(1.) This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') challenging the judgement and decree passed in O.S.No.343/2001 on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge(Jr.Dn.), Ballary, and confirmed by the learned Principal Civil Judge(Sr.Dn.) & CJM., Ballary, in R.A.No.2/2004.
(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the Trial Court.
(3.) The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that the plaintiff has filed a suit for eviction against the defendant from the suit premises and also sought for future damages. The plaintiff claim that he is the land lord and owner of the suit scheduled property and defendant being tenant under him on monthly rent of Rs.1,400.00. It is also asserted that he has let out the premises in the month of August, 1985 and since then defendant is in possession of the same and in the month of March 1998, the Government authorities, City of Ballary demolished some portions of the premises for the purpose of extension of Bangalore road. It is also alleged thereafter the defendant vacated the scheduled premises and later on he filed the suit in O.S.No.234/1998 and obtained a decree for possession and accordingly, he took possession of the schedule premises on monthly rent of Rs.1,400.00. According to the plaintiff, the tenancy commences from 1st of every month and ends with the last day of said month and plaintiff has terminated the tenancy of the defendant by notice dtd. 8/6/2001 with effect from 30/6/2001. According to the plaintiff, petition premises was a commercial premises and the rent was Rs.1,400.00 per month and the HRC Act is not applicable. Hence, the suit for eviction and for damages.