The trial court erred in denying eviction based on non-termination of tenancy despite finding tenant's default in rent payments.

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal by the appellant - defendant arises out of the impugned judgment and decree dated 04.12.2021 passed in O.S.No.2691/2015 by the XIV Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.

2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the aforesaid suit was filed by the respondent – plaintiff against the appellant – defendant for permanent injunction restraining the appellant – defendant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule immovable property, for payment of Rs.1,00,100/- towards past damages / lost and Rs.30,000/- per month for future damages / loss and for other reliefs. The said suit was contested by the appellant – defendant, who put forth a counter claim directing eviction of the respondent – plaintiff from the suit schedule property, for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.2,38,000/- and for other reliefs. The trial court partly decreed the suit as well as the counter claim, thereby directing the appellant – defendant not to dispossess the respondent – plaintiff from the suit schedule property and also directing the respondent – plaintiff to pay arrears of rent to the appellant – defendant. The remaining reliefs sought for by both parties was rejected by the trial court. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the respondent – plaintiff has not preferred any appeal against the impugned judgment and decree upholding the counter claim of the appellant – defendant or rejection of the remaining claims of the respondent – plaintiff and the present appeal filed by the appellant – defendant is restricted / limited to the rejection of his counter claim insofar as it related to eviction of the respondent – plaintiff from the suit schedule property.

3. A perusal of the pleadings of the parties will indicate that it is an undisputed fact that the plaintiff became a tenant under the defendant vide unregistered Rent agreement dated 21.03.2013 and there were various allegations made by the plaintiff towards his claim in the suit filed by him. As stated supra, the defendant not only contested the suit interalia disputing and denying the claim of the plaintiff but also put forth a counter claim for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and other reliefs. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:-

“ 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule premises?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the Defendant has illegally locked the suit schedule premises?

3. Whether the Plaintiff proves that he has suffered loss of Rs. 1, 00,100/- from November 2014 till filing of the suit due to the lock of suit schedule premises by the Defendant?

4. Whether the Defendant proves that the plaintiff is liable to pay Rs. 2,38,800/- as mentioned in para No.13 of the counterclaim?

5. Whether the Defendant is entitled for vacant possession of the suit schedule premises?

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs claimed in the plaint?

7. Whether the Defendant is entitled for the reliefs as mentioned in para 17(b) to (g) of the counter- claim?

8. What order or decree?”

4. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and documentary evidence at Exs.P1 to P11 were got marked, while the defendant examined herself as DW-1 and documentary evidence at Ex.D1 was marked on her behalf. The trial court answered issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff thereby holding that he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. However, issue Nos.2 and 3 were answered against the plaintiff by the trial court, which came to the conclusion that he had not established that the defendant had illegally locked the suit schedule property or that she was liable to c