A.V. Chandrashekara, J.Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 13.10.2014 passed by the I Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore in S.C. 1300/2013.

2. Petitioner is the defendant and respondent is the plaintiff in the said suit.

3. Plaintiff chose to file a suit seeking eviction of this petitioner from the suit property on the ground that he is a tenant under him and suit schedule property is required for his occupation. The said petition was contested by the present petitioner/defendant by filing detailed objections.

4. After recording the evidence of PW-1 and marking 9 documents, the learned Judge has allowed the petition. While allowing the petition, three months time has been granted for this petitioner/defendant to vacate and hand over the possession of the suit schedule premises.

5. The petitioner/defendant though has cross examined PW-1, he has not entered into witness box to substantiate the stand taken in the written statement. What is contended before this Court as well as before the Trial Court is that there is no valid termination of tenancy as contemplated under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. Ex. P-9 is the postal acknowledgement which bears the signature of Chandru and it is not served on the defendant.

6. The learned Judge has relied upon the decision render by the Honble Bombay High Court in the case of Bhojabhai v. Hayem Samuel 22 Bom 754 wherein it is held that the notice may be serviced on one of the family members or servants of the tenant. The best person who could have spoken about the same was the defendant and he has not entered into witness box. Hence, adverse inference will have to be drawn under Section 114(g) of Evidence Act. Nothing useful is culled out from the mouth of PW-1 to discredit his deposition in so far as jural relationship of landlord and tenant.

7. Admittedly, plaintiff has not made any efforts to claim arrears of rent and therefore no cross examination is made to that effect. The Trial Court has come to the conclusion about the existence of jural relationship of tenant and landlord and valid termination of tenancy. Hence, is no reason to interfere with the well considered order.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that even if the Court were to dismiss the petition, time has to be granted to the petitioner to run the mutton shop since, he was carrying the business for the past 2 years and that is his only source of income.

9. Admittedly, plaintiff has not sought for any arrears of rent. This Court also does not know whether defendant is in arrears of rent. Taking into consideration that the petitioner has been running the mutton shop from past 2 years which is his only source of income, reasonable time has to be granted to handover vacant possession of the premises.

10. In this view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The petitioner/defendant is granted nine (9) months time from today to vacate and handover vacant possession of the schedule premises. It is made clear that defendant/petitioner shall go on paying mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 5,100/- per month to the respondent/plaintiff till the possession is handed over from the date of the order of eviction passed by the Trial Court.

There is no order as to costs.