( 1 ) THE respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit in the trial court for possession of the plaint schedule properties, mesne profits and damages. The trial court decreed the suit for eviction and awarded mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 60 per day and disallowed the claim for damages. The defendant appealed and the plaintiffs filed cross-objections regarding the disallowed part of the claim. The lower appellate court confirmed the decree for eviction and enhanced the rate of mesne profits to Rs. 75 per day and also awarded damages of Rs. 5000 with interest thereon at six per cent per annum from the date of suit. The Defendant has come up in second appeal.

( 2 ) THE suit schedule properties consist of buildings standing on two sy. Nos. 10/1 and 10/2, the total extent of which is 46 cents located in the heart of Mangalore. It is near the Hampankatta bus-stand, Government arts and Science College and Government Officers and Banks. The properties belong to Sri P. A. Pandit, an officer in the Indian Air Force. They are administered by his mother and Power of Attorney Holder Smt, Pandit ramabai. There is a big building with 33 rooms wherein a Lodging and! boarding Hotel as well as a Rustaurant under the name of ' Jaya Cafe' are run by the defendant from 1948 onwards. There are also shop premises facing the road on the ground floor of the building. Originally, there were three residential houses and out-houses bearing the name "parameswara vilas". Under a registered lease deed, Ext. D. 1, dated 11-6-1946, the property was leased fur a period of 15 years by Mrs. Rama Bai, the Power of attorney Holder, in favour of the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 120 per month. One of the conditions of the lease was that the defendant should put up a building worth not less than Rs. 20,000 within two years and to give vacant pessession of the leased property after the expiry of the lease without claiming any compensation for the improvements made by him. The defendant erected a new building and started his hotel business The period stipulated under Ext. D. 1 expired on 10-6-1961. By another registered lcase deed Ext. D-2, dated 9-2-1961, a fresh agreement of lease was entered into between Smt. Ramabai Pandit and the defendant under which the defendant was allowed to continue in possession of the premises for another period of nine years expiring on 11-6-1970. Smt. Ramabai terminated the tenancy of the defendant by a registered notice Ext. P-5, dated 1-6-1970, as she did not want to renew the lease in favour of the defendant. The defendant refused to vacate the premises arid issued a reply notice, ext. P-3, dated 10-4-1970. Thereafter on 23-4-1970, Smt. Ramabai Pandit executed a registered lease deed, Ext. P-1, in favour of the present plaintiffs for a period of ten years from 12-6-1970 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,800. Under the terms of Ext. P1, she transferred her rights to evict the defendant and his sub-tenants. The plaintiffs instituted the suit against the defendant thereafter.

( 3 ) THE defendant pleaded that he cannot be evicted by virtue of the protection given under the Mysore Rent Control Act and that the plaintiffs have not derived any right, title or interest in the suit premises under ext. P1, since according to him, it offends the provisions of the Mysore rent Control Act and is void. He also denied his liability to pay damages and mesne profits.

( 4 ) THE trial Court held that the suit premises is a non-residential building and therefore exempt from the application of Part V of the Mysore rent Control Act under S. 31 of that Act. It held that Smt. Ramabai was competent to execute Ext. P1, that Ext. P1 is not illegal and that the defendant is liable to be evicted. In view of the fact that the rent fixed under ext. P1 is Rs. 1,800 p. m. , it considered that Rs,60 per day would be the reasonable amount of mesne profits and since in its opinion the quantum of damages sustained by the lessor had not been proved, it rejected the claim for da

Click Here to Read the rest of this document