S MANOHAR Vs. E K GOVINDARAJA SETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 24-9-1988 passed by the XIX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No. 10381 of 1984. By the said judgment, the learned Additional City Civil Judge has dismissed the plaintiffs suit.

(2.) A few facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated, are as under: Plaintiff filed a suit at O.S. No. 10381 of 1984 praying for a decree for permanent injunction on the allegation that he was in lawful possession of the suit property as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 100A. It is his case that he had also paid an amount of Rs. 80,000/- by way of advance. According to him he spent considerable amount for the interior decoration of the shop premises and for advertisement and also installed machineries, besides the stock of cassettes and records worth about Rs. 50,000/-. He has given the details in that behalf in para 5 of the plaint. According to plaintiff, he had great regard and respect for the defendant and did not insist upon the receipts for the payment made by him. Since according to him, defendant was thinking in terms of dispossessing him with an ulterior motive, he filed the suit praying for the reliefs referred to hereinabove.

(3.) Defendant resisted the suit of the plaintiff. The case made out by the plaintiff that he has been inducted in the suit premises by the defendant as a tenant is denied by the defendant. He has also denied all other allegations made in the plaint incidental to the said allegations. According to defendant, he has been running a photographic shop selling photographic films etc., under the name and style of "E.G.K. and sons" and apart from the photographic shop, defendant has also been running an ice-cream parlour under the name and style of "Chit Chat" and that he is also a dealer for HMT watches and is having a small show room displaying HMT watches in a portion of the said premises. According to him, he is also running a Handicrafts Emporium in another portion of the same building. It is the version of defendant that when he was so running these different business in the said complex, plaintiff who is stated to be a citizen of Singapore used to visit defendant's shop in connection with certain business transaction and plaintiff and defendant became acquainted in that connection. Defendant has averred that plaintiff represented to him that he was a citizen of Singapore and that he visits Singapore very frequently and that he would be able to get imported cassettes and records and sell them, if some place is made available to him in the said complex for the said purpose. It is also the version of the defendant that plaintiff in that behalf promised to pay defendant a small commission on the basis of the sales made therein and that defendant believing the representation made by the plaintiff and taking into consideration the fact that plaintiff was still young, granted leave and licence only and permitted him to display cassettes and sell musical records. He has also given the details of the oral agreement between them in that behalf in para 4 of his written statement. It is the version of the defendant that there were several raids by customs authorities upon the shop running by plaintiff on the ground that he was selling contraband goods and immediately thereafter, defendant withdrew the leave and licence and asked plaintiff to cease from using the shop and since plaintiff has not ceased to use the schedule shop, defendant is thinking in terms of taking suitable legal action to restrain him from doing so. Defendant has also denied the various allegations and other allegations made in the plaint contrary to the stand taken by him. He prayed for the dismissal of the suit.