D SHAKUNTALA Vs. D P SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent D. P. Sharma is the owner of a building named "Sunitha Bhavan" on Tippu Sulatan Palace Road, at Bangalore. On 18-11-1982, he leased it out to the appellant Smt. D. Shakuntala for running a hotel-restaurant under a lease deed on a monthly rent of Rs.4500/- for a period of 5 years. The appellant appears to have added some amenities like kitchen on the first-floor and a hotel called 'Hotel Kamadenu' was being run in the said premises by a partnership firm which appears to have later come into existence between the said D. Shakuntala and one A. N. Ahuja. It appears, in 1988 there was no smooth sailing for this hotel. There was labour unrest and the hotel was being run under loss. The partnership even thought of closing it down. It appears, the employees of the hotel were against the closing down of the establishment and the partnership was not happy with them. A suit for injunction in O.S. No. 572/88 came to be filed before the City Civil Court against the employees of the hotel for a decree restraining them permanently from disturbing the peaceful possession of the partnership of the hotel and also from preventing ingress and egress to the same and preventing them from displaying slogans or banners or posters against the Management. Inter- alia it was alleged in the plaint that the defendants therein who were members of Hotel Karmikara Sangha instead of settling their accounts and leaving the schedule premises had started squatting in the premises shouting slogans and carrying banners as the Management had decided to close down the hotel. They were also threatening to destroy and damage the property and harm the persons of the establishment. It was pleaded that the Management has inherent right to close down the establishment. The suit was filed on 2-2-1988 and on 1 A-l for interim relief an order of ex-parte injunction was made by the court on 26-2-1988 as follows : "The matter appears to be urgent. Object of granting injunction will be defeated by delay. Hence issue exparte T.I. as prayed for till next date." The prayer made in I A.I. was to restrain the defendants, their agents, etc. from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and not to enter or remain or prevent the ingress and egress to the schedule premises. That suit is still pending.

(2.) O.S. No. 691/88 was filed before the same City Civil Court by the appellant D. Shakuntala against the respondent- landlord and owner of the premises for a permanent injunction restraining him from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and continued user of the schedule premises or the user thereof for running the hotel. In this suit filed on 9-2- 1988, the plaintiff-appellant alleged that at the instance of the defendant-respondent a kitchen was added on the first-floor to prevent smoke from spoiling the building and this is at the cost of the plaintiff. After this was done, the defendant started demanding Rs. 750/- as additional rent over and above Rs. 4500/- already agreed upon. The defendant also collected interest free advance of Rs, 25,000/- from the plaintiff. After the expiry of the lease period by efflux of time, after 5 years from the date of lease agreement, when there was a move from the plaintiff for extension of the lease, the defendant replied that the case is governed by the Rent Control Act in force and therefore there was no need for fresh agreement extending the lease. Therefore, even after this expiry of lease period, the plaintiff continued to run the hotel. There was no forfeiture of her tenancy right. Due to labour unrest and high-handed behaviour of the employees, O.S. No, 572/88 was filed by the Hotel. That however does not touch anything about the lease-hold right of the plaintiff under the defendant. Taking advantage of this litigation and the interim order against the workers, the defendant was threatening to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the schedule premises without even approaching the court under the Karnataka Rent Control Act of 1961. As the plaintiff apprehended high-handedness on the part of the defendant, the suit for the above relief was filed The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant being a powerful person with lot of influence was likely to forcibly dispossess her from the suit premises. Even in this case, it appears, there was an ex-parte order of injunction.

(3.) Having entered appearance the defendant contended by his written statement that the construction made by the plaintiff for running a kitchen over the first-floor is unauthorised and denied that he demanded additional rental of Rs.750/- per month In view of her clear admission by her pleading in O.S. No. 572/88, she is obliged in law to handover vacant possession of the same as she has obtained an interim order making a representation to the court that she was closing down the business and was intending to handover possession of the premises to the landlord. There has been no renewal of the lease subsequent to expiry of 5 years period. Reference to the provisions of Karnataka Rent Control Act made by the plaintiff is false and vexatious. The hotel being run under heavy loss and reduced the plaintiff to a total financial incapacity it is no longer possible for the plaintiff to continue the hotel business. Even before the expiry of the lease period, understanding the financial difficulties of the plaintiff the defendant had approached her and sought to recover possession of the schedule premises, but she only took a stand that she would try out the business for a period of 5 years and then would vacate it. Without his notice, the plaintiff entered into a clandestine transaction with one Ahuja, a stranger, and filed O.S. No. 572/88 through him. Thus, the gist of his defence is that the hotel has been closed, that she has made her intention to deliver back the possession of the premises to the defendant in O.S. 572/88 and, therefore, she cannot file this suit.