BASAVANNA Vs. NAGARUDRAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is an unfortunate that the tenant and landlord colluded together and fought for their personal gain at the cost of general public at large. The unsuccessful plaintiff is before this Court against the order dated 21st September 2017 made in dismissing the appeal by confirming the order passed by the trial Court dated 29th August 2017 partly allowing I.A.No.2 filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure for temporary injunction.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction contending that the defendant being the owner-landlord of the suit schedule property morefully described in the schedule to the plaint, the same was leased out in the year 2008 and the plaintiff after obtaining necessary renewal has been running Amusement Park and spent about a sum of Rs.55,50,000/- approximately and has been running from the year 2008 to 2016 on being renewal of lease between the parties.

(3.) When the things stood thus, the defendant issued notice of termination of tenancy to the plaintiff and tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and running of Amusement Park by the plaintiff. Therefore, he was constrained to issue notice and file a suit for relief sought for.