THE HUBLI PANJARPOL SAMSTHA Vs. PRABHUDEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O.S. No. 36/2007 has preferred this Second Appeal, assailing judgment and decree passed in R.A. No. 11/2011 by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi, dated 28.10.2013 confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 36/2007 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubli, dated 16.11.2010.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to, in terms of their status before the trial court.

(3.) The respondent -plaintiff filed the suit seeking specific performance of agreement to lease -cum -undertaking of lease dated 08.11.2005 by seeking a decree against the defendant to execute regular lease deed in respect of the suit property for a period of 99 years. According to the plaintiff, he is in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit property, which measures 2178 Sq. ft. The defendant is a registered Trust under the provisions of Karnataka Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1997. The defendant is the owner of the suit property and plaintiff has been a tenant of property for a period of 25 years. The suit property is a part of CTS No. 5175 situated in CTS Ward No. V of Hubli city. The defendant entered into an agreement of lease -cum -undertaking of lease with the plaintiff on 08.11.2005, agreeing to lease the suit property to the plaintiff for a period of 99 years on a yearly rent of Rs. 1,600/ -. The defendant was to execute regular lease deed of the suit property for a period of 99 years within a period of three months from 08.11.2005 in favour of the plaintiff. There were several conditions and clauses in the agreement to lease -cum -undertaking of lease. According to the plaintiff, he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and has always been paying rent in time by postal money order and for the period of 01.07.2005 to 30.06.2006 rents have been accepted as such by the defendant. When the defendant did not come forward to register the agreement to lease -cum -undertaking of lease in favour of the plaintiff, he filed a suit seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 08.11.2005.