Writ Appeal No. 740 of 2006 is filed by plaintiff 2 in O.S. No. 15842 of 1999 challenging the order dated 27-3-2006 made by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 26457 of2005.

2. R.F.A. No. 389 of 2007 is filed by the second defendant in O.S. No. 15842 of 1999 by challenging the judgment and decree dated 30-11-2006, passed by the City Civil Court, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore.

3. For the sake of convenience the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status before the Trial Court.

4. According to the plaintiffs they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property comprising of premises bearing No.6, Shivaji Road, Shivaji Nagar, Bangalore-51 and the same was leased out to one Srinivas who was carrying on the business in the name and style of "Elgin Talkies"; that subsequent to the death of Srinivas, his wife the first defendant continued the business as proprietrix on a monthly rent of Rs. 3,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs. 1,125/- was paid to the first plaintiff and sum of Rs. 1,875/- to the second plaintiff respectively. The plaintiffs initially had filed an eviction petition in HRC No. 974 of 1987 on the file of X Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore under Section 21(1)(h) and (j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. The said petition was disposed of by order dated 3-12-1998 as being not maintainable and thereafter the plaintiffs determined the tenancy by virtue of a legal notice dated 1-6-1999 and since the defendants failed to comply with the demand made by the plaintiffs, the suit for possession as well as for damages at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- p.m. was filed.

5. In response to the suit summons and notice issued by the Trial Court, defendant 1 did not file written statement, but the second defendant filed his written statement contending that the plaintiffs had no right to demand possession of the suit schedule property as they were not the absolute owners of the same. It was stated that defendants 3 to 6 being the children of the original tenant. Sri A.N. Srinivasan were arrayed as parties by way of abundant caution but in the absence of a juridical relationship, the suit was not maintainable as against them and there was no reason to pay damages and hence sought dismissal of the suit.

6. Defendant 3 also stated that two persons claiming independent rights could not issue a single notice and file the suit and therefore, the requirement of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was not complied with; that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to issue a single notice or to file the suit and therefore sought dismissal of the same. Defendants 4 and 5 adopted the written statement filed by the third defendant. Defendant 6 failed to appear and was placed ex parte.

7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues.-

"1. Whether plaintiff proves that the defendants were their tenants in respect of suit schedule premises bearing Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 on a monthly rental of Rs. 3,000/- (i.e., Rs. 1125/to plaintiff 1 and Rs. 1,875/- to plaintiff 2?

2. Whether plaintiffs have properly terminated the tenancy of the defendants?

3. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to any damages; If so at what rat?

4. Whether defendants prove that the suit of the plaintiff is bad for misjoinder of parties and cause of action?

5. To what reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled?

6. What decree or order?"

8. In support of their case the plaintiffs examined P.W. 1 (second plaintiff) and got marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 34 while the defendants examined D.W. 1 (defendant 2/appellant herein) and got marked Exs. D. 1 to D. 4.

9. On the basis of the material on record, the Trial Court decreed the suit and directed the defendants to handover vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to plaintiff 2, within three months from the date of judgment and to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- p.m. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the second defendant only has preferred this appeal.

10. We h