The Manager, South Kanara Agricultural Development Co-operative Society Ltd. and South Kanara Agricultural Development Co-operative Society Limited vs Dr. Saritha, Dr. Saritha and Dr. Aravind Shetty

V. Jagannathan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the appellants in respect of the appeal preferred by the defendants questioning the concurrent findings of the courts below.

The suit was filed by the respondents-plaintiffs for delivery of vacant possession and the said suit was decreed by giving two months time to the appellants from the date of the trial court judgment to hand over vacant possession. The lower appellate court confirmed the trial court judgment by dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellants herein.

Learned Counsel Sri. K. Chandranath Ariga for the appellants submitted that, as both courts have concurred on facts, this Court may consider the grounds raised in the appeal and having regard to the above submission made, I have carefully gone through the judgments of the courts below and I find that the trial court has recorded positive findings in respect of the plaintiffs proving the termination of tenancy as per law and the defendants due in payment of rent for the months of October and November 2005 and recording the affirmative findings on issue Nos. 1 and 2, the trial court considered the evidence of the parties as well as the documents produced by the plaintiffs.

The defendants also does not deny the factum of the lease having been entered into by Ananda Shetty and taking note of the absence of specific pleading in the written statement by the defendants denying the tenancy relationship with the plaintiffs, the trial court ultimately decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. It also directed the appellants to pay future profits at Rs. 3,000/- per month from the date of the suit till the date of delivery of vacant possession and to pay the rent for two months i.e. October and November 2005 at the rate of Rs. 1,500/-per month. The lower appellate court agreed with the trial court on all these aspects of the matter and took note of the prevailing rent which was put at Rs. 3,000/- per month.

In the light of the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the courts below, I do not see any perversity of finding recorded, for this Court to interfere in this second appeal. The only question that requires to be considered is as to the grant of time to the appellants.

Learned Counsel Sri. K. Chandranath Ariga for the appellants sought for one year and six months time to vacate the suit premises on the ground that the suit was filed in the year 2005.

Taking note of the above submission, I am of the view that the appellants can be granted one year three months time from the date of this judgment to vacate and hand over vacant possession to the respondents-plaintiffs and also to comply with the other directions given by the trial court with regard to payment of rent as well as mesne profits. The appellant shall file an affidavit to the above effect within two weeks.

Appeal therefore stands disposed of in the above terms.