BASAPPA Vs. GANGADHAR GANAPAYYA SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Sri i. g. gachchinamath, counsel for the appellant and Sri t. s. amar kumar, counsel for the respondent.

(2.) THIS second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, arises from the judgment and decree dated 15-11-1991, delivered by the principal civil judge, hubli, in regular appeal No. 85 of 1983, dismissing the defendant's legal representatives first appeal from the judgment and decree dated 13-7-1983, passed by 1st additional munsiff, hubli, in regular suit in o. s. no. 596 of 1981, affirming the judgment and decree of the trial court, decreeing the plaintiff-respondent's suit for mandatory injunction for delivery of possession and for recovery of the sums as licence fee. 2-a. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the plaintiff- respondent filed the suit giving rise to the second appeal for the grant of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to vacate the suit premises and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 913-15, being licence fee for the period from 6-10-1976 to 6-12-1981, together with costs. The plaintiff-respondent alleged in the plaint with respect to the property in suit (more specifically described in the plaint of the suit, measurements and location of which has been mentioned in the plaint) belonged to the plaintiff-respondent. Plaintiffs further case has been that the plaintiff-respondent had given shop in dispute to the defendant-appellant for use and occupation and for carrying the job or profession of a cobbler, dealing with leather articles on the conditions indicated in document of lease and licence for a sum of Rs. 10-50 per month, as licence fee vide the agreement of deed dated 7-11-1975. The plaintiffs case has been that, thereafter, the expiry of the period of leave and licence, the defendant was bound to vacate the suit premises. The plaintiffs case is that the licence was granted for a period of 11 months. That as the defendant-appellant did not vacate and handover the shop to the plaintiff-respondent, a legal notice was issued on 3-6-1981, requiring the defendant to pay off the licence fee as well as to hand over the vacant possession. According to plaintiffs case, defendant-appellant did not comply with the same and on one pretext or other, did not vacate or hand over the possession and did not pay the licence fees from 6-10-1976. The plaintiff averred that the defendant-appellant had no right, title or interest over the property. The plaintiffs case is that the suit property is part and parcel of the building and shop of the plaintiff, where the plaintiff had been running a book depot and the same was required by the plaintiff.

(3.) THE plaintiff alleged that as such in the above circumstances, he had been compelled to file this suit, suit giving rise to this appeal as mentioned above.