NATHURAM GOVINDRAM Vs. SUBHASH TAVANAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under Section 100 of the C.P.C. has been filed by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree passed by the III Additional District Judge, Belgaum, in R.A.No. 17/1994, dated 2.4.1996, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the I Additional Civil Judge, Belgaum, in O.S.No. 135/1990 dated 8.2.1994.

(2.) The case of the respondent-plaintiff is:

(3.) In the written statement, among other things, the appellant-defendant has contended that the mortgagee had been authorised by the mortgagor to enjoy the property transferred or by leasing it to others. The lease created by the mortgagee in his favour was therefore with due permission and consent of the mortgagee. With the consent of Sudharam Devendrappa, Nathuram Govindram Panjabi (partner of appellant-defendant firm) purchased the stock-in-trade in the name of his minor son Motiram on 23.2.1971 and continued in possession of the property as a tenant. The appellant-defendant has contended that he could be evicted only according to the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act and the suit for possession was not maintainable.