K BARKATHULLA KHAN Vs. C N RUDRAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31. 3. 1993 passed in O. S. No. 91 of 1976, renumbered as O. S. 1262 of 1980 on the file of the VI Addl. City Civil Judge, Civil station, Bangalore. The Suit was initially filed against the 1st defendant - A. Bhaskaran for a judgment and decree to vacate and deliver possession of the suit schedule property which is a non-residential hotel premises in the prime location in Bangalore viz. , Brigade Road and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,000/- as damages being arrears of rent from 1. 1. 1976 to 31. 5. 1976 at the rate of Rs. 1000/- p. m. , for enquiry for future rent under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC, for further directing the 2nd defendant who subsequently impleaded himself as 2nd defendant to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the schedule property to the plaintiff and also an enquiry against him for future mesne profits with costs and such other reliefs.

(2.) THIS matter has a chequered long career having regard to the proximity of this Court to the trial Court and also subject of dispute involved in the suit. The suit was initially filed in the year 1976 before the Court of Civil Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore, which was later transferred to the file of the City Civil Judge after establishment of the City Civil Court and renumbered in the year 1980. From 1976 to 1993 for over a period of 17 long years, the parties approached this court for over half a dozen times in different proceedings questioning the legality and correctness of various orders passed by the Trial Court on their behest. It has thus become a long drawn battle initially between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant which was later took over by the 2nd defendant who was allegedly inducted by the 1st defendant, as contended by the 2nd defendant, and who had trespassed into the premises as contended by the plaintiff.

(3.) TO understand this controversy, let me start with the case of the plaintiff as pleaded by him before the Court below. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was the full and absolute owner of the suit property bearing two municipal numbers 199 and 200 situate at Brigade Road Civil station, Bangalore. The 1st defendant occupied it as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 1000/-, it being a monthly tenancy, both the premises were treated as one unit for the purpose of lease. It was leased for non-residential purposes. The 1st defendant was running a bar and restaurant under the name and style of "m/s Basco's Bar and Restaurant". It is also the evidence of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant was a defaulter in payment of rents. The 1st defendant also subject the show-window attached to each of the demised premises. He has not been making use of the schedule premises" for the purpose for which it was let viz. , for running a bar and restaurant. The defendant is thus making a wrongful gain to himself. He has violated the provisions of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act and has rendered himself liable to be evicted from the schedule premises. The plaintiff has also made a claim for personal use and occupation of the premises and a quit notice determining the tenancy has not been complied with. Hence, the suit.