AKASH ZINGADE Vs. MUNIPOOJAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH served respondent has remained unrepresented.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner. Matter arises in a short compass.

(3.) CASE of the plaintiff has been that the schedule property is absolutely owned by him having purchased the same under a sale deed dated 25.10.2010; indeed, the original owner of the schedule property one Narayanappa executed general power of attorney in favour of the father of plaintiff and it is the father of plaintiff based on the said general power of attorney sold the property to the present plaintiff. After the death of Narayanappa, his children entered into lease agreement with the defendant in respect of the plaint vacant property on a monthly rent of Rs. 600/ - by receiving Rs. 50,000/ - as security deposit. The plaintiff terminated the tenancy by issuing a notice as per Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and filed the present suit invoking the provisions of the Small Causes Courts Act, 1964 (for short the Act'). Plaintiff also urged that the defendant had inducted some third parties in the suit premises with an intention to deprive the plaintiff of his right to secure possession of the property.