This appeal is filed by the appellants under Section

96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') to

set aside the judgment and decree passed by the LX

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in

O.S.No.9833/2007 dated 08.01.2020.

2.

The

appellants

are

defendants

and

the

respondent is the plaintiff before the Trial Court and later

the plaintiff said to be sold the property to the third party

applicant and inserted as respondent in this appeal.

3.

The rank of the parties before the Trial Court is

retained for the sake of convenience.

4.

RFA CROB No.6/2021 is filed under Section XLI

Rule 22 of the CPC by the plaintiff claiming the arrears of

rent which was rejected by the Trial Court.

5.

The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court

is that the plaintiff filed the suit for ejectment against the

5

defendant contending that the plaintiff was the owner of

the property bearing No.30, D.S.Lane, Chickpete cross,

Bengaluru consisting of ground and three upper floors

measuring: East to West

-

12 feet

North to South

-

42 feet

East :

Property of Deeveeraman

West :

Property No.28

North :

Ananda Bhavan premises

South :

D S Lane,

(hereinafter referred to as 'suit schedule

property')

6.

The defendant is a partnership firm was

inducted as tenant by the predecessor in title and

subsequently, a mortgage deed was also executed by the

previous owner. The defendant has continued in the

possession as a mortgagee. The mortgage in respect of

suit schedule property has been redeemed on 20.03.2000

as duly confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil

Appeal No.3008/2001 dated 04.10.2007. Consequent to

6

the redemption and in accordance with the terms of the

mortgage deed, the defendant continued in possession as

a tenant.

7.

It is further alleged that the defendant is in

possession of the suit schedule property as a tenant

without any lease term and monthly basis and the last paid

monthly rent was Rs.499/- per month. The plaintiff issued

the notice on 16.11.2007 by terminating the tenancy as

the tenancy was expired on 21.12.2007. Thereafter, the

defendant continued in possession as unauthorised use

and occupation. The defendant has arrears of rent of

Rs.46,407/- liable to pay by way of damages/mesne profit

until delivery of the possession. The cause of action arose

for filing of the suit dated 21.12.2007, hence, the plaintiff

filed the suit for ejectment directing the defendant to quit

and vacate the suit schedule property and to pay arrears

of rent of Rs.46,407/- and for mesne profits.

7

8.

The defendant appeared and filed written

statement contending that the suit filed by the plaintiff is

frivolous which is suppression of material facts and the suit

was pre-matured. It is contended that O.S.No.1977/1988

filed by the plaintiff for redemption of mortgage and

O.S.No.2290/1988 filed by the defendants against the

plaintiff for specific performance of contract as he is having

first option of purchase of suit schedule property pending

in Court Hall No.3 which was suppressed by the plaintiff.

He further contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff for

redemption of mortgage prior to expiry of mortgage

period. When the mortgage was redeemed, no decree is

granted, mortgage money was not paid and appropriate

document was not executed, therefore, status of the

defendants as tenant does not arise and further denied the

termination of tenancy and contended that when the

mortgage itself is not redeemed, the question of paying

rent and arrears of rent does not arise.

8

9.

The defendant further contended that the suit

is liable to be dismissed for want of cause of action as suit

was filed based upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, wherein, the interlocutory order passed by the Trial

Court by rejecting the application under Order XII Rule 6

of CPC has been dismissed and in the CRP, the High Court

allowed and decreed the suit which was set aside by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, the question of

redemption of