The defendant in O.S.No.854/2017 on the file of VII

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru

(hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court' for short) has filed

this writ petition, aggrieved by the order dated 06.11.2019

passed therein, by which, the trial Court rejected an

application filed by him for framing additional issue.

The parties shall henceforth be referred to as

they were arrayed before the trial Court.

3.

The suit in O.S.No.854/2017 was filed for

ejectment of the defendant from the suit property and for

3

mesne profits from the date of termination of the tenancy.

The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant was inducted in

the suit property and the tenancy was extended from time

to time. Plaintiffs claimed that they were not interested to

continue the tenancy and thus, terminated by a notice

dated 17.10.2015. The defendant without tendering the

rent,

issued

a

notice

dated

30.01.2016

claiming

Rs.36,00,000/-

from

the

plaintiffs,

of

which,

Rs.32,00,000/- was the cost of renovation of the suit

property and Rs.4,00,000/- was the security deposit.

4.

When the suit was posted for evidence of the

defendant, an application was filed by him under Order XIV

Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure to frame additional

issues. The trial Court rejected the application by order

dated 14.01.2019, which was challenged before this Court

in W.P.No.9727/2019. This Court in terms of the order

dated 22.07.2019, allowed the writ petition and remitted

the case to the trial Court for fresh consideration of the

application. After such remand, the trial Court in terms of

4

the order dated 06.11.2019 held that the issues already

framed by the Court are sufficient to adjudicate the

controversy. Hence, it rejected the application.

5.

Being aggrieved by the said order, the present

writ petition is filed.

6.

Learned counsel for the defendant submitted

that the additional issues proposed by the defendant arose

for consideration as tenancy was not terminated in

accordance with law.

7.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents

submitted that the defendant did not dispute the

ownership of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property

and therefore, he is estopped from contending to the

contrary. He submitted that the trial Court had framed the

issues, one of which was whether the plaintiffs proved the

lawful termination of the tenancy. He therefore submitted

that the additional issues does not arise for consideration.

5

8.

I have considered the submission made by the

learned counsel for the parties.

9.

The defendant did not deny the ownership of

the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property.

Though the defendant claimed that the service of the

notice of termination upon the defendant is mandatory, the

said question could be considered by the trial Court, in

view of the issues already framed.

10.

In that view of the matter, the order passed by

the trial Court does not warrant interference. Hence, the

writ petition is dismissed.

Since the suit is filed in the year 2017, the trial Court

is directed to dispose off the suit within a period of one

year from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NR/-