M CHANDRAN Vs. AYEESHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in the suit O.S.6932/2015 has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.3.2018 whereby the suit for ejecting the respondents was dismissed.

(2.) The plaintiff initiated a suit to eject the defendants from a residential premises situated in the first floor of property bearing no.1, corporation no.1/ 13-1, 1st Cross, Ayyappa Garden (Pothalappa Garden), near Mico Factory, Bannerghatta Road, Adugodi, Bengaluru-30 (for short referred to as 'plaint schedule property'). It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and the defendants are his tenants on a monthly rent of Rs.12,500/-. The tenancy period is for a period of 30 days commencing from first day of every calendar month. The first defendant's husband, namely Saleem took the plaint schedule property on rent and after his death, the defendants continued there as tenants. Defendants became irregular in paying the rents. They stopped paying the rent from January 2015. In spite of repeated demands, they did not pay the rent and therefore the plaintiff got issued a notice to the defendants and terminated the tenancy. The defendants did not receive the notice. Therefore, the plaintiff instituted a suit for their ejection and also for damages at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per month.

(3.) The defendants admit the plaintiff to be the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. But, they deny that they are tenants under him. Their specific contention is that on 15.7.2009, the plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale with Mr. Saleem, the husband of the first defendant for selling the plaint schedule property to him for a total consideration of Rs.30,00,000/-. The plaintiff received this amount from Saleem and put him in possession of second floor of the house in part performance of the contract. First defendant's husband died on 6.2.2013. Thereafter, the defendants requested the plaintiff to repay Rs..30,00,000/- to them as they were unable to fulfill the other terms of the transaction. Therefore, the defendants have contended that they are not the tenants under the plaintiff. They have also stated that if Rs.30,00,000/- is returned, they are ready to vacate the plaint schedule property.