E G KUMARAVELU Vs. K R KANAKARATHNAM CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) defendants 1 and 2 in original suit no. 4092 of 1980 are the appellants before this court and the plaintiffs in that suit no. 4092 of 1980 are respondents 1 to 5. Defendants 3 and 4 in the trial court are respondents 6 and 7 in this appeal. The parties are hereinafter referred by their ranks in the trial court in this appeal for the sake of convenience.

(2.) plaintiff No. 1 is the husband of plaintiff No. 2 and plaintiffs 3 to 5 are their children. They instituted the suit alleging that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the owners of the cinema theatre known as "opera house" (new opera talkies) municipal old no. 24, residency road, Bangalore and new no. 57 (old no. 101), brigade road, civil station, Bangalore and also All the machineries, projectors, generators, electric motor, electrical fittings, screens, etc., in the said theatre more fully described in the schedule to the plaint. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 under the lease deeds dated 27-9-1975 and 1-10-1975 had leased out the schedule theatre with the machineries and fixtures to the defendants 1 and 2 till 31-8-1978. On the request of the defendants 1 and 2, the plaintiffs granted a grace period of three months to wind up their business of exhibiting the pictures by the agreement dated 9-9-1978 till 30-11-1978 to vacate the schedule theatre with machineries, projectors, etc., and to hand over the same to the plaintiffs. By the letter dated 11-9-1978 with concurrence of the defendants 1 and 2, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 intimated the deputy commissioner to renew the licence only for a period of three months till 30-11-1978 and he accordingly renewed the licence. By the letter dated 29-7-1978, the plaintiffs intimated the defendants 1 and 2 to vacate the schedule premises on 31-8-1978 and they also got issued through their advocate, a registered legal notice dated 26-10-1978 calling on them to hand over the possession of the premises on or after the midnight of 30th november, 1978 after which date the defendants have no authority to continue in possession of the property.

(3.) plaintiff no. 3 is the son and plaintiffs 4 and 5 are the daughters of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and they are the owners of the furniture and fittings in the plaint schedule property and by three separate written agreements dated 10-10-1975 have leased out the furniture and fittings in the schedule theatre to the defendants 1 and 2 and have also terminated the tenancy of the defendants 1 and 2 in respect of the furniture and fittings by a registered notice dated 24-10-1978 and asked them to hand over possession on or after the midnight of 30-11-1978. Defendants 1 and 2 have replied the notice on 2/3-11-1978 and have illegally and without authorisation continued in possession of the plaint schedule property.