The main legal point established is that a lessor is entitled to terminate a lease and seek eviction if the lessee violates the lease terms, such as by constructing in violation of the building plan, subletting the property, or encroaching on the demised premises.

1. This defendant’s appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 9.1.2012 in O.S.No.1337/2002 passed by the XV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff for possession of the property and for Mesne Profits.

2. The subject matter of the suit is the ground and first floor building in property No.18/10-1 (old No.18 and 18/10) of 1st Main, H.G.H. Layout, Ganganagar, Bangalore. The respondent is the plaintiff and the appellant is the defendant before the Trial Court. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred hereafter by their respective ranking before the Trial Court.

3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows: That she entered into a registered lease agreement dated 11.9.1990 with the defendant in respect of the suit property. Seven shops situated in the ground floor were excluded from the lease agreement. Inadvertently, a mistake has occurred in the lease deed in mentioning the boundaries. The lease is for a period of 30 years and rent payable was Rs.3,000/- per month subject to periodical enhancement. The defendant had to obtain approved building plan and construct the building on demised premises in accordance with the terms of the same. The cellar portion of the property was reserved for car parking. The defendant put up the construction deviating from the approved building plan and thereby incurring the action from the Bangalore City Municipal Corporation. Further, in breach of the lease agreement, the defendant encroached upon the cellar portion and constructed two rooms in the cellar portion illegally. The defendant sub let the property to one Dr. Sridhar Venkatesh during 1994-1995. On Dr. Sridhar Venkatesh vacating the property, the defendant again let out the property to M/s Amalgamated Bean Coffee Trading Company Ltd. Thus, the defendant has violated the terms of the lease. Invoking the forfeiture clause of the lease agreement, plaintiff forfeited the lease and got issued notice dated 4.1.2002 terminating the tenancy and calling upon the defendant to vacate the premises. Despite the service of the notice, the defendant is obstinate. The current market rate of the rent in the locality is Rs.1,133/- per day. On termination of the lease, the defendant’s possession has become illegal and therefore, he is liable to pay the damages at the said rate. Instead of vacating the property, the plaintiff got filed O.S.No.11113/1993 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore, for permanent injunction. Thus the suit.

4. The defendant contested the suit by filing the written statement. His case in brief is as follows:

The execution of the lease deed and the terms of the lease are admitted. But it is denied that there is mistake in mentioning the boundaries in the lease deed. It is denied that the cellar portion was let out. He acquired the property under the lease for the purpose of running a Multi Specialty Nursing Home, including the other specialized doctors of the town. By the time he took the property on lease, the plaintiff, under the sanctioned plan dated 1.10.1990 had put up the construction partially. Due to poor quality of construction, the structure put up by her collapsed. When he applied for construction of the property, it was revealed that separate plan is not required and plaintiff even issued no objection for construction as per the plan. He has developed the property investing Rs.30.00 Lakhs. The plaintiff started to harass him demanding the exorbitant rent against the terms of the lease deed. She even got filed W.P.No.24355/1993 through one B. Kencharase Gowda to obstruct the construction. The katha of the said property stood in his name. Despite that plaintiff got filed O.S. 4941/1997, 2037/1994, 10162/1992 and 1564/1995 and implicated him in the web of the litigations. Plaintiff herself with the aid of rowdy elements tried to demolish the staircase put up by him thereby to pull down the ground floor. The