/-. He was in arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 56,000/-. In this connection, plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 7-10-2009, asking the defendant to vacate the premises. As the defendant failed to vacate the premises, she filed a suit for a direction to the defendant to evict and deliver vacant possession of the petition schedule premises and also claimed damages incurred by her towards issuance of legal notice. The suit was contested by the defendant. According to the defendant, he was in possession of the petition premises since from the year 2000 onwards. The vendor of the plaintiff and defendant had entered into mortgage deed dated 10-4-2002 wherein the plaint schedule property has been mortgaged with the defendant for a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. Subsequently, on 20-5-2005, both parties entered into House Sale Agreement for a total consideration of Rs. 18 lakhs and as such, the defendant is in possession of the petition schedule premises.

(3.) According to the plaintiff-respondent herein, the vendor of the plaintiff has sold the property in favour of plaintiff. There is no question of defendant being in possession of the petition schedule property under the so-called mortgage deed and also the other contentions taken by the defendant are bogus and baseless.