GANGADHAR NAGANNA RAJULWAR Vs. CHANDRABHAGA RAJESHWAR GANGSHETTIWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the original defendant has filed this second appeal taking an exception to the judgment dated 20-5-1989 and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1986 whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment dated 13-1 -1986 and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Dn. , in Regular Civil suit No. 130 of 1982 was confirmed by which the defendant was directed to hand over the possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff with direction to pay arrears of rent of Rs. 234.50 and Rs. 25/- as damages with further enquiry under Order 20, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The respondent/original plaintiff purchased the house bearing Nos. 352 and 353 along with plot having area 20 x 18 feet at Patanbori from one laxmanrao Narlawar for a consideration of Rs. 23,000/- by registered sale- deed dated 13-4-1982 and the defendant has been in possession of one tin shed of area of 10 x 10 feet situated on the North East corner of the said plot. The case of the defendant is that he was occupying the suit premises as the monthly tenant of the original owner Laxmanrao and the agreed rent was Rs. 33.50 per month. The defendant was running his tailoring shop in the suit premises. The tenancy was monthly and the month of tenancy used to commence on the first day, i. e. on Pratipada and used to end on Amavoshya of each month as per Hindu calendar. There was an agreement to pay one month's rent in advance in each month. After the purchase of the house, the defendant was informed regarding the purchase of the house and the defendant also attorned the tenancy with a contention that the tenancy was yearly tenancy. The tenancy was determined by the notice dated 26-10-1982 which was served on the defendant on 29-10-1982 by giving clear 15 days' notice. The defendant was called upon to vacate the suit premises as he did not pay the rent though demanded. He did not vacate the suit premises and therefore the plaintiff filed suit for possession.

(3.) The defendant contended that he had taken the premises on lease and it was yearly lease. He was carrying on the business of tailoring in that premises and, thereof, his tenancy has not been legally terminated by the notice.