Judgment 1. Though this appeal is listed for admission with consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. This is a defendant’s appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff instituted for ejectment. 3. For the sake of convenience the parties in this appeal would be referred to by their rankings as they are arrayed in the suit before the Court below. 4. The brief facts of the case are as follows.- The suit schedule property is the basement show-room premises bearing No.44-45, dispensary road, Bangalore, measuring 785 sq. ft. more fully described in the schedule appended to the plaint. It is the case of the plaintiff that they are the owners of the suit schedule property. Defendant is their tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 5,000/- agreeing to enhance 20% of existing rent and present monthly rent of Rs. 10,368/-. But, the defendant is paying Rs. 8,700/- instead of Rs. 10,368/- which was required to be paid from February 2006 by legal notice dated 25-8-2009. The plaintiff has terminated the tenancy of the defendant with effect from 5-10-2009. Even after the receipt of the notice, the defendants have not vacated the premises. Hence, the plaintiff instituted the suit praying for vacant possession of the schedule premises and future damages at the rate of Rs.10,368/- per month. 5. After service of suit summons, the defendant appeared and contested the suit. It was contended that the suit is not maintainable. Mr. M.K. Shoaib Ahmed is in no way concerned with the defendant’s property and the suit filed against the person who has no proprietary interest is not maintainable. The suit is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. The defendant is a tenant in respect of two independent properties and paying separate rents to different landlords. Therefore, the single suit for two different portions is not maintainable. Initially the rent for each shop was Rs.2,500/-. It was increased to Rs. 3,000/- and enhanced to Rs. 3,600/-. Further, the rents were enhanced to Rs. 4,350/-from 2004 and from May 2009, rents were enhanced to Rs. 6,000/- p.m. and the defendant is paying the same regularly. Since the plaintiff has received the enhanced rent, it has proved that the lease agreement is still in existence. It was increased to Rs. 3,000/- and enhanced to Rs. 3,600/-. Further, the rents were enhanced to Rs. 4,350/-from 2004 and from May 2009, rents were enhanced to Rs. 6,000/- p.m. and the defendant is paying the same regularly. Since the plaintiff has received the enhanced rent, it has proved that the lease agreement is still in existence. They are aware that the defendant is a proprietary concern and not partnership concern. The other averments in the plaint which are not specifically traversed is specifically denied. There is no cause of action to file the suit and there is no valid termination of tenancy as contemplated under law. Hence, the suit itself is not maintainable and therefore, sought for dismissal of the same. 6. The Trial Court on the basis of the above said pleadings framed the following issues:- 1. Whether plaintiff proves that as a landlord they have validly terminated the tenancy of defendant? 2. Whether suit is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of parties? 3. Whether defendant proves that it is a tenant in respect of two independent properties under different landlords? 4. Whether suit in the present form is maintainable? 5. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for damages at the rate of Rs.10,368/-? 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 7. What decree or order? 7. The plaintiffs in support of their case got examined the second plaintiff as P.W.1, produced 3 documents which came to be marked as Exhibits P. 1 to P. 3. The defendants in support of their case examined Mr. Hashim Yacoob Sait as D.W. 1 and produced 4 documents which came to be marked as Exhibits D. 1 to D. 4. 8. The Trial Court thereafter on hearing the learned Counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the evidence and the documents on record held that the plaintiffs have validly terminated the tenancy of the defendant, suit is not bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of parties, the defendant has failed to prove that he is a tenant in respect of the two independent properties under different landlords, the suit is maintainable as brought in the present form, the plaintiffs are entitled to damages at the rate of Rs.10,368/- and the reliefs as prayed for. Accordingly, by judgment dated 29-10-2011 decreed the suit of the plaintiff and directed the defendant to hand over vacant possession of the schedule premises within three months from the date of the suit and further directed to pay damages as prayed for by the plaintiff from the date of the suit till handing over of actual possession of the suit premises. 9. It is the correctness and legality of the said judgment and decree that has been assailed by the appellant/defendant in this appeal. 10. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant fairly submitted that he would not press the appeal on merits. On the other hand, he would be satisfied if his client is granted reasonable time to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises subject to payment of the rent regularly to the respondent/plaintiff. 11. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff also fairly submitted that the Court may fix reasonable time directing the defendant/tenant to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit premises subject to paying rents regularly. 12. In view of the submission made, the question that arises for consideration is what is the reasonable time that should be granted to the appellant/defendant to deliver vacant possession of the premises. It is seen from the impugned judgment and order that the Trial Court has directed the defendant to handover vacant possession of the schedule premises within three months from the date of the suit. At the time of arguments it was brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant/defendant is in occupation of the premises as a tenant for the last 1 ½ decades. He is carrying on his business in textiles where he has stocked huge goods including the dress materials. In view of the long tenancy and the nature of business carried on reasonable time be granted to him to hand over vacant possession. 13. Having regard to the fact that the defendant is a tenant in the premises for more than 15 years and the nature of business he is carrying on in my view, it is just and proper to grant him 9 more months time from today to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises to the respondent/plaintiff and that would meet the ends of justice. 14. 14. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:- (i) The appeal is dismissed; (ii) However, the appellant/defendant is granted 9 (nine) months time from today to quit, vacant and deliver vacant possession of the premises to the respondents/plaintiffs subject to payment of admitted rents regularly, failing which, the respondents/plaintiffs are at liberty to take steps to get the appellant evicted from the premises.