Assailing the correctness of the judgment and decree dated 16-7-2001 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in R.A. No.7 of 1995 by which the judgment and decree of dismissal of suit dated 14-12-1994 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in O.S. No. 12 of 1992 is reversed, the defendant has preferred this second appeal.

2. Heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of both sides and perused the material on record. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranks before the Trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the case are:

The plaintiffs-respondents herein filed suit for ejectment against the defendant-appellant herein in respect of A Schedule property and also for mandatory injunction against the defendant to remove the unauthorised construction put up on B Schedule property and for delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property.

It is the case of the plaintiffs that they executed an unregistered lease deed in favour of defendant on 1-8-1986 leasing the suit property measuring 150' x 150' in Sy. Nos. 38/2 and 46/2 of Chikkabidarakallu Village of Dasanapura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District for a period of 30 years to enable the defendant to put up a Petrol Bunk on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,750/- by taking security deposit of Rs. 25,000/- from the defendant; that in pursuance to said lease, the defendant was put in possession of the suit schedule land who in turn put up a Petrol Bunk thereon and is running the said petrol bunk and is paying the rents every month as on today; that one of the condition of the said lease deed is that the lessee shall leave 20' width space as passage for the usage of the plaintiffs on the eastern side to go to their land which is situated behind the demised property; that since the defendant did not leave any space as agreed on the eastern side, there is a violation of the terms and condition of the lease; that the defendant has trespassed into the land of the plaintiff to the extent of 61;2 x 150 East-West and 71/2 x 150 foot towards North-South in B Schedule land that as the defendant has committed breach of terms of lease deed, a statutory notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was issued by the plaintiffs to the defendant to quit the property and thereafter, the present suit came to be filed for getting back the possession of the demised suit premises.

4. The defendant resisted the suit by contending that there is no breach of terms of lease and there is no illegal construction or encroachment on Schedule 'B' property as alleged by the plaintiffs; that though there is an agreement between the parties to leave 20' width space on the eastern side so as to enable the plaintiffs to approach their remaining land which is situated behind the suit schedule property, the defendant has left about 20' width space on the western side in pursuance to the subsequent oral request of the plaintiffs inasmuch as, leaving the said space on the western side instead of eastern side would be convenient to them; that as there is no breach of any of the conditions contained in the lease deed, there cannot be termination of the lease within the period of thirty (30) years. Thus, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. In support of the case of the plaintiffs, one witness was examined and five documents were got marked at Exs. P. 1 to P. 5. On behalf of defendant, one witness was examined and two documents were got marked at Exs. D. 1 and D. 2. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, dismissed the suit by its judgment and decree dated 14-12-1994 in O.S. No. 12 of 1992.

However, on appeal by the plaintiffs, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was reversed by the First Appellate Court by its judgment dated 16-7-2001 and consequently, suit came to be decreed. It is held by the First App