JUDGMENT

This regular second appeal is filed by the plaintiff aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 29.11.2018 passed in R.A.No.14/2018 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, KGF, by which the first appellate court while allowing the said appeal set aside the Judgment and decree dated 23.10.2017 passed in O.S.No.643/2011 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and Additional JMFC, KGF (hereinafter referred to as `Trial Court') and consequently dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

2. The above suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff seeking relief of Judgment and decree directing respondent/defendant to hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule property and for arrears of rent of Rs.60,000/- and mesne profit at the rate Rs.2,000/- per month till delivery of possession.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and that the defendant was inducted as a tenant into the schedule property in terms of an agreement of lease dated 10.07.2007 for a period of eleven months. That the defendant had agreed to pay Rs.5,000/- as rent within 15th of every month. That the said agreement was extended periodically and the last extension was from 08.06.2009 to 08.05.2010. Thereafter there was no further extension. The last rent paid by the defendant was Rs.6,000/- per month from 10.05.2010 to 09.02.2011. Thereafter the defendant did not pay the monthly rents. Plaintiff caused issue of notice on 28.09.2011 calling upon the defendant to pay the rent and/or vacate and hand over possession of the property. Plaintiff also filed a compliant before the jurisdictional police. That the defendant was neither using the schedule property nor was paying the rents and as there were number of thefts in the locality plaintiff had put a separate lock to the said property. Since defendant did not comply with the demand made in the notice, plaintiff filed the suit for the above reliefs.

4. Defendant in her written statement denied the plaint averments and also questioned the maintainability of the suit. It is contended that the plaintiff has forcibly locked the building during the month of February 2011 preventing the defendant from having access to the schedule property. It is contended that the plaintiff restrained the defendant without allowing her to enter into the schedule property. That the plaintiff is holding the possession of the property from February 2011 till date and the filing of the suit for relief of possession and arrears of rents and damages is false, frivolous. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. Trial court framed the issues, recorded the evidence and on appreciation of the evidence decreed the suit as sought for by its Judgment and decree dated 23.10.2017. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant filed a regular appeal in R.A.No.14/2018. The first appellate court on re-appreciating the evidence, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.

6. This court by order dated 03.01.2020 framed the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether the first Appellate Court was justified in ignoring the admitted fact that the defendant had locked the main door of the rented premises which is situated on the first floor and all the material which are lying in the rented premises belonged to the defendant and she had failed to pay the rents?

2. Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in arriving at a conclusion that the plaintiff was in possession of the property simply because she had put a lock on the gate of the premises and not on the main door of the rented premises which is situated on the first floor?

3. Whether the first Appellate Court erred in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff and reversing the judgment of the trial Court when the prayer in the suit was for eviction of the defendant from the rented premises and for payment of arrears and damages?

7. Sri.M.B.Chandrachooda, learned cou