P DAMODARA RAJU Vs. R S PARAMESHWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O.S.2590/2012 on the file of City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, is the appellant. The respondent being the plaintiff in the suit sought ejectment of the defendant from property bearing house list katha No. 1024, Premises No.1 in Sy.No.41 of Banaswadi Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, measuring East-West 40' and North-South 48.5' (referred to as 'plaint schedule property' hereafter).

(2.) The pleading put forward by the plaintiff is that she being the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property leased it to the defendant in the year 1990 on an oral lease between them. The defendant is running a business in the hardware items under the name and style of 'R.R. Steels Agency'. It was a monthly tenancy on a rent of Rs.3,000/- p.m. There was periodical enhancement in the rent. On the date of the suit, the defendant was paying Rs.9,900/- per month. After the death of the plaintiff's husband, she found it difficult to lead life and wanted to have a business set up for her son and therefore requested the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule property. The defendant did not heed to her request. She approached a free legal aid service centre called "Shree Sadguru Seva Samithi" which contacted the District Legal Services Authority. On 27.2.2006, the District Legal Services Authority addressed a letter to the defendant calling upon him to get the matter settled before the Lok Adalath. Since defendant did not respond to this, the plaintiff got issued legal notices to the defendant on 22.10.2006, 29.12.2006 and 10.5.2007 calling upon him to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property. Defendant did not oblige and then again on 26.12.2011 she issued one more notice to the defendant terminating the tenancy. The defendant received the notice and did not vacate. Hence, she instituted the suit.

(3.) The defendant not only denies the ownership of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property but also her assertion that she leased this plaint schedule property to him orally in the year 1990. He has contended that there does not exist the relationship of landlord and tenant. According to him, he took over the possession of the plaint schedule property in the year 1990. Investing huge amount of money, he constructed a shop premises, and obtained power supply and started doing business in hardware items. The vacant possession adjacent to the shop is also in his possession. His specific contention is that he has perfected right, title and interest over the plaint schedule property by adverse possession and as such he cannot be evicted.