Appellant was the defendant and Respondent was the plaintiff in O.S.No.4747/2000 on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore City. Suit filed by the respondent for decree of ejectment and for damages / mesne profits against the appellant having been decree by Trial Court on 04.04.2007, this appeal is filed questioning the same. For convenience, parties will be referred to hereinafter with reference to their rank in the suit.

2. The preface of the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paras 2 and 3 in the decision of Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd., Vs. Amritlal And Co., Reported In (2001) 8 SCC 397, is apt to be noticed in this appeal by a Public Sector Bank – appellant, to consider the point raised by it for our decision. Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:

2. It is unfortunate, an eviction petition which was filed on 13.9.1985 still the parties are battling to find which court would have the jurisdiction. Whether the Court of Rent Controller under the Delhi Rent Control Act or ordinary Civil court will have jurisdiction over the subject-matter in issue? As discipline and culture in every walk of life is essential for smooth functioning in all its activities, similarly judicial culture and discipline has to be followed in order to achieve the desired result viz. to give the litigant justice in the shortest period of time. Every legislation legislates for the benefit of its subject but many a times, raising issues for everything and stretching it too long percolates the very objective for which it is made. With the increasing complexities of laws coupled with faulty legislation, using inappropriate language, a stress is created which the courts through their judicial interpretations have been attempting to simplify. In spite of this, the hope for an early adjudication has been eluding like a mirage. With the advancement of legal studies, there is sharpening of the acumen of advocacy. Every word of a statute, if interpreted when equipped with such dynamism, could be intellectually misused, hence interpreters including counsel, have to keep balance not to left this misuse surface. As a knife in the hand of a murderer and a doctor has different roles to play, so the interpreters have to select to play the role of a doctor to confer benefit to the subject. The words in a statue are dynamic, not static, hence have to be interpreted to subserve to the objectives of an Act. Such judicial discipline in interpreting has to be followed for yielding legislative has to be followed for yielding legislative intent. Similarly judicial culture has to be cultivated even by counsel appearing for a cause, who have to see that the judicial system does not rust or get stains for a delayed justice.

3. To win a battle for a client is the legitimate expectation of all but in doing so deliberations should not be such which lengthens the litigation, even if it confers temporary gain to one’s client in a lis. Every member of the judicial fraternity has to pay his role with the main object to find the truth and render justice to the litigant. This judicial culture has not to be lost sight of. The present case is one of such cases, which causes concern in this regard.

3. Brief facts of the case which have given rise to this appeal are:

Defendant obtained premise bearing No.134/1 Residency Road, Bangalore, comprising of basement and ground floors (for short, suit schedule premises) on 01.08.1983 on monthly rental basis. Suit property was purchased by plaintiff under a sale deed dated 11.09.1995. Plaintiff issued legal notices dated 09.03.2000 and 12.05.2000 terminating the tenancy. Defendant sent reply to the notice dated 09.03.2000. Plaintiff filed O.S.No.4747/2000 in the Trial Court, for decree of ejectment and mesne profits against defendant. Defendant contested the suit by filling the written statement inter alia contending that, it is a tenant protected under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (“KRC Act, 1961”, for short) and therefore