Telangana High Court
M/S. Vardhaman Mahila Coop. Urban Bank ... vs S.N. Veeresham on 21 June, 2024
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1342 of 2023
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 15.12.2022 in C.M.A.No.19 of 2021, passed by the learned XXVII-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.
2. Initially, respondents No.1 and 2 herein have filed a suit in O.S.No.99 of 2012, against the petitioner herein for eviction and recovery of mesne profits and the same was decreed by Judgment and decree dated 12.02.2015, directing the petitioner herein to handover the possession of the suit property within two months from the date of decree and further directed the respondents to file a separate application regarding mesne profits, as such respondents herein have filed an application in I.A.No.01 of 2018 in O.S.No.99 of 2012, seeking for decree of mesne profits at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per month from 01.12.2011 to till the actual handing over of the possession of the suit property. The trial Court considering the arguments of both sides, allowed the application directing the petitioner herein to pay mesne profits at Rs.11,000/- from 01.12.2011 to till the date of that Order and future mesne profits at Rs.20,000/- per month, against which respondents herein 2 preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court in C.M.A.No.19 of 2021 and the first appellate Court modified the Order of the trial Court by enhancing the mesne profits from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month, from 01.12.2011 to till the date of delivery of the possession of the suit property. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent therein preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner herein mainly contended that the burden of proof always lies on the respondents to prove the prevailing rent in the locality, but not upon the petitioner. The first appellate Court considering the stray statement made by R.W.1, erroneously directed him to pay mesne profits at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month. Though the respondents claimed Rs.75,000/- per month, there is no oral and documentary evidence to prove the existing rental value of the suit schedule property. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Order of the first appellate Court.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of Dr.J.Bhakthavasala 3 Rao and others Vs. Industrial Engineers, Nellore and others, 1 in which it was held as follows:
"8. The controversy in this appeal is limited to the one of fixing the damages for use and occupation of the suit building. By its very nature, it involves adjudication of a pure question of fact and there exists hardly any uniform and standard pattern of assessment in this regard. The Court has to undertake a comparative assessment of the nature, location, age, condition etc., of the suit schedule premises, on the one hand, and the similar characteristics of the premises in the surrounding area, on the other. It is very difficult to find the premises of similar nature, size and quality at the same location. Even if there exists any broad similarity on these aspects, the rent in respect of such premises would depend, mostly, upon the need of the lessee and the circumstances under which the leases are granted. Prevalence of amity or enmity, as the case may be, between the landlords and the tenants or the duration of lease, are also certain factors, which would have a bearing on this."
5. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the entire evidence on record.
6. The trial Court examined P.Ws.1 and 2 on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs and marked Exs.P1 and P2 on their behalf and also examined R.W.1 on behalf of the respondent, but no evidence was adduced on its behalf.
1 2005 (4) ALD 19 4
7. P.W.1 stated that petitioner/tenant was paying meager amount of Rs.9,930/- per month. As per Ex.A6/property tax demand notice issued by GHMC, the property tax demanded was Rs.1,83,000/-. The property tax will be determined 20% on the annual rental value and thus the annual rental value fixed by GHMC was much higher than the rent paid by the tenant. P.W.2 stated that he was the tenant in the commercial premises bearing No.5-5-155/E admeasuring about 130 Sq.ft, including common area in the ground floor, in the commercial cum residential building complex bearing H.No.5-5-155/156, situated at Lala's temple street, Ranigunj, Secunderabad. He stated that he was paying rent of Rs.11,000/- per month. The premises in the said vicinity was having high potential rental value fetching about Rs.100/- per Sq.ft.
8. The tenant is the M/s.Vardhaman (Mahila) Cooperative Urban Bank Limited and their Branch Manager was examined as R.W.1. In the Cross-examination, he himself admitted that the rent existing in the locality is around Rs.30,000/- per month. The trial Court considering his statement, fixed the present rental value. Therefore, the argument of the petitioner herein that the trial Court relied upon the stray statement of the evidence of R.W.1 cannot be accepted.
5
9. The suit schedule premises bearing H.No.5-5-155 and 156, was situated at Lala Temple Street, Ranigunj, Secunderabad. Petitioner Bank took it on lease from 01.04.1995, and initially paid Rs.7,002.60 Ps. and agreed for the enhancement of the rent at the rate of 20% for every five years and thus for next five years paid Rs.9,930.96 Ps., but later not increased to Rs.20,604.52 Ps., according to the agreement, in view of the filing of the suit. Respondents in their appeal grounds of C.M.A.No.19 of 2021, stated that petitioner agreed for enhancement of the rent by 20% as per the lease agreement and the said grounds were filed in September, 2021. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further stated that the chief affidavit of petitioner/R.W.1 was filed on 11.11.2019, but he was Cross-examined on 05.12.2019, as such at the best, the enhanced rent at the rate of 20% may be granted from that date and not earlier to that. Suit was filed not only for eviction, but also for mesne profits in the year 2011 itself.
10. Admittedly, the tenant is a Bank and thus premises was used for commercial purpose. They have taken the premises for lease initially for five years and later for 10 years and also with the permission of the landlord, altered the nature of the premises to suit for computerization of their branch vide letter 6 dated 13.03.2003. They also stated that tenancy period was in force till 31.03.2015. Though they entered into lease agreement with a condition to enhance rent by 20% for every five years, they did not stick on to the same, as such suit was filed by respondents for eviction and for mesne profits at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per month. The respondents herein relying upon the Ex.A6-Property Tax demand notice, stated that tax was assessed at the rate of 20% on the annual rental value and the rent paid by the tenant was much lesser than the property tax paid by them. An extent of 2122 Sq.ft of property was let out to the Bank from the year 1995 onwards. They have not increased the rent from 01.05.2008 at the rate of 20% for another five years, but agreed to pay the said rent in the appeal grounds. By that time, the amount of mesne profits to be paid was already decided by the trial Court, against which landlord preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court and the first appellate Court considering all the aspects rightly enhanced the amount to Rs.30,000/- per month from 01.12.2011 till 31.05.2020 and thus this Court finds no reason to interfere with the Order of the first appellate Court.
11. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, confirming the Order of the first appellate Court dated 7 15.12.2022 passed in C.M.A.No.19 of 2021. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATE: 21.06.2024 tri