This

appeal

by

the

defendant

in

O.S.No.819/2015 is directed against the impugned

judgment and decree dated 02.11.2019 passed by the

XIX Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore,

whereby the said suit filed by the respondent –

plaintiff for ejectment / eviction of the appellant –

defendant from the suit schedule premises and for

other reliefs was decreed by the trial court.

2. Though the matter is posted for admission,

with the consent of both sides and the trial court

records having been received, the matter is taken up

for final disposal.

3. The material on record discloses that the

respondent filed the aforesaid suit against the

3

appellant inter alia contending that the appellant was

a tenant under him in respect of the suit schedule

property on a monthly rent of Rs.65,000/- and that

the said tenancy having been terminated by the

respondent by issuance of a legal notice dated

13.09.2014 which was replied to by the appellant vide

reply notice dated 19.08.2014 refusing to vacate and

hand over possession of the suit schedule property to

the respondent and as such, the respondent was

constrained to institute the aforesaid suit against the

appellant. It was also contended that apart from the

fact that the defendant was liable to pay mesne profits

@ Rs.80,000/- per month, the defendant was also

liable to pay Rs.2,24,000/- to the plaintiff towards the

damage caused by him to the schedule property.

4. The defendant contested the suit opposing the

claim of the plaintiff and contended that he had not

committed any default in payment of rent and since

4

the

plaintiff

attempted

to

interfere

with

the

defendant’s possession and enjoyment of the suit

schedule

property,

the

defendant

instituted

O.S.No.8002/2013

before

the

City

Civil

Court,

Bangalore, which was decreed in his favour on

11.08.2015. It was contended that the suit schedule

property is different from the property taken on lease

by the defendant from the plaintiff. The various other

contentions urged by the plaintiff was denied by the

defendant who sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial court

framed the following issues:-

“1.

Whether plaintiff proves that

she

has

terminated

the

tenancy

of

defendant by issuing valid statutory notice

as required U/S 106 of The Transfer of

Property Act?

5

2.

Whether defendant proves that the

property leased to him is different from the

suit schedule property?

3.

Whether

plaintiff

is

entitled

for

eviction of defendant and vacant possession

of suit schedule property?

4.

Whether

plaintiff

is

entitled

for

damages of Rs.2,24,000/- towards damages

caused by defendant to suit schedule

property?

5.

Whether

plaintiff

is

entitled

for

damages at Rs.80,000/- per month for use

of schedule property by defendant after

termination of lease as prayed in the plaint?

6.

What order or decree?

ADDITIONAL ISSUES

1. Whether the defendant proves that plaintiff

entered into an agreement with defendant

on 01-11-2007 with regard to schedule

property and the schedule property shown

6

in the agreement is entirely different from

schedule shown in suit schedule property?

2. Whether the defendant proves that plaintiff

herein has terminated the tenancy of the

defendant

in

respect

of

premises

an

mentioned in para No.11-a of the written

statement bearing No.724 situated J.P.

Nagar by issuing legal notice on 13-09-

2014?

3. Whether the defendant proves that the suit

of plaintiff is not maintainable for taking

different contentions such as collecting the

rent under 2 heads in respect of 2 portions

of the premises and suit being filed in

respect of only one premise?

6. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and

Exs.P1 to P9 were marked on his behalf. The

defendant examined himself as DW-1 but did not

adduce any documentary evidence.

7

7. The trial court answered the issues in favour

of the plaintiff and partly decreed the suit directing

the appellant – defendant to vacate and hand over

vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the

plaintif