VENKATACHALIAH, J.

( 1 ) APPELLANT, M/s Sudarshan Trading company Limited, is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dt. 19. 4. 1963 made in O. S. No. 3091 of 1980, on the file of the 10th Addl. , City Civil Judge, bangalore, decreeing the respondent-plaintiff's suit for ejectment and granting an order for possession. This appeal is in the list of admission cases. It is admitted and with the consent of learned Counsel on both sides taken up for final hearing, and disposed of by this judgment.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT, Mrs. L. D'souza, is the owner of premises No. 11, C. J. D'souza Road, Civil Station, Bangalore and appellant is the tenant. Letting is for non-residential purposes. On 26. 12. 1974, after an earlier lease for 3 years had come to an end, a fresh lease deed dt. 26. 12. 1974, Ext. P. 1, was entered into between the parties. The term mentioned in Ext. P. 1 was three years from 1. 8. 1974. Rent was Rs. 2,300 per month. The period of 3 years under Ext. P. 1 having run-out, Respondent issued notice Ext. P. 2 dated 7/10/1977 telling, appellant that she did not desire to renew the lease and that the tenancy stood terminated and called upon the appellant to quit and deliver vacant possession on the expiry of 31/10/1977. This notice stood unreplied. Some eight months thereafter, on 1/6/1978, the present suit for ejectment was instituted. In para 4 of plaint it was stated that the lease came into an end on 31. 7. 1977 by efflux of time and that thereafter "the tenancy in respect of the said premises became a month to month tenancy.

( 3 ) APPELLANT denied that after the expiry of the lease there was any month to month tenancy by holding over. It was contended that the parties had really agreed upon a ten year lease from 1972 and that though Ext. P. 1 mentioned only three years, it was just a partial effectuation of the agreement between the parties, being merely the manner in which the agreement for a ten year lease was to be implemented from time to time. The appellant, accordingly, contended that its continuance in possession was referrable to, and in part performance of, the alleged agreement for a ten year lease, which, according to the appellant, would "last up to July 1982". In regard to the validity of the notice, Ext. P. 2, it was urged:"it is thus clear the defendant continues in possession in part informance of the agreement to lease for the further period as aforesaid and the defendant is willing to perform his part of the contract. In the circumstances the alleged termination of tenancy is invalid and the suit for eviction is premature. It is further submitted is otherwise bad in law as it purports to terminate the lease before the expiry of three years from the date of execution of lease deed. "8. Sri. S. A. Hakeem, learned counsel for appellant says that having regard to the specific defence pleaded the expression 'three' in the above excerpt would require to be read as 'ten'.

( 4 ) THE trial Court framed the necessary issues stemming from the pleadings. In the context of the contentions urged before us in this appeal, the relevant issues are issues 1, 2, 4 and 6. They relate to the questions whether there was, as urged by appellant, an agreement to continue appellant in possession for a period of ten years from 1972 and accordingly, whether appellant's continued possession was referrable to and the part performance of that agreement and whether the notice to quit was invalid on the grounds urged.

( 5 ) RESPONDENT-PLAINTIFF tendered evidence as P. W. 1 and got marked exts. P. 1 to P. 3 which are respectively the lease-deed; copy of the Quit notice and its postal acknowledgement. On behalf of the Appellant-defendant one KPoonuswamy, assistant Divisional Manager of the company tendered evidence as D. W. 1. Exts. D. l to D. 4 were marked in evidence. On an appreciation of the evidence on record the trial Court recorded findings on all the material issues in favour of the Respondent-plaintiff and made an order granting posses

Click Here to Read the rest of this document