Sri Saraswathi Vidya Peethamu vs Gangisetti Kamala Bai
2022 Latest Caselaw 3201 Tel

           THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                         A.S.NO.2057 OF 2001

                               JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the court of

Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar in O.S.No.59 of 1995 dated

02.04.1999 in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of

the possession of the suit schedule house, and for recovery of an

amount of Rs.47,000/- towards the arrears of rent, the defendants in

the suit filed the present appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as

per their array in the suit.

3. The plaint averments are that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the

joint owners of the suit house bearing Nos.4-5-100 and 4-5-101 with

open land situated in Ahmedpura locality of Karimnagar with

boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule. Mr. Gangisetti

Narsayya, husband of the plaintiff No.1, has been managing the suit

schedule property on behalf of the plaintiffs in leasing and collecting

rents, attending to repair works of the suit schedule house since long

time.

(i) The defendant No.1 - Sri Saraswathi Vidya Peetham is a

registered society and it is represented by Sri Ramani Ranjana Pandey

its President. The 2nd defendant is Sri Saraswathi Shishu Mandir,

High School, which is an educational institution, and it is represented

by Sri Siddulu Balakrishna, and he is the President of the School

Managing Committee. The Headmaster of the 2nd respondent - School

is the defendant No.3.

(ii) That at the request of defendant No.2, the plaintiffs

constructed first floor on the already existing ground floor of the suit

premises and provided additional accommodation, and leased the suit

premises to defendant No.2 in the year 1967 for running school, and

that subsequently at the request of the defendant No.1, plaintiffs

constructed a hall in the year 1977, for the use of the said school, and

monthly rent was agreed at Rs.2,000/-, which was payable by

defendants before 5th of the succeeding month. The agreement of

lease was oral.

(iii) That the defendants 2 and 3 always failed to pay the rent

regularly. As such, the plaintiffs got issued notice dated 11.7.1993

demanding payment of arrears of rent, and to vacate the suit

premises.

(iv) That the defendant No.1 who took over the management of

the school in the meanwhile, addressed a letter dated 29.06.1994 to

the plaintiffs with a request to reduce the monthly rent from

Rs.2,000/- to Rs.1,000/-. The 1st defendant also offered to purchase

the suit premises, and requested the husband of the plaintiff No.1 to

negotiate with defendants 2 and 3 in that connection. The plaintiffs

informed the defendants that they are not willing to sell the suit

premises, or to reduce the rent from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.1,000/-, and

that the monthly rent is required to be increased in view of the

prevailing market rates.

(v) That defendant No.3 gave a letter to the husband of the

plaintiff No.1 on 5.8.1994 promising to contact the defendant No.1

and to pay the arrears of rent.

(vi) That on 14.11.1994, plaintiffs received a letter from

1st defendant along with demand draft of Rs.25,000/- towards

arrears of rent, and in the said letter it is clearly stated that out of the

said amount, an amount of Rs.16,000/- is towards rent of the suit

premises for eight months at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month, from

August, 1992 to March, 1993, and the balance amount of Rs.9,000/-

is towards rent for the suit premises for nine months from April, 1993

to December, 1993.

(vii) The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendant No.1 cannot

unilaterally, and without the consent of the plaintiffs, reduce the

monthly rent from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.1,000/- with effect from

April, 1993. Their case is that the defendants are bound to pay

monthly rent at the rate of Rs.2,000/- as agreed in the year 1977.

That the defendants are at liberty to vacate the suit premises if they

are not prepared to pay the agreed monthly rent.

(viii) That finally the plaintiffs got issued notice on 19.06.1995

to the defendants under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act,

1882 terminating the lease, and requiring the defendants to vacate the

premises by 1.8.1995, and also demanded an amount of Rs.45,000/-

towards rent due and payable up to the end of June, 1995.

(ix) That the said notice was duly served on the defendants, but

they failed to vacate the suit premises, not paid the arrears of rent. As

such, the present suit came to be filed.

(x) The plaintiffs also claimed profits at the rate of Rs.3,000/-

per month from August, 1995 till the date of recovery of possession of

suit premises, and terminated the lease with effect from 31.07.1997.

The claim of the plaintiffs is that the defendants are liable to pay

profits as claimed from 01.08.1995.

4. Defendant No.3 filed written statement, and the same was

adopted by defendants 1 and 2.

(i) In the written statement, the defendants, while denying the

averments made in the plaint, stated that the defendants are not

aware that plaintiffs are the joint owners of the suit premises and that

they are paying rents to one Mr. Gangishetti Narsayya, and that he

was issuing receipts.

(ii) It is admitted that the agreed rent for the ground floor and

the first floor of the premises was Rs.2,000/- per month, but it is

stated that the portion of the ground floor is in a bad condition, as

such the authorities of Vidya Peeth, have shifted the high school

classes to another premises in the month of April, 1993. That since

April 1993, the rent was paid at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month.

(iii) It is denied that the defendants committed any default in

payment of rents. It is stated that Mr. Gangishetti Narsayya did not

receive the rents and did not come to the school for collecting rents.

Therefore, the rents were not paid till the end of December, 1993.

Thereafter, the rents were not collected by the said Narsayya.

Therefore, the defendants have paid an amount of Rs.27,000/- to

Mr. Gangishetti Narsayya by way of cheque.

(iv) That the said Narsayya has also been using the premises for

keeping his vehicles viz., lorry, two vans and one auto. When the rent

amount of Rs.1,000/- was paid by the Central Officer, the said

Narsayya received it without any protest. But he has set up a false

claim, claiming monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- through his notice.

(v) That the rent amount of Rs.25,000/- paid through demand

draft, being the rent for a period of eight months at the rate of

Rs.2,000/- per month i.e., from August, 1992 to March, 1993, and at

the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month from April, 1993 to December, 1993,

was accepted by Mr. Gangisetti Narsayya, and hence his claim for rent

at the rate of Rs.2,000/- is not sustainable.

(vi) That the premises was badly maintained by the said

Gangisetti Narsayya and that he did not attend to the repair works.

Moreover the defendants are using one hall and two rooms in ground

floor, and three rooms in the first floor, and the remaining rooms in

the ground floor are in dilapidated condition, and hence the

defendants did not use the said portion. Therefore the claim of the

plaintiffs for arrears of rent is not correct.

(vii) That the claim of the plaintiffs for profits at the rate of

Rs.3,000/- was not proper, and there is no written agreement to that

effect. The recovery of possession claimed by the plaintiffs is not

valid.

(viii) That the suit has to be field before the District Munisf and

that trial court has no jurisdiction, and that the aggregate value of the

two reliefs cannot be taken into consideration.

(ix) With the above averments, the suit was sought to be

dismissed.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial court framed the

following issues for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of possession of the suit schedule premises?

2. Whether the plaintiff are entitled for recovery of Rs.47,000/- towards past rents?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for future profits at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month?

4. Whether the suit is properly valued and is properly filed in this court?

5. To what relief?

6. To prove the case of the plaintiffs, they examined P.Ws.1 and

2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-15; and on behalf of the defendants,

D.W.1 was examined and no document was marked.

7. Appreciating the entire evidence both oral and documentary,

the trial court answering all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs,

decreed the suit as prayed for.

8. Assailing the judgment and decree of the trial court, the

defendants filed the present appeal.

9. Both the counsel submitted that the appellants / defendants

have vacated the suit premises and the present appeal is only with

regard to arrears of rent and future profits granted by the trial court.

10. Only ground raised by the learned counsel for the

appellants/defendants is that the husband of the plaintiff No.1 /

respondent No.1 by name Mr. Gangisetti Narsayya has also been

using the premises for keeping his vehicles. He further submitted

that in the suit premises the defendants were using only one hall and

two rooms in ground floor, and three rooms in first floor, and the

remaining rooms in ground floor were in dilapidated condition, and

they were not used by the defendants. Moreover, when the

1st defendant paid the rent of Rs.25,000/- by way of demand draft at

the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month from August, 1992 to March, 1993,

and Rs.9,000/- at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month for nine months

from April 1993 to December, 1993, Mr. Gangisetti Narsayya,

husband of the 1st plaintiff received the same without any demur.

Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any default on the part of the

defendants. He further submitted that though no evidence was lead

by the plaintiffs to claim future rent at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per

month, the trial court awarded the same, and hence the same cannot

be sustained.

11. Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing

for the respondents / plaintiffs supporting the impugned judgment

and decree passed by the trial court, sought to dismiss the appeal.

12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,

and the rival submissions of the learned counsel, the issue that arises

for consideration is whether the impugned judgment and decree

warrants any interference?

13. There is no dispute that the respondents / plaintiffs are the

owners of the suit schedule premises and the appellants / defendants

have taken the same on rent for running the school, and the rent that

was agreed during the year 1977 was Rs.2,000/- per month, which

was payable by the 5th of every succeeding month.

14. For the alleged default in payment of rent, plaintiffs have

issued quit notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act,

1882 seeking the defendants to vacate the suit premises, and to pay

the arrears of the rent. As the same was not complied with, the suit

came to be filed for recovery of possession, and for arrears of rent.

15. To prove the case of the plaintiffs, the husband of the

1st plaintiff was examined as P.W.1. His evidence is to the effect that

the agreed rent for the suit premises is Rs.2,000/- per month, but the

defendant No.1 vide letter dated 29.06.1994, which was marked as

Ex.A-7 requested the plaintiffs to reduce the rent from Rs.2,000/- to

Rs.1,000/-, which the plaintiffs declined, and the defendant No.3 vide

letter dated 5.8.1994 marked as Ex.A-8, promised to pay the arrears.

However, the 1st defendant addressed letter dated 14.11.1994, which

was marked as Ex.A-9, and along with the said letter, demand draft

for Rs.25,000/- was enclosed, calculating rent at the rate of

Rs.2,000/- per month for eight months from August, 1992 to March,

1993, and thereafter at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month for a period

of nine months i.e., from April 1993 to December, 1993, which

reduction was not accepted by the plaintiffs and they demanded for

balance of payment. P.W.1 also denied that the suit premises was in

dilapidated condition.

16. To rebut the evidence of the plaintiffs, defendants examined

D.W.1. In his evidence he deposed that Saraswathi Sishumandir is

located in the ground floor of the suit premises and they obtained the

suit premises on lease at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month; that P.W.1

used to come and receive rent and they paid Rs.25,000/-. He further

deposed that P.W.1 used to park vehicles in the suit premises and;

that except five rooms, the remaining rooms are not in good condition.

17. In the cross-examination, D.W.1 admitted that they were

paying rent at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month from the year 1977.

He also admitted that they shifted the High School section from the

suit premises to their own premises after construction, and that till

1993 the primary as well as high school sections were run in the same

premises, and he admitted the letters issued by the plaintiffs under

Exs.A-2 to A-5 and A-6.

18. From the above it could be seen that the admitted rent for

the suit premises is Rs.2,000/- per month and further, though the

claim of the defendants is that the suit premises was in dilapidated

condition, it is admitted that both the primary and the high school

sections were run in the suit premises till 1993, when they shifted the

school to their own building. If really the premises was in dilapidated

condition, it could not have been possible for the defendants to run

the school in such premises. Therefore, this version of the

defendants that the part of the premises was in dilapidated condition

cannot be believed and it is an after thought to avoid payment of rent.

19. The next grievance is with regard to reduction of rent from

Rs.2,000/- to Rs.1,000/-. The grounds raised by the defendants is

that the husband of the plaintiff No.1 was also using the premises for

keeping his vehicles and that when the amount was paid by way of

cheque, the same was accepted without any protest.

20. It is to be seen that there is no dispute that the admitted

rent was Rs.2,000/- per month and when a request was made under

Ex.A-7 by the defendants for reduction of rent, the same was not

agreed, and the defendant No.1 vide Ex.A-8 promised to pay the rent,

but however, as already noted above, vide letter Ex.A-9 he sent

demand draft for Rs.25,000/- calculating rent at the rate of

Rs.2,000/- per month for eight months and Rs.1,000/- per month, for

a period of nine months. When the plaintiffs have not agreed for

reduction, paying rent at the reduced rate of Rs.1,000/- cannot be

sustained.

21. Based on evidence, the trial court found that defendants

have committed default in payment of rents, and that the plaintiffs are

entitled to recover the possession, and also the arrears of rent. This

finding of the trial court is based on material evidence, and hence

cannot be interfered with.

22. The next issue is with regard to future rents. The admitted

rent was Rs.2,000/- per month and the plaintiffs claimed future rent

at the rate Rs.3,000/- per month from August, 1995 till the date of

recovery of possession of suit premises i.e., they sought increase of

Rs.1,000/- per month.

23. To prove this claim, plaintiffs examined P.W.2, who is doing

business in a shop adjacent to the suit premises. He deposed that he

started with a rent of Rs.250/- per month during the year 1975, and

the same was enhanced to Rs.1,000/- i.e., there was increase by three

times. D.W.1 in his deposition admitted that rents have increase by 3

to 5 times, when compared to the rents, which were paid during the

years 1977-78. Considering this evidence and the inflation, the claim

of future rents by the plaintiffs at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month

can be said to be justified and reasonable.

24. Considering both oral and documentary on record, the trial

court has rightly decreed the suit, and no grounds have been made

out to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree of the trial

court. The issue framed is answered accordingly.

25. The appeal is devoid of any merits and the same is

accordingly dismissed.

26. Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand

closed. No order as to costs.

--------------------------------------------------

M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J

DATE: 01--07--2022

AVS