Telangana High Court
Brilliant Grammar High School Society vs J.Srisailam Reddy on 3 June, 2024
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
APPEAL SUIT No.230 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed against the Judgment and decree dated 21.09.2016 in O.S.No.18 of 2015 passed by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.
2. The suit vide O.S.No.18 of 2015 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking eviction of the appellant/defendant from the suit schedule property and for mesne profits. The trial Court partly decreed the suit with costs directing the defendant to vacate the suit schedule property after expiration of academic year i.e., on or before 31.05.2017 and also held that the plaintiff is entitled for arrears of rent @ Rs.1,47,735/- including fixtures, maintenance and fittings from December, 2014 after deduction of Rs.15,55,065/- till the date of decree and the plaintiff is also entitled for the mesne profits @ Rs.1,50,000/- from the date of decree till the date of handing over the property to the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the 2 said Judgment, defendant in the suit preferred the present appeal.
3. For the sake of convenience, the appellant herein is "defendant" and the respondent herein is "plaintiff" in the suit. The parties will be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.
4. P.W.1 was examined on behalf of plaintiff and D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of defendant. Exs.A1 to A7 were marked on behalf of plaintiff and no document was marked on behalf of the defendant.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submitted that the respondent/plaintiff is the owner of the property and he entered into the lease deed in the year 2005, as per the said lease deed, the rent was Rs.72,000/- per month for a period of five years and after expiry of the said lease deed, they entered into another lease deed dated 18.07.2011 with a monthly rent of Rs.81,000/- and the appellant/defendant had paid a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- which is refundable in the form of cheques. The present 3 rent is Rs.1,06,616/- which is excluding the TDS i.e., Rs.10,000/-. Though, he was ready to pay the rent, the plaintiff avoided to receive the same. The lease deed was executed on 01.06.2011 for a period of five years and the tenancy is valid up to 2016. The plaintiff violated the terms and conditions of the lease deed dated 18.07.2011. The appellant/defendant never defaulted in payment of rent and he established a school and procured infrastructure by spending huge money by obtaining loans from Banks and other financial institutions. The respondent/plaintiff demanded to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- for the open space in which the school buses are being parked, for which he did not agree and as such he filed the suit with a mala fide intention. He further stated that there is no written lease deed and as such, the compliance of Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act does not arise. Therefore, he requested this Court to set aside the judgment passed by the trial Court.
6. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the entire record.
4
7. There is no dispute regarding the jural relationship of plaintiff and the defendant as the landlord and tenant. Initially, the suit schedule property was let out to defendant way back in the year 2005 for the purpose of running a school on a monthly rent of Rs.72,000/- and entered into another lease deed on 18.07.2011 for a rent of Rs.81,000/-
8. The main contention of the plaintiff is that defendant defaulted in payment of rents. As such he filed suit for eviction, whereas the defendant contended that he was paying the rents, but the plaintiff willfully avoided to receive the same. In the lease deed, it was mentioned that Rs.7,00,000/- was paid as a refundable rental deposit. In the lease deed dated 18.07.2011, it was mentioned that the period of lease is for five years from 01.06.2011. The suit for eviction is filed in the year 2015. But in the said suit, it was clearly mentioned that lease shall be entitled to terminate and revoke by giving 3 months prior notice to each other.
5
9. The defendant mainly contended that the plaintiff insisted for an amount of Rs.50,000/- for the open space in which the buses are parked. In the lease deed, Cellar, Ground Floor, First Floor and Second Floor were let out on lease for the purpose of conducting the classes. The plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendant on 24.06.2014 in which he stated that rent as on that date is Rs.1,40,700/- (which includes Rs.45,150/- towards maintenance of the building, fixtures and fittings) with effect from 01.06.2013 to 31.05.2014. He further stated that the defendant did not pay the rents from the month of March 2014 onwards in spite of repeated requests and committed default to an extent of Rs.5,62,800/- from March 2014 to June 2014 and thus he intended to terminate the tenancy and directed him to vacate and hand over the vacant peaceful physical possession. He further stated that after September 2014, he is deemed to be an unauthorized occupier and thus liable to pay the mesne profits at the rate of Rs.5,00,000/- per month till delivery of the possession. Reply notice was given by the defendant 6 on 26.07.2014, in which he stated that the rent as on the date was Rs.1,06,616/- which is excluding the T.D.S i.e., Rs.10,000/-. He further stated that he was always ready to pay the rents, but plaintiff is avoiding receiving the same. As such, the plaintiff is not entitled to terminate the lease and the question of handing over the vacant possession does not arise. He also stated that the tenancy is valid upto 2016. The details of the payments of amounts are filed under Ex.A.7 and it was received by the plaintiff under protest. An undertaking letter dated 6.12.2014 was also filed in which the defendant stated that he paid all the dues till date and undertakes to vacate and hand over the premises by 30.04.2015 without fail and agreed to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- per month towards mesne profits till he vacates the said premises. But, it was not signed by the defendant and the names of the witnesses were also not mentioned in it. Though the defendant stated that he was always ready to pay the rents and the plaintiff was not receiving the amount, he has not given any legal notice and he has not taken any steps to send the said amount 7 through money order. He simply kept quiet and not even filed suit in rent control court for receiving of rents. As such, his argument is not accepted. He further stated that plaintiff demanded for Rs.50,000/- for open space for parking of buses and admittedly open space was not let out to him under the lease deed. As such, demanding of Rs.50,000/- an additional amount cannot be find fault with. In the legal notice dated 24.06.2014, the plaintiff clearly stated that there was a due of rent to an extent of Rs.5,62,800/- from March 2014 to June 2014 and it clearly shows that the defendant was a defaulter and he is liable for eviction.
10. The trial Court on consideration of entire evidence rightly directed him to vacate the suit schedule property on or before 31.05.2017 on expiration of the academic year. As per the lease deed dated 18.07.2011 refundable rental deposit of Rs.7,00,000/- was with the plaintiff. As such, the said amount can be reduced from the arrears of rent to be paid by the defendant. The defendant is specifically directed to pay the arrears within one month from the date 8 of receipt of this order, failing which, he is liable to pay the said amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. As on the date of filing of the suit the present rent was Rs.1,47,735/- and as such, the defendant was directed to pay the mesne profits at the rate of 1,50,000/- from the date of decree till the date of handing over the property to the plaintiff. After careful perusal of the documentary and oral evidence adduced before the trial Court and having heard the arguments of both counsel, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is justified and needs no interference.
11. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed confirming the Judgment and decree dated 21.09.2016 in O.S.No.18 of 2015 passed by the trial Court.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATE: 03.06.2024 dgr