K S MANI Vs. K VASUDEVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in O.S.No.1291/2013 on the file of Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, have preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 9.10.2018.

(2.) The respondents being the plaintiffs instituted a suit for ejecting the appellants from a portion of property bearing no.7 situated at S.S.I.Area, 1st Cross, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. It is stated that this portion consists of two units, the 1st unit measuring East to West 30 ft. and North to South 20 ft. and the 2nd unit measuring East to West 18 ft. and North to South 16 ft. (referred to as 'schedule property' hereafter). The plaintiffs pleaded that Smt. D.Rajamma, the mother of the 1st plaintiff and grandmother of 2nd plaintiff inducted the defendants 1 and 2 as her tenants in respect of the schedule property. Rajamma died leaving behind a will in favour of the 2nd plaintiff. The 1st plaintiff is the father of the 2nd plaintiff. Since the plaintiffs wanted the schedule property for their self occupation, they terminated the tenancy by issuing a notice on 18.01.2013. The defendants' failure to vacate the schedule property resulted in a suit being filed for ejecting them and damages at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month.

(3.) Defendant no.2 died during pendency of the suit and his legal representatives came on record. Defendant no.2(a) filed written statement contending mainly that the schedule property was taken by them on a monthly rental basis in the year 1983. They were paying rent of Rs.11,000/- per month and they had also paid security deposit of Rs.85,000/- to the plaintiffs. Defendant no.1 is running an industry in the schedule property and has been manufacturing electronic components. They never committed default in paying the rent. On 12.02.2011, there was renewal of lease up to 12.02.2021 with enhancement of rent from Rs.9,500/- to Rs.11,000/- per month. There came into existence new lease agreement, but the plaintiffs did not give them a copy of the new agreement. The plaintiffs have suppressed the fact of the renewal of the lease. They also contended that notice of termination of the lease was not in accordance with law. They pleaded for dismissal of the suit.