Telangana High Court
M/S. Vardhaman Mahila Coop. Urban Bank ... vs S.N. Veeresham on 21 June, 2024
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1342 of 2023
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated
15.12.2022 in C.M.A.No.19 of 2021, passed by the learned
XXVII-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.
2. Initially, respondents No.1 and 2 herein have filed a suit
in O.S.No.99 of 2012, against the petitioner herein for eviction
and recovery of mesne profits and the same was decreed by
Judgment and decree dated 12.02.2015, directing the petitioner
herein to handover the possession of the suit property within
two months from the date of decree and further directed the
respondents to file a separate application regarding mesne
profits, as such respondents herein have filed an application in
I.A.No.01 of 2018 in O.S.No.99 of 2012, seeking for decree of
mesne profits at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per month from
01.12.2011 to till the actual handing over of the possession of
the suit property. The trial Court considering the arguments of
both sides, allowed the application directing the petitioner
herein to pay mesne profits at Rs.11,000/- from 01.12.2011 to
till the date of that Order and future mesne profits at
Rs.20,000/- per month, against which respondents herein
preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court in
C.M.A.No.19 of 2021 and the first appellate Court modified the
Order of the trial Court by enhancing the mesne profits from
Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month, from 01.12.2011 to till
the date of delivery of the possession of the suit property.
Aggrieved by the said order, respondent therein preferred the
present Civil Revision Petition.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner herein mainly
contended that the burden of proof always lies on the
respondents to prove the prevailing rent in the locality, but not
upon the petitioner. The first appellate Court considering the
stray statement made by R.W.1, erroneously directed him to pay
mesne profits at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month. Though the
respondents claimed Rs.75,000/- per month, there is no oral
and documentary evidence to prove the existing rental value of
the suit schedule property. Therefore, requested the Court to set
aside the Order of the first appellate Court.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the
Judgment of this Court in the case of Dr.J.Bhakthavasala
Rao and others Vs. Industrial Engineers, Nellore and
others, 1 in which it was held as follows:
"8. The controversy in this appeal is limited to the one of
fixing the damages for use and occupation of the suit
building. By its very nature, it involves adjudication of a
pure question of fact and there exists hardly any uniform
and standard pattern of assessment in this regard. The
Court has to undertake a comparative assessment of the
nature, location, age, condition etc., of the suit schedule
premises, on the one hand, and the similar characteristics
of the premises in the surrounding area, on the other. It is
very difficult to find the premises of similar nature, size
and quality at the same location. Even if there exists any
broad similarity on these aspects, the rent in respect of
such premises would depend, mostly, upon the need of
the lessee and the circumstances under which the leases
are granted. Prevalence of amity or enmity, as the case
may be, between the landlords and the tenants or the
duration of lease, are also certain factors, which would
have a bearing on this."
5. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the entire
evidence on record.
6. The trial Court examined P.Ws.1 and 2 on behalf of the
respondents/plaintiffs and marked Exs.P1 and P2 on their
behalf and also examined R.W.1 on behalf of the respondent,
but no evidence was adduced on its behalf.
2005 (4) ALD 19
7. P.W.1 stated that petitioner/tenant was paying meager
amount of Rs.9,930/- per month. As per Ex.A6/property tax
demand notice issued by GHMC, the property tax demanded
was Rs.1,83,000/-. The property tax will be determined 20% on
the annual rental value and thus the annual rental value fixed
by GHMC was much higher than the rent paid by the tenant.
P.W.2 stated that he was the tenant in the commercial premises
bearing No.5-5-155/E admeasuring about 130 Sq.ft, including
common area in the ground floor, in the commercial cum
residential building complex bearing H.No.5-5-155/156,
situated at Lala's temple street, Ranigunj, Secunderabad. He
stated that he was paying rent of Rs.11,000/- per month. The
premises in the said vicinity was having high potential rental
value fetching about Rs.100/- per Sq.ft.
8. The tenant is the M/s.Vardhaman (Mahila) Cooperative
Urban Bank Limited and their Branch Manager was examined
as R.W.1. In the Cross-examination, he himself admitted that
the rent existing in the locality is around Rs.30,000/- per
month. The trial Court considering his statement, fixed the
present rental value. Therefore, the argument of the petitioner
herein that the trial Court relied upon the stray statement of the
evidence of R.W.1 cannot be accepted.
9. The suit schedule premises bearing H.No.5-5-155 and
156, was situated at Lala Temple Street, Ranigunj,
Secunderabad. Petitioner Bank took it on lease from
01.04.1995, and initially paid Rs.7,002.60 Ps. and agreed for
the enhancement of the rent at the rate of 20% for every five
years and thus for next five years paid Rs.9,930.96 Ps., but
later not increased to Rs.20,604.52 Ps., according to the
agreement, in view of the filing of the suit. Respondents in their
appeal grounds of C.M.A.No.19 of 2021, stated that petitioner
agreed for enhancement of the rent by 20% as per the lease
agreement and the said grounds were filed in September, 2021.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner further stated that the
chief affidavit of petitioner/R.W.1 was filed on 11.11.2019, but
he was Cross-examined on 05.12.2019, as such at the best, the
enhanced rent at the rate of 20% may be granted from that date
and not earlier to that. Suit was filed not only for eviction, but
also for mesne profits in the year 2011 itself.
10. Admittedly, the tenant is a Bank and thus premises was
used for commercial purpose. They have taken the premises for
lease initially for five years and later for 10 years and also with
the permission of the landlord, altered the nature of the
premises to suit for computerization of their branch vide letter
dated 13.03.2003. They also stated that tenancy period was in
force till 31.03.2015. Though they entered into lease agreement
with a condition to enhance rent by 20% for every five years,
they did not stick on to the same, as such suit was filed by
respondents for eviction and for mesne profits at the rate of
Rs.75,000/- per month. The respondents herein relying upon
the Ex.A6-Property Tax demand notice, stated that tax was
assessed at the rate of 20% on the annual rental value and the
rent paid by the tenant was much lesser than the property tax
paid by them. An extent of 2122 Sq.ft of property was let out to
the Bank from the year 1995 onwards. They have not increased
the rent from 01.05.2008 at the rate of 20% for another five
years, but agreed to pay the said rent in the appeal grounds. By
that time, the amount of mesne profits to be paid was already
decided by the trial Court, against which landlord preferred an
appeal before the first appellate Court and the first appellate
Court considering all the aspects rightly enhanced the amount
to Rs.30,000/- per month from 01.12.2011 till 31.05.2020 and
thus this Court finds no reason to interfere with the Order of
the first appellate Court.
11. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed,
confirming the Order of the first appellate Court dated
15.12.2022 passed in C.M.A.No.19 of 2021. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
DATE: 21.06.2024
tri
