PUSHPA Vs. N R RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant. Her suit for declaration and injunction in Original Suit No. 428 of 1974 was decreed by the learned Additional munsiff, Civil Station, Bangalore, on 25-10-1978. On appeal in Regular appeal No. 836 of 1980, the learned 10th Additional Civil Judge, Mayo hall, Bangalore, has allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit on 27-11-1986. Hence, the second appeal.

(2.) THE plaintiff claimed that she purchased the going concern from one K. Venkataraman on 27-6-1970 and the said Venkataraman was a tenant under the defendants. The plaintiff further claimed that by virtue of her purchase, she became the owner and the rent paid by her has been accepted by the defendant. Consequently, she said that she cannot be evicted except in accordance with law. She also prayed for injunction restraining the second defendant from constructing a wall or any other structure on the suit schedule land. The defendants denied the tenancy of the appellant and contended that she never attorned the tenancy in their favour and she is a trespasser so far as they are concerned.

(3.) THE Trial Court decreed the suit declaring that the plaintiff is atenant of the suit premises, which is not her prayer at all. In fact, the trial Court has granted a decree for declaration without being asked for. The Trial Court also granted the injunction prayed for by the plaintiff. On appeal, the Appellate Court rightly held that the plaintiff can at most be held to be a sub-tenant under the original tenant venkataraman and such sub-tenant under Section 23 (1) and (2) of the karnataka Rent Control Act, apart from Section 21 (1) (f) of the Act cannot claim to be a tenant and consequently the plaintiff is a trespasser. In this view, the Appellate Court had dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to injunction,