YASHAWANT Vs. VIJAY RAJARAM DAIV AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the defendants second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2011 made in R.A. No. 48/2007 on the file of the FTC -I, Chikkodi, dismissing the appeal with costs of Rs. 10,000/ - confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.08.2007 made in O.S. No. 5/2005 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dm), Nipani dismissing the suit in part directing to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - as damages for a period of 12 months from the date of suit till delivery of the possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs.

(2.) The plaintiffs - respondents filed suit against the defendant for recovery of possession of suit property from the defendant and also damages of Rs. 8,000/ - for a period of 12 months contending that the suit property consists of business premises measuring 19 feet East -West and 11 feet South -North on Easter side and 10 Feet South -North on Western side out of property bearing CMC No. 103/180/93 which totally measures 85 feet East West on Southern side and 77 feet East -West on Northern side and 64 feet 9 inches South -North on Eastern side and 52 feet South -North on Western side situated within the limits of city Municipal, Nipani. They are the owners of the property in question and it is their ancestral property. The defendant is in occupation as a monthly tenant at the rate of Rs. 8,000/ - for 12 months and the said property was leased to the father of the defendant in the year 1960 running business of cold drinks. The father of the defendant after taking the suit property on lease started business of cold drinks under individual partnership named and styled as Apsara Cold Drinks and said business was continued by the defendant by having necessary licence and certificates from the labour office of Government of Karnataka and he was paying rents to the plaintiffs at Rs. 8,000/ - till the end of April 2004 etc. Therefore, sought for possession.

(3.) The defendant filed written statement and denied the plaint averments and contended that suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant, contending that he was paying rent Rs. 3,000/ - per year and not Rs. 8,000/ - per year as contended by the plaintiff and admitted contents of para 4 of the plaint etc.