Telangana High Court
Brilliant Grammar High School Society vs J.Srisailam Reddy on 3 June, 2024
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
APPEAL SUIT No.230 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed against the Judgment and decree
dated 21.09.2016 in O.S.No.18 of 2015 passed by the
learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga
Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.
2. The suit vide O.S.No.18 of 2015 was filed by the
respondent/plaintiff seeking eviction of the
appellant/defendant from the suit schedule property and
for mesne profits. The trial Court partly decreed the suit
with costs directing the defendant to vacate the suit
schedule property after expiration of academic year i.e., on
or before 31.05.2017 and also held that the plaintiff is
entitled for arrears of rent @ Rs.1,47,735/- including
fixtures, maintenance and fittings from December, 2014
after deduction of Rs.15,55,065/- till the date of decree
and the plaintiff is also entitled for the mesne profits @
Rs.1,50,000/- from the date of decree till the date of
handing over the property to the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the
said Judgment, defendant in the suit preferred the present
appeal.
3. For the sake of convenience, the appellant herein is
"defendant" and the respondent herein is "plaintiff" in the
suit. The parties will be referred to as arrayed before the
trial Court.
4. P.W.1 was examined on behalf of plaintiff and D.Ws.1
and 2 were examined on behalf of defendant. Exs.A1 to A7
were marked on behalf of plaintiff and no document was
marked on behalf of the defendant.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant
submitted that the respondent/plaintiff is the owner of the
property and he entered into the lease deed in the year
2005, as per the said lease deed, the rent was Rs.72,000/-
per month for a period of five years and after expiry of the
said lease deed, they entered into another lease deed dated
18.07.2011 with a monthly rent of Rs.81,000/- and the
appellant/defendant had paid a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-
which is refundable in the form of cheques. The present
rent is Rs.1,06,616/- which is excluding the TDS i.e.,
Rs.10,000/-. Though, he was ready to pay the rent, the
plaintiff avoided to receive the same. The lease deed was
executed on 01.06.2011 for a period of five years and the
tenancy is valid up to 2016. The plaintiff violated the terms
and conditions of the lease deed dated 18.07.2011. The
appellant/defendant never defaulted in payment of rent
and he established a school and procured infrastructure by
spending huge money by obtaining loans from Banks and
other financial institutions. The respondent/plaintiff
demanded to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- for the open
space in which the school buses are being parked, for
which he did not agree and as such he filed the suit with a
mala fide intention. He further stated that there is no
written lease deed and as such, the compliance of Section
106 of Transfer of Property Act does not arise. Therefore,
he requested this Court to set aside the judgment passed
by the trial Court.
6. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the entire
record.
7. There is no dispute regarding the jural relationship of
plaintiff and the defendant as the landlord and tenant.
Initially, the suit schedule property was let out to
defendant way back in the year 2005 for the purpose of
running a school on a monthly rent of Rs.72,000/- and
entered into another lease deed on 18.07.2011 for a rent of
Rs.81,000/-
8. The main contention of the plaintiff is that defendant
defaulted in payment of rents. As such he filed suit for
eviction, whereas the defendant contended that he was
paying the rents, but the plaintiff willfully avoided to
receive the same. In the lease deed, it was mentioned that
Rs.7,00,000/- was paid as a refundable rental deposit. In
the lease deed dated 18.07.2011, it was mentioned that the
period of lease is for five years from 01.06.2011. The suit
for eviction is filed in the year 2015. But in the said suit, it
was clearly mentioned that lease shall be entitled to
terminate and revoke by giving 3 months prior notice to
each other.
9. The defendant mainly contended that the plaintiff
insisted for an amount of Rs.50,000/- for the open space
in which the buses are parked. In the lease deed, Cellar,
Ground Floor, First Floor and Second Floor were let out on
lease for the purpose of conducting the classes. The
plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendant on 24.06.2014
in which he stated that rent as on that date is
Rs.1,40,700/- (which includes Rs.45,150/- towards
maintenance of the building, fixtures and fittings) with
effect from 01.06.2013 to 31.05.2014. He further stated
that the defendant did not pay the rents from the month of
March 2014 onwards in spite of repeated requests and
committed default to an extent of Rs.5,62,800/- from
March 2014 to June 2014 and thus he intended to
terminate the tenancy and directed him to vacate and hand
over the vacant peaceful physical possession. He further
stated that after September 2014, he is deemed to be an
unauthorized occupier and thus liable to pay the mesne
profits at the rate of Rs.5,00,000/- per month till delivery
of the possession. Reply notice was given by the defendant
on 26.07.2014, in which he stated that the rent as on the
date was Rs.1,06,616/- which is excluding the T.D.S i.e.,
Rs.10,000/-. He further stated that he was always ready to
pay the rents, but plaintiff is avoiding receiving the same.
As such, the plaintiff is not entitled to terminate the lease
and the question of handing over the vacant possession
does not arise. He also stated that the tenancy is valid upto
2016. The details of the payments of amounts are filed
under Ex.A.7 and it was received by the plaintiff under
protest. An undertaking letter dated 6.12.2014 was also
filed in which the defendant stated that he paid all the
dues till date and undertakes to vacate and hand over the
premises by 30.04.2015 without fail and agreed to pay an
amount of Rs.5,00,000/- per month towards mesne profits
till he vacates the said premises. But, it was not signed by
the defendant and the names of the witnesses were also
not mentioned in it. Though the defendant stated that he
was always ready to pay the rents and the plaintiff was not
receiving the amount, he has not given any legal notice and
he has not taken any steps to send the said amount
through money order. He simply kept quiet and not even
filed suit in rent control court for receiving of rents. As
such, his argument is not accepted. He further stated that
plaintiff demanded for Rs.50,000/- for open space for
parking of buses and admittedly open space was not let out
to him under the lease deed. As such, demanding of
Rs.50,000/- an additional amount cannot be find fault
with. In the legal notice dated 24.06.2014, the plaintiff
clearly stated that there was a due of rent to an extent of
Rs.5,62,800/- from March 2014 to June 2014 and it
clearly shows that the defendant was a defaulter and he is
liable for eviction.
10. The trial Court on consideration of entire evidence
rightly directed him to vacate the suit schedule property on
or before 31.05.2017 on expiration of the academic year.
As per the lease deed dated 18.07.2011 refundable rental
deposit of Rs.7,00,000/- was with the plaintiff. As such,
the said amount can be reduced from the arrears of rent to
be paid by the defendant. The defendant is specifically
directed to pay the arrears within one month from the date
of receipt of this order, failing which, he is liable to pay the
said amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
As on the date of filing of the suit the present rent was
Rs.1,47,735/- and as such, the defendant was directed to
pay the mesne profits at the rate of 1,50,000/- from the
date of decree till the date of handing over the property to
the plaintiff. After careful perusal of the documentary and
oral evidence adduced before the trial Court and having
heard the arguments of both counsel, this Court is of the
opinion that the judgment and decree passed by the trial
Court is justified and needs no interference.
11. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed confirming
the Judgment and decree dated 21.09.2016 in O.S.No.18 of
2015 passed by the trial Court.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
DATE: 03.06.2024
dgr
