R RAMPRASAD, Vs. M R NAGENDRA,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 03.01.2014 passed by the Court of the X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH No.26) in O.S.No. 5586/2007.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the respondent plaintiff filed the suit for the recovery of vacant possession of the suit schedule premises and for the recovery of damages at the rate of Rs. 1,000/ - per day. The case of the respondent plaintiff in brief is that the suit property was purchased by his father M.R.Rajanna. He left behind him, his wife Padmavathi, three sons and two daughters. Because of the poverty from which they are suffering, they were not in a position to remove the dilapidated structure and reconstruct the building. They entered into the lease agreement, dated 21.03.1977 with the appellant defendant. As per the said agreement, the appellant defendant constructed ground floor and the first floor at his cost and occupied the ground floor. The first floor was to be occupied by Smt.Padmavathi and her children. This arrangement was to continue for 30 years. On the expiry of the lease period on 20.03.2007, the plaintiff, who is one of the sons of Padmavathi caused the issuance of the legal notice, dated 26.03.2007, calling upon the appellant to vacate the schedule property and handover its possession to the respondent. On the failure of the appellant to vacate the schedule premises, the plaintiff instituted the suit.

(3.) THE appellant filed the written statement admitting the ownership of the plaintiff, his mother, brother and sisters of the suit schedule property. But he contended that Smt.Padmavathi and her children had executed the agreement of lease and sale, dated 10.06.1976, as per which they were required to receive Rs. 25,000/ - from the appellant and sell the suit schedule property to the appellant after the expiry of the lease period.