Kondeti Dharma Rao vs K.Arun Kumar
2021 Latest Caselaw 2583 Tel

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD

                 SECOND APPEAL No.175 of 2021

JUDGMENT :

This Second Appeal is preferred by the appellant/defendant,

aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2020 passed in

A.S.No.7 of 2017 by the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad confirming the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2016

passed in O.S.No.135 of 2013 by the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil

Court, Hyderabad.

2. For the sake of convenience, the appellant herein referred to

as defendant and the respondents herein referred to as plaintiffs.

3. The respondents/plaintiffs filed O.S.No.135 of 2013 on the

file of I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking

eviction of the appellant/defendant from the suit schedule

premises, to deliver vacant physical possession of the same,

arrears of rent and also direct the defendant to pay Rs.36,000/-

per month towards unauthorized occupation of the schedule

premises from February, 2013.

4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are owners of

H.No.15-8-377/13 to 15-8-377/17 (Old part portion A of MCH

No.15-8-377) situated at Feelkhana, Hyderabad with a built up

area of 4305 sq. ft. in second, third and fourth floors by virtue of

registered sale deeds and that the defendant is one of the tenants

in the 3rd floor in premises bearing No.15-8-377/TF/1,

admeasuring 1615 sq. ft and that the rent is @ Rs.9,000/- per

month on oral agreement and that the defendant agreed to pay

rents regularly and that if he failed to pay monthly rent for two

consecutive months, the plaintiffs are at liberty to evict him

without issuing any notice and that from time to time, the rent was

enhanced to Rs.18,000/- per month and that the 1st defendant

used to obtain rental receipts from the 1st plaintiff. The defendant

became irregular in payment of rent since June, 2012, the

plaintiffs issued notice dated 05.12.2012 to the defendant to

vacate the schedule premises and to pay arrears of rent till

November, 2012 amounting to Rs.1,08,000/-. The defendant after

receiving said notice, without vacating the schedule premises or

paying rents, issued reply notice dated 31.12.2012 agreeing to pay

arrears of rent and denying vacating the schedule premises. The

defendant is in arrears of rent of Rs.1,44,000/- from June, 2012 to

January, 2013 and Rs.36,000/- per month towards future

damages from February, 2013 as he is in illegal possession of

schedule premises.

5. The defendant filed written statement admitting that the

plaintiffs are owners of the schedule premises and that the tenancy

between them is oral and that the monthly rent is @ Rs.18,000/-.

Originally, the defendant is tenant of one Safdar Ali Khan, to whom

he has paid Rs.5,00,000/- towards security deposit returnable

upon determination of tenancy or at the time of handing over the

vacant possession, whichever is earlier. The defendant's previous

landlord attorned tenancy through letter dated 06.02.2009 and

thereafter, he paid rent regularly to the plaintiffs till May, 2012

and thereafter, the plaintiffs failed to receive the rents from June,

2012 to November, 2012 even though, the defendant sent rent

through money order and by way of cheques. The plaintiffs own

and possess 52 shops in the said building complex and that the

plaintiffs are having vacant mulgies nearly 20 and that the

plaintiffs' claim that they require the suit mulgi for their personal

use and occupation is false. The defendant is running another

business in Giriraj Complex, Feelkhana and the suit mulgi is not

required by him is not correct. The defendant is not having any

other mulgi except the suit mulgi. The family of the defendant is

depending upon the business conducted in the suit mulgi. The

plaintiffs putting locks to the toilet and to the grill and the main

entrance to the defendant shop only to harass him by one or the

other and that no cause of action arose. Hence, prayed to dismiss

the claim of the plaintiffs.

6. On considering the oral and documentary evidence, the I

Senior Civil Judge, on behalf of the plaintiffs, examined the 1st

plaintiff as PW1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A6 and on behalf of the

defendant, examined the defendant as DW1 and got marked

Exs.B.1 to B.14. As per orders in I.A.No.322 of 2016, Sri Safdar

Ali Khan was summoned and examined as CW1. The I Senior Civil

Judge, framed the following issues:

1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to evict the defendant from the suit premises?

2) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to arrears of rent?

3) To what relief?

7. After hearing both sides and on considering the entire

material and evidence on record, the I Senior Civil Judge decreed

the suit with costs directing the defendant to vacate and deliver the

vacant and physical possession of the schedule mulgi to the

plaintiffs within two months, failing which the plaintiffs are

entitled to get the same through process of law and also mesne

profits from the defendant for use and occupation of schedule

mulgi from February, 2013 till delivery of physical possession at

the rate to be quantified in separate enquiry upon application of

the plaintiffs.

8. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant/defendant preferred

A.S.No.7 of 2017 on the file of IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil

Court, Hyderabad and the said first appeal was dismissed

confirming the judgment passed by the I Senior Civil Judge, City

Civil Court, Hyderabad by granting one month time for the

defendant to vacate the suit shop, failing which the plaintiffs are at

liberty to proceed as per law that the suit schedule premises was

not utilized for the purpose of business by the defendant and the

schedule premises was kept idle and that as per the admission

made by the defendant in his cross examination that he has been

using the schedule premises as a godown.

9. The defendant/appellant holding that the judgment and

decree passed by the Courts below are perverse and the Courts

below failed to appreciate the evidence and material available on

record and that in case the defendant not deposited any security

deposit amount, the plaintiffs would not have been continued for

such a long time since the date of Ex.A.1-sale deed. The first

appellate Court without recording any specific reasons and

independent findings in its judgment erred in law in observing that

the reasons assigned by the trial Court in decreeing the suit.

10. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel

for the respondents.

11. On perusal of the material available on record, and having

regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the

appellant/defendant has not made out any substantial question of

law in this second appeal and hence, this second appeal is

dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2020

passed in A.S.No.7 of 2017 by the IX Additional Chief Judge, City

Civil Court, Hyderabad confirming the judgment and decree dated

16.11.2016 passed in O.S.No.135 of 2013 by the I Senior Civil

Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. However, the

appellant/defendant granted three months time to vacate and

handover the schedule premises to the respondents/plaintiffs by

clearing all arrears, failing which, the respondents/plaintiffs are at

liberty to recover the same, in accordance with law. It is made

clear that no further extension of time will be granted to the

appellant/defendant. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

________________________ T. AMARNATH GOUD, J.

Date: 14.09.2021 kvrm