Sri.N.Shyam vs Sri.J.Kodandaram
2021 Latest Caselaw 2585 Tel

         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