The judgment emphasizes the importance of proper service of termination notices and the need for addressing all issues separately as required by procedural rules.

Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J.

The III Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH no. 25) by his judgment dated 29.7.2006 in O.S.1239/2005 held that the plaintiff in the said suit was entitled to recover possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendant who was given six months time to vacate the premises. Aggrieved by this judgment, the defendant has preferred this appeal.

Briefly stated the facts are as follows:-

2. The plaintiff claiming to be the landlord of property bearing no. 1, 1st Floor, 2nd Cross, A.M. Lane, B.V.K. Iyengar Road, Bengaluru, measuring East to West 20 feet and North to South 17 feet (for short referred to as 'plaint schedule property') instituted the suit for evicting the defendant. The plaintiff stated that the defendant occupied the plaint schedule property as a tenant on initial rent of Rs.2,800/-. The rent was enhanced periodically and Rs.3,000/- rent was being paid by the defendant at the time of institution of the suit. He stated further that the defendant became irregular in paying the rent. In spite of repetitive demands, the defendant did not pay the rent and therefore got issued a legal notice to the defendant and demanded of him to quit and deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to him. In addition the plaintiff also claimed damages at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month from date of termination of tenancy till date of decree.

3. Defendant in his written statement admitted that he is the tenant of the plaintiff. He stated that he occupied the plaint schedule property on 25.3.1996. It was the plaintiff's father who leased the property to him, but the agreement of lease was executed by the plaintiff in the capacity of general power of attorney holder of his father. He admitted the rate of rent, but contended that he had paid security deposit of Rs.50,000/- and goodwill of Rs.2,50,000/-. He denied that he became defaulter in payment of rent and also denied to have received the notice.

4. Based on the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues : -

(1) Whether the plaintiff proves the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant in respect of the suit schedule Property?

(2) Whether the plaintiff further proves that the plaintiff legally and validly terminated the tenancy of the defendant in respect of suit schedule Property?

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages by way of mesne profits at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month from the date of termination of tenancy till delivery of vacant possession of the schedule property by the defendant?

(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief’s as sought?

(5) What decree or order?

5. Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and produced 9 documents as per Exs. P1 to P9. The defendant also examined himself as DW1 and did not produce any document. After assessing the evidence, the trial court answered issues 1 and 2 in affirmative and 3 in negative. Actually the controversy is with regard to service of notice covered under issue no.2. With regard to issuance of termination of notice, the trial court has held that notice as per Ex.P1 was sent to the defendant through certificate of posting and registered post. The trial court has presumed there was service of notice on the defendant. It has assigned the reason that the plaint schedule property is situated within a distance of 1 km from the post office and therefore notice must have been served on the defendant in the ordinary course within three days. On issue no.3, the trial court held that the plaintiff has not paid the court fee on that relief and therefore claim for damages was disallowed answering issue no.3 in negative.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants mainly argues two points. Firstly that the trial court has not answered all the issues as required under Order XX Rule 4 of CPC. In this regard he has placed reliance on the judgment of this court in Mahaboob Saheb vs. V. Anjaneyulu,1973 2 Mys. L.J 91 and a