Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Korumilli Venkata Srinivasa Rao vs Gattu Muralidhar Rao And Another on 26 July, 2022
Bench: B Krishna Mohan
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
SECOND APPEAL No.535 of 2018
ORDER: -
This second appeal arises against the judgment and decree in
A.S.No.90 of 2014 on the file of Special Judge for Trial of Cases under
SCs & STs (POA) Act - cum - X Additional District & Sessions Judge,
East Godavari at Rajahmundry dated 24.01.2018 confirming the
judgment and decree in part in O.S.No.752 of 2007 on the file of
I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry dated 07.10.2014.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
counsel for the respondent No.1.
3. The appellant herein is the appellant before the lower appellate
court and the defendant No.1 in the suit before the trial court.
The respondent No.1 herein is the respondent No.1 in the appeal before
the lower appellate court and the plaintiff in the suit before the trial
court. The respondent No.2 herein is the respondent No.2 before the
lower appellate court and the defendant No.2 before the trial court.
4. The respondent No.1 initiated action in O.S.No.752 of 2007 on
the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry seeking
eviction of the appellant and the respondent No.2 from the suit
schedule property and delivery of possession with the payment of
damages, arrears of monthly rents and costs. The case of the respondent
No.1/ plaintiff is that he purchased the suit schedule property which is
part of the building bearing D.No.31-1-35, situated at Jandapanja
Road, Rajahmundry from Smt.Gowrisetti Srilakshmi who mortgaged
the said house for the need of some money. The same was purchased
under a registered sale deed dated 27.04.2005 bearing document
No.3899 of 2005 for a valid sale consideration of Rs.12,09,000/- subject
to mortgage. After the purchase the respondent No.1/plaintiff
discharged the mortgage and took the possession of the said house.
But the appellant and the respondent No.2 as defendants did not vacate
the suit schedule premises and defaulted in payment of monthly rents of
Rs.3,000/- per month. Then the respondent No.1/plaintiff issued a
legal notice to the defendants on 10.04.2007 to vacate the suit schedule
premises for which they have given a reply notice on 17.04.2007 and
the rejoinder was given on 17.05.2007. Then another notice was also
issued dated 22.10.2007 for which the defendant No.1 issued a reply
notice dated 26.10.2007.
5. On the other hand, the case of the appellant and the respondent
No.2/defendants is that the monthly rent as originally fixed by
Smt.Gowrisetty Srilakshmi was Rs.525/- and they paid the rents to the
original owner Smt.Gowrisetty Srilakshmi upto January, 2000.
As the leasehold shop was got affected during the road widening work,
the defendants got the schedule property premises renovated by
incurring a sum of Rs.1,51,500/- for which the owner agreed to share
50% of the costs amount and she also took Rs.5,000/- from the
defendants as such she became due a sum of Rs.80,750/- in total to the
defendants and she agreed to appropriate a sum of @Rs.525 per month
to clear the dues till it is completely discharged. As the scheduled
premises was not substantially renovated, the suit for eviction is not
maintainable and the quit notice issued by the plaintiff is not
maintainable.
6. On completion of the pleadings, the trial court framed the issues
and examined PWs.1 to 8 for the plaintiff and Exs.A1 to A29 were
marked for the plaintiff and DWs.1 to 3 were examined for the
defendants and Exs.B1 to B17 and Exs.X1 to X7 were marked.
7. The material on record shows that DW1 in his cross-examination
admitted that in the month of June, 2006, DW1, DW2, DW3 and two
others and the plaintiff had a sitting and discussed, wherein the plaintiff
informed that he purchased the suit schedule property and as such
DW1 came to know about the change of ownership in the month of
June, 2006. The defendants got marked Ex.B6 - letter/karnama dated
14.02.2000 which says that Smt.Gowrisetty Srilakshmi consented to
make repairs/lab etc by the defendant No.1 as the shop was removed in
the road widening work and on the same day she received a sum of
Rs.5,000/-. The defendant No.1 also got marked Ex.B7 letter dated
27.04.2000 said to have been executed by Smt.Gowrisetty Srilakshmi
agreeing to pay a sum of Rs.80,750/- which is deductable by the
defendant No.1 @ Rs.525/- per month from the rent amount till it's
discharge. But the evidence on record discloses that the execution of
Ex.B7 was not proved and the evidence on record shows that
Rs.3,000/-per month was agreed upon between the plaintiff and the
defendants. Accordingly on appreciation of evidence, the trial court
directed the defendants to vacate the suit schedule premises within one
month with a direction to pay a sum of Rs.93,000/- towards arrears of
rent within one month and directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month
towards future damages to the plaintiff from the date of suit till the date
of vacation of the suit scheduled property while decreeing the suit, by
it's judgment dated 07.10.2014.
8. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant No.1 preferred an appeal
before the lower appellate court in A.S.No.90 of 2014. The lower
appellate court on re-appreciation of the evidence on record and on
considering the provision of law under Section 32(c) of the Rent
Control Act, as amended in the year 2005 upheld the jurisdiction of the
civil court for entertaining the suit for eviction and confirmed the
judgment of the trial court to the extent of eviction by modifying the
directions of the trial court in respect of payment of arrears and
damages vide its judgment dated 24.01.2018 against which the
appellant before the lower appellate court and the defendant No.1
before the trial court filed this second appeal under Section 100 CPC
contending that the agreed rent for the suit schedule shop is only
Rs.525/- per month and the Rent Control Act would only apply if
default any committed by the tenant and the landlord cannot approach
the civil court for eviction by issuing notice under Section 106 of the
Transfer of Property Act.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court
erred in coming to a conclusion that the agreed rent payable is only
Rs.3,000/- per month for the suit schedule shop, the quit notice is valid,
and the eviction suit is maintainable before it. Even the lower appellate
court also erred in confirming the same without looking into the
purport of the Section 32(c) of the Rent Control Act.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/
plaintiff contends that the trial court rightly entertained the suit and
rendered the judgment and decree for eviction of the defendant and the
same was also confirmed by the lower appellate court. Since the suit
schedule building was renovated totally, the Rent Control Act would
not apply for another 15 years from the date of its reconstruction
irrespective of the quantum of rent for it. Section 32 of the old Rent
Control Act was amended in the year 2005 and Section 32(c) of the
Rent Control Act is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this
case and as such the suit is only maintainable. However, by virtue of
the Act 10 of 2018, the Rent Control Act was repealed with effect from
28.03.2018. Hence, the civil court alone has got the jurisdiction to
entertain eviction matters irrespective of the quantum of rent and age of
the building. That apart the validity of quit notice is not in dispute in
this case.
11. In view of the above said rival contentions and the discussion
held as above, it is to be seen that the defendants have got the
knowledge of purchase of the suit scheduled property by the plaintiff
and the agreed rent was Rs.3,000/- per month and there is no dispute
with regard to the issuance of quit notice and the Rent Control Act has
no application for the facts and circumstances of this case.
12. When two courts below concurrently held on the above said
aspects/issues, there is no ground for interference by this court in this
second appeal as there is no substantial question of law involved to
entertain the same.
13. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed with no costs.
The appellant is directed to vacate the suit schedule premises if not
already vacated within three months from the date of receipt of this
order unconditionally.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
_______________________________
JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
July 26, 2022
LMV
` 7
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
SECOND APPEAL No.535 of 2018
July 26, 2022
LMV
