SRIKANT Vs. MALLIKARJUNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC is directed against the findings given by the learned Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Gadag, in O.S.No.175/2002 and affirmation of the same by the learned Judge of the First Appellate Court i.e., the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Gadag, in R.A.No.80/2003. The appellant was the only defendant in the said suit and respondents herein were the plaintiffs in the said suit. Parties will be referred to as plaintiffs and defendant as per their ranking in the trial Court.

(2.) SUIT filed by the plaintiffs was for ejectment of the defendant from the suit schedule property and for mesne profits. The suit property is a shop bearing CTS No.1632/6 i.e., commercial building. Originally it belonged to Smt.Ningavva Ravadi, the mother of the plaintiff No.1. There was a partition in the family and 3/4th portion was allotted to the deceased Ishwarappa, brother of plaintiff No.1 and husband of plaintiff No.2 and father of plaintiffs No.3 to 7 and that 1/4th share fell to the share of plaintiff No.1 and thus all the plaintiffs have become the owners of the entire suit property. Ishwarappa died on 01.06.1992 leaving behind him plaintiffs 2 to 7 as his legal heirs.

(3.) KRISHNARAO Karanta had taken the suit premises on lease from the said Ningavva to run a hotel under the name and style of 'M/s.Sukha Nivas Tea Club'. After the death of Karanta, his brother and his nephew continued the said business by forming a partnership under the name and style of "M/s.Sukha Nivas, Gadag" and continued till 1994. Due to certain differences between the partners, the partnership firm was dissolved on 01.06.1994 and since then defendant alone has been carrying on the hotel business as a tenant under the plaintiffs. Formerly the rent was Rs.6,600/ - per year i.e, @ Rs.550/ - p.m. and it was enhanced to Rs.1,500/ - p.m. by executing a lease deed on 28.06.1997. According to the plaintiffs, it is a monthly tenancy commencing from 6th of every month and ending on the midnight of 5th of succeeding month. Defendant is stated to have not paid the rent from 06.10.1991 and thus he is stated to have committed default. Apart from this, the defendant is stated to have effected major repairs without the consent of the plaintiffs. Inspite of issuing a legal notice on 25.03.2002 seeking delivery of the possession, the defendant did not co -operate and as such the suit came to be filed in O.S.No.161/2000 seeking ejectment of the tenant. The said suit was withdrawn by plaintiffs with a liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action and this was withdrawn as there were some formal defects. At the time of according permission, Court had imposed a cost of Rs.150/ - and the same was promptly paid to the Bar Association, Gadag on 22.02.2002. In the suit filed afresh based on the permission accorded by the Court in O.S.No.161/2000, the defendant appeared and filed written statement denying all the material allegations contending inter alia amongst others that the suit was not maintainable either in law or on facts. According to him, plaintiffs are not the landlords of the suit property and it is a collusive suit. According to the defendant, he is not a defaulter and that he has not effected any repairs without the consent of the plaintiffs. According to him, there is no valid termination of tenancy and that the suit is not maintainable