IMPORTANT POINT
Settled possession cannot be deemed unlawful solely due to resignation; eviction requires due process of law.

JUDGMENT :

(Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J.)

The plaintiff has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.2422/2017, dated 06.02.2023, by the XXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, thereby, the suit filed for permanent injunction is dismissed and also granted the relief of possession in favour of the defendant directing the plaintiff to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to defendant.

2. The status of the parties is referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court for easy reference and convenience.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:

Plaintiff’s case:

a) It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant is running a construction firm in the name and style as P.M.Construction and the plaintiff was working under the defendant from 1996 as Supervisor and also the defendant started business of running and maintaining swimming pool and was appointed as Administrator and was looking all the administration and management of the entire firm established by the defendant.

b) It is further pleaded that the defendant has provided a house at No.115 (old No.2) opposite to Maruti Flour Mill, situated at 1st Cross, 1st Main, Nayanashetty Palya (N.S.Palya), Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru, as the plaintiff was employee under the defendant and the plaintiff is residing in the said house for more than twenty years along with his family members without there being any interruption.

c) Further, the defendant has established different companies in which the plaintiff was in charge of entire group of companies of the defendant and had worked hard for augmenting business performance of the defendant, for which the defendant has also appreciated the plaintiff and therefore the defendant has given a car bearing No.KA-05/MN-6535 for exclusive use of the plaintiff considering the service that was being rendered by the plaintiff.

d) It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant has made the plaintiff as one of the partner in one of the firm. It is the case of the plaintiff that there were some irregularities in the business of the defendant group of companies and therefore plaintiff has advised the defendant for proper management, but the defendant has not heeded, but the defendant started ill-will attitude against the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff decided to come out of the defendant’s business of firms and companies and for which the defendant had promised for a decent severance package and to settle all his employment dues payable as per law. The defendant had issued a letter to the plaintiff by praising the plaintiff’s hard work and sincerity, dedication to the development of defendant’s business, but the defendant has resiled from his promise and commitment and issued notice to the plaintiff to vacate the schedule property premises and handover the same to the defendant. Further, the defendant has taken high handed action against the plaintiff for which the plaintiff has protested. Therefore the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for permanent injunction to protect possession over the property.

e) It is also alleged in the plaint that the defendant has tried to trespass and dispossess the plaintiff and also has done ill-will work of making disconnection of electricity, water and sanitation services to the schedule property in which the plaintiff is residing. Therefore the plaintiff has filed suit for permanent injunction.

f) Further, it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant has issued letter stating that the defendant will gift the schedule property to the plaintiff, but when this being the fact, contrary to his promise the defendant started to dispossess the plaintiff. Hence he filed the suit.

Written Statement:

4. The defendant has appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint averments except the contentions admitted by th