THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
SECOND APPEAL No.173 OF 2020
JUDGMENT:
1 This second appeal, under Section 100 CPC, is directed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.153 of 2017 dated 24.6.2020 passed by the learned XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, confirming the judgment and decree dated 03.4.2017 passed in O.S.No.1616 of 2012 passed by the learned V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2 Petitioner is defendant and respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. For the sake of convenience, parties to this appeal, would hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court.
3 The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.1616 of 2012 against the appellant / defendant seeking a decree for eviction from the suit schedule premises which is a mulgi admeasuring 5 ½ X 7 in the front portion of premises bearing No.TRT-21 admeasuring 188.84 sq. yards, jawaharnagar, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad and to handover the same to the plaintiff.
4 The respondent is the absolute owner of the suit mulgi. The brother of the appellant by name Balaji obtained the same on lease on the basis of a rental agreement dated 01.10.2020 on a monthly rent of Rs.1,650/- for the purpose of running a travel agency. The said lease was for a period of 11 months and after expiry of 11 months, it can be renewed with an enhancement of 10% of prevailing rent. The said Balaji expired in October 2003. Thereafter, the defendant requested the respondent and continued in the suit mulgi. However, as the defendant is in default of payment of rents, and resorted to filing false cases, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice and as it went in vain, he filed the suit. 5 The appellant/defendant filed written statement denying the plaint averments and submitted that the plaintiff entered into a rental agreement separately with him, he is paying the rents regularly, the plaintiff enhanced the rent abnormally, as the plaintiff failed to receive rents, he filed RC No.449 of 2011 and has been depositing rents in the court. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit.
6 The plaintiff filed rejoinder to the written statement of the defendant stating that the defendant created a false lease deed dated 23.4.2011 and filed a false case in RC No.449 of 2011 and that the defendant did not pay even a single pie towards rent and that the defendant is not tenant but only a licensee. 7 Since the defendant filed O.S.No.244 of 2013, the trial Court clubbed both the suit i.e. O.S.No.244 of 2013 and O.S.No.1616 of 2012 and recorded common evidence after framing appropriate issues. On behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.10 on behalf of the appellant / defendant, the defendant himself examined as D.W.1 and got marked as Exs.B.1 to B.9.
8 The trial Court after analyzing the entire material available on record, while dismissing the suit O.S.No.244 of 2013 filed by the defendant, decreed the suit O.S.No.1616 of 2012 filed by the plaintiff with costs directing the defendant to vacate the suit mulgi within a period of two months from that date i.e. 03.4.2017 and deliver peaceful and vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff, failing which the plaintiff is entitled to recover the said possession by following due process of law.
9 Aggrieved thereby, the defendant filed A.S.No.153 of 2017 on the file of the learned XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The lower appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the entire evidence available on record, both oral and documentary, by judgment dated 24.6.2020, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Hence the present second appeal by the defendant.
10 Heard Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant / defendant.
11 The defendant did not deny receipt of Exs.A.4 and A.5 legal notices got issued by the plaintiff whereunder the plaintiff revoked the license granted to the defendant. In spite of the same, the defendant did not pay the rents nor vacated the suit mulgi. Both the courts below in unequivocal terms held that the defendant failed to establish payment of caution deposit and payment of rents to the plaintiff. The evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.A.1 clearly establish that the defendant is only a licensee and that the plaintiff is having every right to revoke the license at any point of time. Since the plaintiff revoked the license granted to the defendant under Exs.A.4 and A.5, the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of the defendant from the suit mulgi.
12 Both the courts have appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record in right perspective. The questions of law canvassed by the defendant / appellant cannot be termed as substantial questions of law. This Court, while sitting under Section 100 CPC, cannot re-appreciate the factual aspects and cannot probe into concurrent finding of facts, unless there is any perversity or any irregularity in the impugned judgments. 13 Hence the second appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.153 of 2017 dated 24.6.2020 passed by the learned XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. No order as to costs. However, the appellant/defendant is granted four months time i.e. till 14.01.2022 to vacate the suit mulgi and handover vacant and peaceful possession of the same to the plaintiff. It is made clear that no further extensions will be granted. 14 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this second appeal, shall also stand dismissed.
__________________________ T. AMARNATH GOUD, J.
Date: 14.9.2021 Kvsn