JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. The defendant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dtd. 29/9/2015 passed in OS No.311 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge at Malavalli (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for brevity), decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs holding that they are entitled for the possession of the suit schedule property and directing the defendant to quit and hand over the possession of the suit schedule property within three months from the date of the order, which was confirmed vide judgment dtd. 2/4/2019 passed in RA No.73 of 2015 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mallavalli (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court' for brevity). 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their status and rank before the Trial Court. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiffs being the legal representatives of deceased M P Krishna filed the suit OS No.311 of 2013 seeking possession of the schedule property i.e., the piece and parcel of the land situated in Municipal Assessment No.1009 within Malavalli town measuring 100/19.8 feet, with the boundaries mentioned therein. 4. It is contended by the plaintiffs that they have filed OS No.40 of 1992 seeking partition and separate possession of several items of the properties of late Puttamadappa including the schedule property. In the final decree proceedings in FDP No.9 of 2006, the schedule property was allotted to the share of the plaintiffs. During the pendancy of RFA No.390 of 2008 before this Court, i.e., on 28/1/2004 the defendant had entered into an agreement for lease with M P Sampath for running the retail petrol bunk in Assessment No.1009 including the suit schedule property. This agreement was entered into with M P Sampath behind the back of the plaintiffs, even though the plaintiffs were in joint possession of the property. The defendant knowing fully well about the litigation that was pending, entered into such agreement and therefore, the plaintiffs are not bound by the said agreement. 5. It is stated that the defendant had established a petrol bunk over the land measuring East to West 175.56 feet and North to South 19.8 feet. But he is in possession of East to West 100 feet and North to South 19.8 feet on the front portion. 5. It is stated that the defendant had established a petrol bunk over the land measuring East to West 175.56 feet and North to South 19.8 feet. But he is in possession of East to West 100 feet and North to South 19.8 feet on the front portion. The remaining 75.56 feet x 19.8 feet lies towards the rear side and the plaintiffs cannot reach their land on the back portion. The plaintiffs got issued the legal notice dtd. 17/9/2012 calling upon the defendant to quit and hand over the vacant possession of the schedule property and also to pay arrears of rent. The said notice was served and the defendant has issued untenable reply on 16/10/2012. Therefore, it is contended that the tenancy of the defendant commencing from 28th of each month ended on 27th of the succeeding month, has been terminated. The defendant is liable to pay damages from 1/11/2012 till handing over the vacant possession of the property, at the rate of 1,350/- per month and accordingly, prays for decreeing the suit. 6. The defendant entered appearance and filed the written statement contending that it is a Government of India undertaking engaged in supplying and distribution of the petroleum products under the Essential Commodities Act . Considering the application filed by Sri. M P Sampath, the defendant entered into lease agreement dtd. 28/1/2014 and since then the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of Sy.Nos.80 and 81/1 with Municipal Assessment No.1009, totally measuring 15807 square feet. 7. It is further contended that Boramma, the mother of M P Chinnaswamy and his brothers M P Nagesh and M P Suresh and his wife Suvarna are the parties to the lease agreement as consenting witnesses. Even NOC was obtained by the defendant as required under Sec. 144 of the Petroleum Act. Since then the defendant is running the petrol bunk under the name and style as Hi-Tech Fuel Station. Receipt of the legal notice and issuing of the reply is admitted. However, it is contended that the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable as there is no cause of action. 8. It is contended that since the defendant is in possession of the property under the registered lease deed , it is bound by Sec. 106 of Transfer of Property Act. The defendant is paying rent regularly and therefore, the lease cannot be terminated by the plaintiffs. 8. It is contended that since the defendant is in possession of the property under the registered lease deed , it is bound by Sec. 106 of Transfer of Property Act. The defendant is paying rent regularly and therefore, the lease cannot be terminated by the plaintiffs. Hence, it is prayed that the suit is to be dismissed with costs. 9. On the basis of these pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues and additional issues for consideration: "1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule property along to them in FDP 9/06 filed before Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Malavalli (recasted as under) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant had entered into a lease with one Sri M.P. Sampath in respect of suit schedule property which has been fallen to the share of these plaintiffs? 2. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that they have terminated lease by issuing statutory notice? 3. Whether the plaintiff further proves that defendant is in wrongful possession of suit premises, therefore, it is liable for paying the damages as per lease agreement? 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs they sought? 5. What order or decree?" Additional issue no.1: "1. Whether the suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties?" 10. Plaintiff No.1 is examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 in support of their contention. The defendant got examined DW1, but not marked any documents in support of its defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, answered issue Nos.1 to 4 in the Affirmative and additional issue No.1 in the Negative and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for the possession of suit schedule property and directing the defendant to quit and hand over the possession of the suit schedule property within three months from the date of the order. Liberty was also granted to the plaintiffs to initiate separate proceedings for claiming damages. 11. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred RA No.73 of 2015. The First Appellate Court on re- consideration of the materials on record, dismissed the appeal confirming the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant is before this Court. 12. Heard Sri N J Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant. 13. The First Appellate Court on re- consideration of the materials on record, dismissed the appeal confirming the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant is before this Court. 12. Heard Sri N J Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant is running the petrol bunk under the registered lease agreement which was entered into for a period of 30 years, with M P Sampath, who was the co-owner of the property. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that they were allotted the schedule property in a suit for partition, but that will not give any right to the plaintiffs to terminate the lease agreement. 14. Learned counsel also contended that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant, since the plaintiffs are not parties to the lease deed. Even if it is to be held that the plaintiffs have stepped into the shoes of M P Sampath, who is the lessor under the registered lease deed, the plaintiffs cannot terminate the lease prematurely. He further contended that without the schedule property, the plaintiffs can access and enjoy the remaining portion of the land. No grounds are made out terminate the lease agreement. There is no provision for premature termination of the lease agreement. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have committed an error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs. Therefore, he prays for allowing the appeal, in the interest of justice. 15. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has not addressed his arguments on admission. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are served, but unrepresented. 16. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. 17. It is the specific contention of the plaintiffs that they are the wife and children of late M P Krishna who is the son of Puttamadappa and Boramma. They also contended that after the death of M P Krishna, the plaintiffs have filed the suit OS No.40 of 1992 against one Sampath and others, seeking partition and separate possession of their 4/45th share in the property that were held by late Puttamadappa including the property bearing Municipal Assessment No.1009 of Malavalli town. They also contended that after the death of M P Krishna, the plaintiffs have filed the suit OS No.40 of 1992 against one Sampath and others, seeking partition and separate possession of their 4/45th share in the property that were held by late Puttamadappa including the property bearing Municipal Assessment No.1009 of Malavalli town. The said suit came to be decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and the final decree proceedings in FDP No.9 of 2006 was filed before the Trial Court. In the final decree proceedings, the above said property was allotted in favour of the plaintiffs. When the suit OS No.40 of 1992 was decreed, the defendant Sampath had preferred an appeal before this Court in RFA No.390 of 2008. In the said appeal, the appellants Sampath and others have delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs on 25/7/2012. 18. To prove their contention, the plaintiffs produced Ex.P1 - the memo dtd. 18/8/2012 filed before this Court in RFA No.390 of 2008 pending between Sampath and Others Vs Prabhavathi and others. As per the memo, Sampath and Others have handed over the possession of item Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 and the respondents have acknowledged handing over the possession of the properties. This document is not disputed by the defendant. The contention of the plaintiffs that the suit for partition was decreed and they were allotted the schedule property in the final decree proceedings, which was handed over to the plaintiffs in RFA No.390 of 2008, was in fact admitted by the defendant during the course of cross examination of DW1. 19. The only defence taken by the defendant is that the defendant had entered into the registered lease deed dtd. 28/1/2004 with Sri M P Sampath, son of Puttamadaiah and therefore, it is the lessee under Sampath for a period of 30 years, commencing from 1/2/2004 and liable to pay the rent as agreed in the lease deed. Therefore, the plaintiffs have no right to terminate the tenancy before expiry of 30 years. 28/1/2004 with Sri M P Sampath, son of Puttamadaiah and therefore, it is the lessee under Sampath for a period of 30 years, commencing from 1/2/2004 and liable to pay the rent as agreed in the lease deed. Therefore, the plaintiffs have no right to terminate the tenancy before expiry of 30 years. Under the registered lease deed which is marked as Ex.P3, the lessee covenants to deliver vacant possession of the land to the lessor upon the expiration or sooner determination of the said term and to remove with all reasonable dispatch there from, all building structures etc., at its own cost and restore the land to its original condition, except normal wear and tear. When the plaintiffs are successful in proving that the schedule property was allotted to their share and the same was symbolically handed over to their possession during the pendancy of the regular first appeal, the defendant cannot deny the entitlement of the plaintiffs for the vacant possession of the schedule property. 20. Under Sec. 111(h) of the Transfer of Property Act (for short ' TP Act '), the lease will be determined on the expiration of a notice duly given by one party to the other. Admittedly, the plaintiffs have issued legal notice as per Ex.P2 which was served on the defendant and the defendant had issued reply as per Ex.P4. As per Sec. 106 of TP Act, a lease of immovable property, for any other purpose other than agricultural or manufacture purpose, shall be terminable on the part of the lessor or lessee by issuing 15 days notice. As per Sec. 108(q) on determination of the lease, the lessee is bound to put the lessor in possession of the property. 21. It is pertinent to note that admittedly the plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition against M P Sampath in OS No.40 of 1992. The said suit came to be decreed and the final decree proceedings was initiated in FDP No.9 of 2006. In the meantime, on 28/1/2004, Sri M P Sampath entered into the lease agreement as per Ex.P3 with defendant agreeing to lease the property for a period of 30 years subject to other conditions. Admittedly, as on the date of lease deed, the suit OS No.40 of 1992 was pending consideration. In the meantime, on 28/1/2004, Sri M P Sampath entered into the lease agreement as per Ex.P3 with defendant agreeing to lease the property for a period of 30 years subject to other conditions. Admittedly, as on the date of lease deed, the suit OS No.40 of 1992 was pending consideration. Sec. 52 of the TP Act bars transfer of any interest over the property by any party to the suit or proceedings so as to affect the rights of the other party, except under the authority of the Court, and on such terms as it may impose. 22. Entering into an lease agreement and inducting the defendant as a lessee into the schedule property amounts to transfer of interest over the property during the pendancy of the suit. Under such circumstances, the defendant cannot claim any right to squat over the property till expiry of the period mentioned in the lease deed. If at all, the defendant has any grievance, it is free to go against the lessor i.e., M P Sampath. Once the plaintiffs are held to be entitled for the schedule property under the decree passed by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, the same cannot be condemned by a party to the litigation by entering into an agreement during the pendancy of the suit. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs are entitled for vacant possession of the schedule property as sought. 23. I have gone through the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact by both the Courts. I do not find any substantial question of law to be considered in this appeal and therefore, there are no grounds for admitting the appeal. 24. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed with costs. (ii) The judgment and decree dtd. 29/9/2015 passed in OS No.311 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge at Malavalli, which was confirmed vide judgment dtd. 2/4/2019 passed in RA No.73 of 2015 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mallavalli, are hereby confirmed. Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this judgment.