Y V SRINIVASA MURTHY Vs. PILLAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of a suit instituted in O. S. No. 53 of 1959 on the file of the District Judge, Bangalore.- The said suit was transferred to the file of the Civil Judge, Bangalore, and registered as O.S. No. 69 of 1964 on the coming into force of the Mysore Civil Courts Act, 1964.

(2.) The plaintiffs instituted the above suit for recovery of possession of a piece of land situated in Bangalore City along with the buildings standing thereon on the following allegations: The suit land belongs to the plaintiffs. A portion of the said land was leased out in favour of the 1st defendant under a registered lease deed dated 31-8-1939 for a term of twenty years on a monthly rent of Rs. 20. Later on the remaining portion of the suit land was also given under lease to the 1st defendant on the same terms and conditions subject to payment of a sum of Rs. 15 per mensem by way of additional rent payable in that behalf. The plaintiffs allege that under one of the terms and conditions of the said lease the 1st defendant was liable to construct a building of the value of not less than Rs. 15,000, and that at the expiry of the stipulated term, the building so constructed should become the property of the plaintiffs. It is further alleged that the lessee was liable to hand over possession of the land along with the buildings on the termination of the tenancy. After the expiry of the period of lease, the plaintiffs called upon the 1st defendant to deliver possession of the suitproperty in accordance with the terms of the lease. It should be mentioned here that by the time the suit was instituted defendant No. 2 who was no other than the younger brother of the 1st defendant had acquired the leasehold rights as an assignee, and that defendant Nos. 3 and 4 had become the mortgagees of the said lease-hold rights. Defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were therefore impleaded by the plaintiffs to the suit. The plaintiffs instituted the above suit for recovery of possession of the suit properties as their demand for possession was not complied with by any of the defendants. In the written statements filed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2, it was pleaded among other grounds that the suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions of the Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Act, 1951, and that in any event, the plaintiffs were not entitled to get possession of the suit property without paying defendant No. 2 a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 which had been invested on the suit property over and above what had been stipulated in the lease.

(3.) The trial court after recording the evidence in the case and hearing the parties passed a decree as prayed for after negativing all the contentions urged on behalf of the defendants. Aggrieved by the said decree, defendant No. 2 filed an appeal before the learned District Judge in R.A. No. 88 of 1970 and RFA. No. 86 of 1970 on the file of this Court. The appeal filed before the District Judge was heard and dismissed on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. Aggrieved by the decree passed in R.A. No. 88 of 1970 on the file of the District Judge, Bangalore, the 2nd defendant has filed R.S.A. No. 108 of 1972. Since common questions of law and facts arise in both these cases, we propose to dispose of both these appeals by this common judgment.