D G RAMUSA Vs. K V MARUTISA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The III Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH no. 25) by his judgment dated 29.7.2006 in O.S.1239/2005 held that the plaintiff in the said suit was entitled to recover possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendant who was given six months time to vacate the premises. Aggrieved by this judgment, the defendant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff claiming to be the landlord of property bearing no. 1, 1st Floor, 2nd Cross, A.M.Lane, B.V.K.Iyengar Road, Bengaluru, measuring East to West 20 feet and North to South 17 feet (for short referred to as 'plaint schedule property') instituted the suit for evicting the defendant. The plaintiff stated that the defendant occupied the plaint schedule property as a tenant on initial rent of Rs.2,800/-. The rent was enhanced periodically and Rs.3,000/- rent was being paid by the defendant at the time of institution of the suit. He stated further that the defendant became irregular in paying the rent. In spite of repetitive demands, the defendant did not pay the rent and therefore got issued a legal notice to the defendant and demanded of him to quit and deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to him. In addition the plaintiff also claimed damages at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month from date of termination of tenancy till date of decree.

(3.) Defendant in his written statement admitted that he is the tenant of the plaintiff. He stated that he occupied the plaint schedule property on 25.3.1996. It was the plaintiff's father who leased the property to him, but the agreement of lease was executed by the plaintiff in the capacity of general power of attorney holder of his father. He admitted the rate of rent, but contended that he had paid security deposit of Rs.50,000/- and goodwill of Rs.2,50,000/-. He denied that he became defaulter in payment of rent and also denied to have received the notice.