V.B. KALA Vs. RAMULU SANNIDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is listed for admission and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for the caveator/respondent.

(2.) In this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 24/2/2018, decreeing the suit in S.C.No.15238/2016.

(3.) The trial Court having considered the admission made in the written statement, which has been extracted at Paragraph No.9 of the judgment and also the admission elicited from the mouth of DW.1, who is daughter of defendant, in the cross-examination that on the date of receiving quit notice, they were using the schedule premises as a hotel and further admitted that they continued the hotel business in schedule premises. Therefore, the trial Court comes to the conclusion that there exists of jural relationship between the parties and also comes to the conclusion that the premises was used for running hotel without the consent of the plaintiff-respondent and same is discussed at Paragraph No.14 of the judgment. The trial Court also in Paragraph No.15 discussed that nothing has been elicited from the mouth of PW.1 regarding conversion of premises for commercial purpose with consent and having taken note of the material available on record, the trial Court decreed the suit and directed the defendant to quit and vacate the schedule premises within two months and also made an observation that plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the rent from the defendant until delivery of the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises.