MANIRAM INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES Vs. B S SATHYA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two appeals the respondents is the landlord/plaintiff and appellant is the tenant/defendant. The petitions schedule premises Were rented-out to the tenant by the father of the plaintiff. The parties are common. Hence, both these-appeals have been heard together at the stage of admission at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The landlord filed two ejectment suits against the tenant in O.S.Nos.1799/2001 and 8451/2002 in respect of the schedule premises respectively and after contest, the same have been decreed by the trial Court by the judgments and decrees under, these appeals. The tenant has assailed the legality and correctness of the same by urging various grounds. The legal contentions urged on behalf of the tenants will be dealt with separately.

(3.) During the pendency of these appeals, applications have been filed. I.AI/2005 for producing additional documents, I.A.III/2005 for amendment of written statement, I.AIV/2005 for raising additional grounds, I.A.V/2005 again for production of additional documents, I.A.VI/2005 for production of additional evidence in the first Appeal. Another application is also filed for amendment of written statement in the original suit in respect of which first Appeal is filed by the tenant. In support of these applications, the Learned Counsel Mr. N.K. Gupta, for the appellants/tenants relied upon the following decisions: 1. 2004 (2) SC 706, 2. ILR 2005 KAR 4337 3. 2004 SCW 4422. 4. AIR 1978 Allahabad 66: The plaintiff/landlord has filed objections to the applications. Opposing the applications, Mr. Ravi Kumar, Learned Counsel for the tenant has relied upon the following decisions: 1. AIR 1978 SC 799, 2. AIR 1970 SC 423, ILR 1985 KARNATAKA 3243, 4. ILR 1986 KARNATAKA 18, 5. ILR 2001 KARNATAKA 3060: In order to determine the real controversy between the parties, the above applications are allowed and the additional plea in the written statement and additional grounds urged in the First Appeal is also examined and considered in answering the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties.