SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR, J.

1. The defendants in O.S. No. 1291/2013 on the file of Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, have preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 9.10.2018.

2. The respondents being the plaintiffs instituted a suit for ejecting the appellants from a portion of property bearing no. 7 situated at S.S.I. Area, 1st Cross, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. It is stated that this portion consists of two units, the 1st unit measuring East to West 30 ft. and North to South 20 ft. and the 2nd unit measuring East to West 18 ft. and North to South 16 ft. (referred to as "schedule property" hereafter). The plaintiffs pleaded that Smt. D. Rajamma, the mother of the 1st plaintiff and grandmother of 2nd plaintiff inducted the defendants 1 and 2 as her tenants in respect of the schedule property. Rajamma died leaving behind a will in favour of the 2nd plaintiff. The 1st plaintiff is the father of the 2nd plaintiff. Since the plaintiffs wanted the schedule property for their self occupation, they terminated the tenancy by issuing a notice on 18.01.2013. The defendants' failure to vacate the schedule property resulted in a suit being filed for ejecting them and damages at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per month.

3. Defendant no. 2 died during pendency of the suit and his legal representatives came on record. Defendant no. 2(a) filed written statement contending mainly that the schedule property was taken by them on a monthly rental basis in the year 1983. They were paying rent of Rs. 11,000/- per month and they had also paid security deposit of Rs. 85,000/- to the plaintiffs. Defendant no. 1 is running an industry in the schedule property and has been manufacturing electronic components. They never committed default in paying the rent. On 12.02.2011, there was renewal of lease up to 12.02.2021 with enhancement of rent from Rs. 9,500/- to Rs. 11,000/- per month. There came into existence new lease agreement, but the plaintiffs did not give them a copy of the new agreement. The plaintiffs have suppressed the fact of the renewal of the lease. They also contended that notice of termination of the lease was not in accordance with law. They pleaded for dismissal of the suit.

4. The trial court after appreciating the evidence recorded on the issues framed by it, came to conclusion that the suit should be partly decreed. The trial court directed the defendants to hand over the vacant possession of the schedule property to the plaintiffs within two months from the date of judgment and pay Rs. 18,000/- per month towards damages from the date of suit till realization.

5. Questioning the correctness of the judgment, the learned counsel for the appellants/ defendants argued that the termination notice issued by the respondents was not in accordance with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short hereafter referred to as the Act). Though there was no written agreement between the parties, the lease was for manufacturing purpose and therefore six months prior notice was necessary to be issued.

5.1. The 2nd point that he argued was that after issuing termination notice, the respondents received rent from the appellants and this has been admitted in the cross-examination by DW-1. By accepting the rent, the respondents waived their right to evict the appellants. He referred to Section 116 of the Act to argue that the appellants became tenants by holding over and to evict them, notice should have been issued again and since this was not done, the suit was bad.

5.2. The 3rd point that he argued was that the trial court should not have granted decree for paying Rs. 18,000/- per month towards damages without holding an enquiry. In the absence of any evidence, directing the appellants to pay damages of Rs. 18,000/- p.m. was illegal and therefore he argued for allowing the appeal. In support of his arguments he has placed reliance on the following decisions:

(i) Inder Sain Bedi (Dead) by LRs. vs. Chopra Electricals,