Sri Gopal Mudaliar vs Sri Ramula Sannidhi, represented by its Yejman Dharmakartha Sri Gadi R. Parthasarathy and Dharmakartha Sri P.G. Padmanabhan

Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.—This appeal is by the Defendant challenging the judgment and decree passed by the XXVI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 25797/2008.

Suit was filed by the Plaintiff for ejectment. Suit property is a shop premise in which Defendant is the tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 100/-. According to the Plaintiff, Defendant is a chronic defaulter in paying the rentals and is in arrears of rentals from 1.6.2007 onwards. Accordingly, terminating the tenancy, suit came to be filed. Suit was resisted by the Defendant denying arrears of rentals and according to him, the management of the Plaintiff has refused to collect the rentals and although he has sent money order for Rs. 800/-, the same was not received by the Plaintiff and there is no proper termination of tenancy. Based on the pleadings, as many as three issues were raised and after enquiry, the trial Court holding that there is due termination of tenancy as required u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, by giving three months'' time to the Defendant to vacate the premises, has decreed the suit as against which, the Defendant-tenant is in appeal.

Heard.

According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, the suit is not maintainable. He is ready to build the shop premise which is in a dilapidated condition and he will continue in one portion and another portion will be let out to the Plaintiff and he would pay the rentals. It is also submitted that the property is measuring less than 14 sq. mtrs.

According to the learned Counsel for the Respondent, the suit premise is more than 14 sq. mtrs. and it is not disputed. Only on the basis of the encumbrance certificate, the Defendant is trying to dodge the proceedings. There is due termination of tenancy. Accordingly, he has sought for dismissal of the appeal.

In view of the arguments advanced, the point that would arise for consideration is, whether the trial Court is justified in holding that there is a due termination of tenancy and passing an order of ejectment?

So far as the maintainability of the suit is concerned, even according to the stand of the Defendant, he approached the Plaintiff to receive the rentals, but they have not received the rental. Even the authorisation to file the suit cannot be disputed. So far as termination of tenancy is concerned, due notice was issued as per Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and thereafter, the suit came to be filed. As such, the trial Court has rightly held that there is a valid termination of tenancy.

As regards the dispute to the plinth area is concerned, for the first time the Appellant is raising this ground before this Court and in the reply notice, the Defendant has not denied these aspects and according to the Plaintiff, the suit premise is more than 16 sq. mtrs. In the circumstances, there is no scope for interference at this stage.

Appeal is dismissed. However, another two years'' time is granted to the Appellant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the Plaintiff, subject to payment of rentals regularly as and when it falls due and also subject to filing an undertaking to the effect that he would voluntarily vacate and hand over the premises to the Respondent on or before expiry of two years, within four weeks.

Misc. Cvl. 21175/2010 filed for additional documents is also disposed of.