M V SHANKARA RAO Vs. SARVAMANGALAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Counsel appearing in both the cases submitted that both the appeals involves some question of law, therefore, they may be heard in common and a common Judgment may be delivered.

(2.) The above R.S.A. No. 567/79, is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 9-4-79 made in RA.No. 97/78 on the file of the Civil Judge, Tiptur, confirming the Judgment and- Decree dated 31-8-77, made in O.S.No.74/75, on the file of the Munsiff and J.M.F.C, Chikkanayakanahalli.

(3.) The facts of the case in brief are that: Plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property for having purchased the same its owners named Shamanna and his son, on 30-10-74. The defendant is a tenant under the original owners in respect of the suit property on a monthly rental of Rs. 30/-. The tenancy month commences on 17th of each month. The plaintiff determined the tenancy by means of a notice which was served on 6-3-75 asking the defendant to quit the suit premises on or before 17-4-75. The plaintiff has also asked the defendant to attorn the tenancy in favour of plaintiff. The defendant has not paid rents from 30-10-74 to 17-4-75 amounting to Rs. 165/-. Further the plaintiff requires the house and site for her own use and occupation. The plaintiff has submitted that she is residing in a rented house. Therefore, she prays that possession of the plaint schedule house may be given to her after vacating the same. The defendant in interalia contended that the allegations made against him are not true. But in the first para of his written statement he has said in so many words that he has leased the said house from one Shamanna for Rs. 30/- per month from 17-3-1963. Later with his consent the defendant had put up a construction by spending about Rs.15,000/- for the purpose of running hotel called "Krishna Lunch Home." Neither Shamanna nor the plaintiff have got any right to question the said construction. Learned Munsiff, after examining the documents produced by both the parties decreed the suit. Being aggrieved the defendant filed an appeal in RA.97/78 in the Court of the Civil Judge, at Tiptur. The learned Civil Judge, after hearing both the parties dismissed the appeal on 9-4-1979, and confirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Munsiff., Aggrieved by the same the Defendant filed R.S.A. in this Court. Similar are the facts of the connected appeal.