ANANTSWAMI Vs. RADHA SRINATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.470/2004 dated 24.11.2005 on the file of the 25th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City. The appellant was the defendant in the suit and the respondents were the plaintiffs. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their ranking before the Trial Court.

(2.) It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are the owners of the suit schedule premises. The defendant approached the 1st plaintiff for lease of the said premises. It is further contended that the defendant prepared a document styled as a "deed of mortgage" and took signature of the 1st plaintiff on the representation that such a document is necessary to comply with the procedure prescribed under the Rent Control Act during the relevant point of time. The contents of the document were not explained to her. The defendant paid an advance of Rs.30,000/- and agreed to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month towards rent. Since, the plaintiffs wanted the schedule premises for their occupation, they issued a notice dated 1.11.1998 terminating the tenancy of the defendant. In his reply dated 12.1.1999, the defendant admitted his tenancy under the plaintiffs in respect of the schedule premises on a monthly rent of Rs.2,500/-. The plaintiffs filed an eviction petition in HRC No. 126/1999 on the file of the Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore. In the said proceedings, the defendant filed an application under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short 'the 1999 Act'), which was allowed by the Court on 28.2.2002 and the parties were directed to approach the Civil Court for appropriate reliefs. The revision filed by the plaintiffs challenging the said order in HRRP No.238/2002 was rejected by the High Court by the order dated 7.3.2003. Thereafter, the plaintiffs have filed the suit in question for possession of the suit schedule property and for certain other reliefs.

(3.) The defendant has filed his written statement, contending that the 1st plaintiff had brought the mortgage deed drafted by her advocate and asked the defendant to sign the same. The 1st plaintiff and the defendant signed the said deed in the presence of two witnesses. The defendant has paid the advance to the 1st plaintiff in accordance with the said agreement. The filing of the eviction petition by the plaintiffs in HRC No. 126/1999 and its dismissal as also the dismissal HRRP No.238/2002 by the High Court are admitted by the defendant.