AMAR TRANSPORT COMPANY BANGALORE Vs. MUTHU GANAPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 5610 of 2001, dated 18-8-2004. The appellant herein was a defendant before the Trial Court against whom the respondent herein filed a suit for delivery of vacant possession of suit schedule premises and also a direction for the payment of Rs. 10,000/- towards the arrears of rent apart from damages from the date of suit till the date of possession etc.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court was, the appellant herein became a tenant under a lease deed dated 1-12-1999 on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/ -. Eviction Petition No. 922 of 1990 was filed for eviction of the appellant on the ground of bona fide use and occupation of the premises. But however, said suit was dismissed as not maintainable. Right from the beginning, the appellant did not pay the rents and as on the date of filing of the suit, he was due in a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards arrears of rent and after adjusting the arrears of rent from the advance paid by the tenant, still, the defendant/appellant was due in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as on the date of filing of the suit. With these averments, he sought eviction of the tenant. Before filing the suit, a notice dated 20-2-2001 was also issued to the defendant which was not replied.

(3.) AS against this the defendant, inter alia, appeared and contended that the suit itself was not maintainable as the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts. For many decades, he is carrying on the business in the suit schedule property as a tenant. All the rents with periodical enhancements as and when demanded by the respondent/plaintiff was paid right from the time of predecessors in title of the plaintiff. The termination of tenancy is not in accordance with law and after expiry of lease period as per agreement dated 1-12-1999, the defendant continued to be in possession of the premises. For the best reason known to the plaintiff, two lease deeds came to be take in respect of the entire premises and the appellant did not object for the same in order to maintain cordial relationship between the parties. A sum of Rs. 50,000/-was paid as advance and the appellant was to deduct a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month from January 2001 onwards out of the monthly rent of rs. 2,000/- till such time a sum of Rs. 30,000/- is adjusted towards the rent out of the advance amount, leaving balance of Rs. 20,000/- as security deposit. This would belie the claim of the plaintiff that the lease was only for a period of 11 months. The suit is premature, therefore, it deserves to be dismissed.