KARIGOWDA Vs. SAFDAR ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the defendant's second appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 22nd September, 1984 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Chickmagalur in Rent Appeal No. 30 of 1982 whereby the learned Lower Appellate Court dismissed the defendants' appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 7-7-1982 passed by the Trial Court i.e., the Principal Munsiff and JMFC, Chickmagalur in Regular Suit No. 29 of 1981.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed Suit No. 29 of 1981 with the allegations to the effect that defendant-appellant 1 was the tenant of the house in dispute, on a monthly rental of Rs. 40/-. According to the plaintiff, he purchased the property in dispute under sale deed dated 14-8-1980 from one D,K. Sheshappa Shetty and the tenancy was attorned. According to the plaintiffs case, plaintiff is entitled to collect the rent as well as to take proceedings for eviction of the tenant i.e., defendant-appellant under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. In the plaint it is asserted that defendant-appellant 2 is the wife of defendant-appellant 1 but she had been impleaded as a party in order to obtain an effective decree for eviction. The plaintiffs case is that plaintiff terminated the tenancy by notice dated 6-12-1980. The notice was served by refusal by the first defendant. Copy of the notice was also sent to the 1st defendant by certificate of posting. Plaintiff produced the registered envelope and the certificate of posting with the plaint. According to the plaintiffs case that inspite of service of the notice, defendants failed to comply with the terms of the notice and to vacate the premises of the suit. So there did arise the need or cause of action for filing of the suit for eviction of the defendants and possession of the property in the suit and for recovery of Rs. 180/- being the rents and damages for the house and occupation of the schedule property for the period 14-8-1980 and 31-12-1980 for further decree for future mesne profits pending decision of the case.

(3.) Defendants 1 and 2 filed the written statement. They denied the plaintiffs case. Defendants denied that they were the plaintiffs tenant or that defendant 1 was the tenant of the property in dispute under the plaintiff on a monthly rental of Rs. 40/-. The defendants further asserted that they were not aware that the plaintiff purchased the schedule house under the sale deed dated 14-8-1980 from D.K. Sheshappa Shetty. They denied that the allegation that defendant 1 had attorned the tenancy in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants asserted that the rent of the schedule house in dispute was Rs. 15/- p.m. According to the defendants case, the defendants obtained the schedule house on rent from Smt. Girijamma wife of Sheshappa Shetty about 15 years back on a monthly rental of Rs. 10/- and thereafter it was increased to Rs. 15/- per month. Defendants also alleged that the schedule property belonged to one Shamanna and Shamanna agreed to sell it to the 2nd defendant. Defendants alleged that no legal notice of termination of tenancy was served on them by the plaintiff either by registered post or by certificate of posting. They further alleged that no tenement is available for rent in Mudigere town and they would be put to great hardship than the plaintiff if they were evicted from the plaint schedule property and prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.