ASSOCIATED TRADERS AND ENGINEERS LTD Vs. J NAGARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants were defendants and respondents were plaintiffs in the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience they are referred to as such.

(2.) THE plaintiffs filed suit in O. S. No. 876 of 2004 against the defendants for ejectment and for future mesne profits. The defendants opposed the suit, denied the plaint averments and prayed for dismissal of the suit. The suit went for trial. Parties adduced evidence and produced documents in support of their respective case. Upon appreciation of the material placed on record, the Trial Court by its judgment under appeal decreed the suit directing the defendants to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule premises and directing enquiry regarding future mesne profits. Questioning the legality and correctness of the same, the defendants have filed this appeal.

(3.) THE defendants took a stand on the basis of admission of P. W. 1 that they are not the owners but their mother is given life interest under the Will executed by their father in respect of the suit schedule premises. Therefore, it was contended that plaintiffs have no locus standi either to issue the quit notice or file the suit for ejectment. It is also contended that plaintiffs mother has not issued legal notice terminating the tenancy as required under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. This is a legal point which can be raised in the appeal. In this regard, learned Counsel for the defendants relied upon the decisions reported in Jagdish Chander Chatterjee and Others v Shri sri, Kishan Tandon and Another and Ram Charan Mowar v Ved prakash. The stand taken by the defendants is wholly untenable and liable to be rejected. The reason is, in the judgment of the Trial Court at paragraph 7 the stand taken by the defendants in the written statement is referred to as under: