H.G.RAMESH
SMT. SAROJAMMA – Appellant
Versus
SRI. K. M. VENKATESH – Respondent
( 2 ) I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and the record of the trial court.
( 3 ) THE relevant facts leading to filing of this revision petition are as follows: the respondent/plaintiff had leased the suit premises to the petitioner/defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,600/- for a period of two years and one month as per Ex. P-1 the lease deed dated 10. 3. 1997. Accordingly, the lease got determined by efflux of time on 10. 4. 1997. A notice of termination of lease dated 12. 8. 99 was also issued as per Ex. P2. Therefore, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O. S. No. 9263/99 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore for possession of the suit property and for damages. The City Civil Court, in view of the judgment of this Court in RAMESH P. SETH vs. KRISHNAMURTHY (ILR 2002 KAR 565) ordered for return of the
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.