JEEVAN SINGH RAJPUROHIT Vs. TATTI SRIDHAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant in O.S. No. 264/2014 (old No. 54/2010) has preferred this second appeal, assailing judgment and decree passed in R.A. No. 1535/2014 dated 13.01.2016 by the III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ballari (sitting at Hosapete) by which, judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 264/2014 dated 27.08.2014 by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and J.M.F.C, Hosapete, has been confirmed.

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

(3.) The respondent -plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction. In other words, they were seeking possession of the suit schedule property, they are door numbers 387 and 386, which are shops. Door No. 387 was let out to the defendant in the year 1992 on monthly rent of Rs. 800/ - while door number 386 was let out in the year 1998 on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,500/ -. It was agreed that there would have been 5% escalation after the period of 11 months. Plaintiffs intended to demolish the suit schedule property and put up a new commercial complex thereon. Therefore, a letter was issued to the defendants on 21.08.2009 informing the defendant that he should seek accommodation in the new building after vacating the existing building. The defendant postponed handing over of possession for one reason or the other which compelled the plaintiffs to issue a legal notice terminating the tenancy on 31.12.2009. They demanded vacant possession of the suit shops but the defendant did not comply with the terms of the notice. Hence, they filed the suit seeking eviction of the defendant from the suit shops.