USHA AND OTHERS Vs. LAILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants are the defendants in a suit for eviction, permanent prohibitory injunction and for damages. The suit was decreed against the appellants. With a delay of 371 days they approached the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court refused to condone the delay finding that there was no merit in the delay condonation petition and consequently the appeal was also dismissed. Feeling aggrieved,the appellants have approached this court in second appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.

(2.) Brief facts are as follows:- Plaintiff/respondent is the owner of plaint A schedule building situated in Pulimath Grama Panchayath. The first appellant is a tenant of the building. He took the building on lease agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- . Second appellant is the husband of the first appellant. The term of lease was six months. It was expired on 16-11-2012. The first appellant kept rent in arrears. Hence a notice was issued terminating the tenancy and the appellants were asked to vacate the building. They failed to do so and raised false contentions. Hence the suit for eviction and other reliefs have been filed.

(3.) The appellants filed a written statement contending that the rent deed relied on by the plaintiff/respondent is a concocted one and the first appellant had not executed Ext-A1 rent deed. It is the contention raised by the first appellant that from her childhood she is residing in the house and she assisted the plaintiff in domestic affairs. When the building became in a dilapidated condition, with the permission of the plaintiff, the appellants conducted maintenance incurring an expense of Rs. 3,30,000/-. The suit is liable to be dismissed.