V N JARTARGHAR Vs. PURADAPPA VEERAPPA SAUNSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants are the appellants. Plaintiffs are the respondents. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and also for ejectment of the defendants from the suit schedule premises. The learned Trial Judge decreed the suit. On appeal by the defendants, the same is confirmed. Hence, this second appeal.

(2.) THE facts germane to the disposal of this appeal can be succinctly stated as follows: the plaintiffs are the absolute owners and landlords of the premises in question. Defendant No. 2 representing as a partner of defendant No. 1 took the suit premises on lease from plaintiffs' predecessors in title one Kanteppa chanabasappa Noolvi. The plaintiffs claim that they have succeeded to his rights pursuant to a Will executed by him. The testator died on 3-4-1981. Pursuant to the Will, the plaintiffs' names are mutated in the CTS records in respect of the suit property. When the Will was executed, the plaintiffs were minors and were represented through their natural guardian mother one Smt. Chandrawwa. After the death of Kanteppa noolvi, the defendants have been paying rents in respect of the suit schedule properties and have obtained receipts from the mother of the plaintiffs, since they were minors. After the plaintiffs attained majority, they have been receiving rents and receipts are being issued by them. The plaintiffs would also contend that they have become the absolute owners of the suit property pursuant to a compromise decree passed in O. S. No. 77/90 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Hubli. The tenancy of the defendants commences from 27th of each English calendar months and ends on 26th of next English calender month of the year. Some time in the year october 2000 by mutual consent and oral agree`ment between the plaintiffs and defendant no. 2, the rent of the said property was enhanced to Rs. 1,000/- per month i. e. , the rent was enhanced from Rs. 8,000/- per annum excluding the property tax payable to Rs. 12,000/-per annum. Suffice it to say that the defendants did not pay the agreed rent. The plaintiffs would further aver that the suit property is required by them for their personal use and occupation to start a business. Hence, a notice was issued on 5-11-2003, terminating the tenancy of the defendants and calling upon them to handover vacant possession and also to pay the arrears of rent amounting to rs. 14,000/ -. The said notice was served on defendant No. 2 the Managing partner of the firm and a reply was sent on 19-11-2003. In the said reply, the defendants disputed the title of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs would further aver that the defendants had initiated proceedings in HRC 73/1989 on the file of the II additional Munsiff, Hubli under Section 19 of the karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. According to the plaintiffs in the said proceedings, the defendants admitted the ownership of the plaintiffs.

(3.) THE learned trial Judge allowed the petition and permitted the defendant No. 2 to deposit the rent in favour of the plaintiffs. Incidentally, it is also to be noticed that the said order was questioned by the CTO, 2nd Circle, hubti in R. R. No. 211/1990, which was dismissed. Since the defendants not with standing service of notice did not vacate the premises, the present suit is filed for ejectment coupled with arrears of rent and also for future mesne profits.