A tenant who has not responded to eviction notices and continues occupancy cannot later dispute the title of the new owner, solidifying the principle that a tenant's obligation persists despite ownership changes.

JUDGMENT :

H.P.SANDESH, J.

This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of both the Courts.

2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property through a registered sale deed dated 02.09.2008 and the same was executed by its earlier owner i.e., M/s Tunga Rice and Oil Industries Limited and put the plaintiff in constructive possession of the suit schedule property. The defendant has occupied the schedule premises as a tenant through lease deed dated 12.11.1985 under the vendor of the plaintiff. It is further contended that the vendor of the plaintiff informed the defendant regarding the sale transaction held between plaintiff and his earlier owner. Further, the defendant did not pay the rent to the erstwhile owner M/s Tunga Rice and Oil Industries Limited and also to the plaintiff from September 2008. The lease of the defendant commenced from 24.09.1985 and the same had expired on 28.05.1990. Even though the defendant was continued in the suit schedule premise without any bilateral contract. The plaintiff requires the said property for comprehensive improvement of the entire property including the suit schedule property by taking up construction based on a comprehensive plan or to entrust the land to a developer with a view to develop and to market the built area. The plaintiff further contended that he has been requesting the defendant since September 2008 to vacate the schedule premises. Initially the defendant promised to vacate the schedule premises on the plea that all garages are in the process of shifting to auto complex and the defendant is also in the process of shifting the premises and there is no difficulty for the defendant to vacate the schedule premises. The plaintiff believed the version put forward by the defendant since it was a fact that based on the policy of the District Administration, all garages in garden area were shifted to auto complex. As of now, it appears that in total defiance of the directives of even the District Administration of defendant has not been vacating the premises, despite having acquired alternative accommodation at auto complex. The plaintiff further contended that he has issued a legal notice terminating the tenancy of the defendant and the same was delivered on 18.08.2011 and thereafter, another notice was also issued to the defendant on 28.01.2012 but the defendant refused the said notice and continued in the suit schedule premises as a illegal possession. The plaintiff further contended that the defendant has not paid the rent from 01.09.2008 and as such he is in arrears of rent in a sum of Rs.14,490/- for a period of 42 months commencing from 01.09.2008 to 29.02.2011 on which date the tenancy would stand terminated. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for the relief of ejectment of the defendant to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property along with the damages at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month.

4. The defendant appeared and filed the written statement contending that he is a tenant of the Tunga Rice and Oil Industries since 1974 and at that time, the entire premises was about to acquired by the government. So the management of Tunga Rice and Oil Industries decided to rent out the premises by forming sites to get control over the entire premises and to avoid the acquisition proceedings by the government. At that time, the entire premises is not in a position to make use of the same and this entire site was got levele