YUVARAJ AND ORS. Vs. NAVEENKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenants have filed the above revision petition against the judgment and decree dated 25.4.2015 made in SCC. 1/2012 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bagalkot, decreeing the suit of the respondent -plaintiff and directed the defendants 1 and 2 to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property bearing CTS No. 429 measuring 20' x 25' which is shown as ABCDEFGH, situated at Ward No. 9 of Bagalkot, within three months from the date of the order and also reserved liberty to the plaintiff to get possession of the suit property under due process of law.

(2.) IT is the case of the respondent -plaintiff that the suit schedule property, more fully described in the plaint, was given to the plaintiff, his mother and brothers and therefore, the plaintiff and his family members are the absolute owners of suit property and it is stated in the plaint that the suit is filed by the plaintiff on behalf of his mother, sisters and brothers. The defendants in the suit schedule property to an extent of 20 feet East -West and 25 feet North -South are in possession from the ancestors of the plaintiff on rental basis. After the ancestors of the defendants, the defendants continued in possession of the suit schedule property on rental basis. The suit schedule property is described as 'WXYZ' in the sketch enclosed along with the plaint. The ancestors of the plaintiff have given the above said property on rental basis to the ancestors of the defendants about 40 years ago fixing the monthly rent. The suit property is a small shop in which defendants are running 'Sardar Hotel' and ancestors of defendants were being paying paid rent fixed. After the death of ancestors of defendants, mother of the defendants by name Chandraprabha Dalavi and thereafter the defendants also continued in possession of the aforesaid property on rental basis orally. In the year 2001, the plaintiff has become owner of the suit property and defendants continued their relationship with the plaintiff as tenants and plaintiff as landlord. However, there was no written document or mortgage deed executed in between the ancestors of plaintiff and defendants. Therefore, the defendants are being paid rent as orally fixed for every month. Then the defendants and their mother colluding with other persons who are in inimical terms with the plaintiff, got filed O.S. No. 24/2008 against the plaintiff and his brother Praveenkumar Andaneppa Wali for permanent injunction and the in the said suit, on 20.6.08 the defendants obtained permanent injunction. In the meanwhile before disposing said O.S. 24/08, the defendants in the name of the plaintiff, his mother and another brother got executed a false agreement dated 2.2.2008. The said false agreement is not binding on the plaintiff as it is created by defendants behind the back of the plaintiff, their mother and brother.

(3.) THE 1st defendant filed written statement and 2nd defendant has adopted the same. They have denied the relationship between plaintiff and defendants as landlord and tenants and also denied the ownership of plaintiff over suit schedule property. It is also denied that brother, sister and mother of the plaintiff have given oral consent to the plaintiff to file the present suit. It is not admitted by the defendants that schedule shown in the plaint in respect of suit property is not correct. But it is admitted that earlier Baburao Kokate was the tenant in the suit property. Later mother of plaintiff, after death of Baburao Kokate became the tenant. After death of Chandraprabha Dalavi, the defendants are residing as tenants. But the defendants submit that they are not the tenants under the plaintiff as claimed by plaintiff. It is admitted that the defendants are running hotel in the name and style "Sardar Hotel". The ancestors of defendants were paying rent to the owner who is residing at Athani who is claiming to be true owner. It is also denied by defendants that they are paying rent to the plaintiff as per oral agreement between the parties. It is also not admitted that the plaintiff has become owner in the year 2001 but however, it is admitted by defendants that there is no agreement regarding tenancy between the plaintiff and defendants. Further it is admitted that mother of the defendants had filed O.S. 24/08 before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) against the plaintiff. The said suit rightly decreed but the plaintiff has not preferred any appeal and the permanent injunction granted in the said suit is binding on the plaintiff and his men till today, etc. On these grounds the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.