NAGAMOHAN DAS, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 19. 4. 2007 in O. S. No. 2927/2005 passed by the XII Add1. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent, damages and directing an enquiry into future mesne profits.

( 2 ) APPELLANT is the defendant and respondent is the plaintiffbefore the Trial Court. In this judgment the parties are referred to their status before the Trial Court.

( 3 ) PLAINTIFF is the owner of the schedule property. Defendant is the tenant in the schedule property under the plaintiff on a monthly. rent of Rs. 13,500/ -. Defendant committed default in payment of monthly rents. Plaintiff got issued a lawyer's notice or legal notice dated 19. 3. 2005 terminating the tenancy of defendant, but the defendant failed to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the schedule property to the plaintiff. Having no other alternative the plaintiff had filed O. S. No. 2927/2005 against the defendant for ejectment, recovery of rent, damages and for future mesne profits.

( 4 ) THE defendants entered appearance before the Trial Court and filed written statement interalia contending that their tenancy is governed by the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and not by the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. That the defendants are statutory tenants and as such are protected under the Karnataka rent Act and hence on this ground according to the defendants, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. That the defendants further contended that notice of termination was not served on them and that they have not committed any default in the matter of payment of monthly rents. On the basis of the pleadings of the contending parties, the Trial court framed the following issues :

i) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are in arrears of rent of Rs. 7,000/-? ii) Whether the plaintiff proves that the tenancy of the defendant is terminated in accordance with law? iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages/mesne profits? If so, at what rate? iv) What decree or order?

( 5 ) DURING the course of trial the Plaintiff had examined himself as pw. 1 and got marked Ex. P 1 to P5. On the other side the Defendant had examined one witness as DW. 1 and got marked Ex. D1 to D16. The Trial Court after hearing both the parties and on appreciation of material evidence, both oral and documentary concluded that the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant is governed by the provisions of Transfer of Property Act and the tenancy of the defendant is duly terminated. It had further held that the defendant had failed to prove and establish that he had failed to pay the rents regularly and as such had fallen into arrears of rents and consequently the Trial Court passed the impugned Judgment and Decree directing the defendant to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the schedule property to the plaintiff and further directed the defendant to pay arrears of rent of rs. 7000/- and to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month from the date of termination of tenancy till the date of suit and further directed for an enquiry with regard to the future mesne profits. Hence this appeal by defendant.

( 6 ) BY consent of learned advocates on both the sides, we heard the arguments on main appeal at the very stage of admission and also perused the appeal papers.

( 7 ) AS we see before the Trial Court the defendants had contended that the schedule premises is a residential premises and therefore the provisions of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short 'rent act') are applicable and that provisions of Transfer of Property Act (for short 'tp Act') are not applicable and termination of tenancy under the TP Act is bad in law. The said argument was reiterated before us as well. The learned counsel for the defendants further contended that for exclusion of premises from the application of provisions of Rent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document