JUDGMENT :

Ashok S. Kinagi, J.

1. This second appeal is preferred challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2006 passed in O.S No. 178/2002 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.), Nanjangud and also the judgment and decree passed in R.A No. 82/2007 dated 09.09.2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nanjangud.

2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant is the plaintiff and respondent is the defendant.

3. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal are as under:

The plaintiff filed the suit for ejectment and for arrears of rent amounting to Rs.33,715/-. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant's father Sri. K.N. Gopal entered into a lease agreement on 05.07.1992, with the plaintiff, who is the owner of the schedule premises, on the condition that the lease is a monthly lease and the rent at the beginning of the lease would be Rs.500/- per month and if the lease continued beyond one year, there would be an enhancement of rent at the rate of 10% over the prevailing rent, every two years. Thus the present rent is Rs.800/- per month. The said Sri.Gopal died in the month of June, 1995. The defendant being his son, continued in possession of the premises. Ever since then, the defendant has failed to pay the rent and he is in arrears of rent from June, 1995. Inspite of repeated requests and demands, the defendant has not paid the rent. Hence, the suit is for arrears of rent and also for recovery of possession. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant terminating the tenancy on 13.05.2002. Though the defendant received the notice, gave an untenable reply and failed to vacate the premises. Hence, cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for ejectment and also for recovery of arrears of rent.

The defendant filed written statement denying that defendant's father Sri. K.N. Gopal entered into lease agreement with the plaintiff and also denying that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises as on 05.07.1992. He denied that the said premises was let out to defendant's father Sri. K.N. Gopal by the plaintiff and also denied the monthly rent at Rs.800/- with effect from 05.06.2002. It is admitted that after the demise of Sri.Gopal, the defendant being his son, continued in possession of the premises. But it is denied that the defendant has failed to pay the rent and is in arrears of rent from June, 1995. It is contended that the suit is barred by limitation. It is contended that the averment made in para-5 of the plaint to the effect that even after the termination notice, the defendant has not paid any rent, is not applicable to the defendant and as such plaintiff has no right to seek possession of the schedule shop. The plaintiff is not the owner of suit schedule property and defendant is not the tenant under the plaintiff, as such, there is no relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant as the landlord/lessor and the tenant/lessee. Hence, it is contended that defendant is running a hotel from his childhood and after the demise of his father, he alone continued in the premises and invested heavy amount and installed several machinery for smooth running of the hotel. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the suit.

The trial Court on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant's father was a tenant under him on a monthly rent of Rs.500/- with respect to the suit schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is a chronic defaulter in payment of rent right from 1995?

3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the tenancy is properly terminated as contemplated under law?

4. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitles for possession of the suit schedule property?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as claimed in the suit?

6. Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit schedule propert