Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. It is further averred by the plaintiffs that they came to know that the third persons are approaching the suit schedule property stating that they have parted advance amount towards the purchase of the suit schedule `A` property . Apart from that the first defendant is coercing the first plaintiff to vacate the suit schedule property with an oblique motive.

6. It is further averred by the plaintiffs that during the life time of Sri Siddalingaiah as a pavthi khatha holder in the status of representative lessor entered lease rental agreement O.S.No. 2582/2016 with respect to the ground floor of the schedule `A` property with one M/s Icon Copier Care on 01.09.2014 for a lease term upto 31.07.2015. As per clause mentioned at sl.No. 14 of the Lease Agreement the lesseee handed over the rental cheques upto July 2015 to the first plaintiff after the demise of late Sri Siddalingaiah on 12.03.2015. As per clause No. 14 the rental share of the plaintiff No. 2 to 5 have been remitted online by first plaintiff. But defendant No.1 with deliberate intention refrain from the receipt of his share for the reasons best known to him only. The defendant No.1 caused alleged legal notice dated 11.02.2016 on the Lessee and the Lessee had caused reply notice to the defendant No.1 with a copy to the plaintiff No.1 on 23.1.2016 . The first defendant is forcing the lesseee to vacate the ground floor of the property without assigning any reason and without consulting other legal heirs.