SHEELA RAJASHEKHARAYYA HIREMATH Vs. SOMANATHSA YALLAPPA KATVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an unsuccessful tenants regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18th November, 2014 made in R.A. No. 25/2013 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi confirming the judgment and decree dated 9.1.2013 made in O.S. No. 68/2012 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge, Hubballi decreeing the suit of the respondent/landlord by directing the defendant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) The respondent/landlord filed a suit against the defendant/tenant for vacant possession of the suit property contending the he is the absolute owner of the residential property comprised in CTS No. 3502B measuring 40.4/9 sq. yards situated in CTS Ward No. 1, CBT Killa, Hubli and the suit property was given on rent to the defendant on 1.10.2000 for a monthly rent of Rs. 4,000/ -. It was his contention that the defendant was regularly paying the rent to him till 30.12.2009 and thereafter, she started to pay the rent irregularly and also postponed the same. Hence, she became the chronic defaulter in payment of rent, since she had not paid the rent from 1.1.2010 in spite of several requests made by him. Therefore, he was constrained to issue a legal notice on 7.12.2011 with a clear 15 days termination of tenancy of the defendant calling upon her to vacate and hand over the vacant and actual possession of the suit schedule property by the end of the said month, but the defendant on 19.12.2001 had evasively replied to the said notice. Therefore, the plaintiff/respondent had filed a suit.

(3.) The defendant filed her written statement denying the relationship of landlord and tenant contending that the plaintiff had agreed to mortgage the suit property for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/ - for a period of 3 years to her and accordingly, on 11.5.2009, the plaintiff executed an agreement of mortgage in her favour. That she was always being ready and willing to abide by the terms of the agreement of mortgage. She had also paid a sum of Rs. 1,155/ - towards the transfer of property in the name of the plaintiffs, property tax of the suit property for the year 2011 -12 including arrears of Rs. 5,549/ - and arrears of Water bill to the tune of Rs. 9,090/ - and that she had also fixed a water meter to the property in question at her costs of Rs. 855/ -. Thus in all she had paid a sum of Rs. 16,649/ - to HDMC and that the plaintiff is bound to reimburse the same to her. She further submitted that the plaintiff approached her and threatened to vacate and hand over the peaceful possession of the suit property by the end of May, 2012 without refunding mortgage debt of Rs. 2,50,000/ -. Therefore, she prayed for dismissal of the suit.