Telangana High Court

Smt. R. Vani vs Smt. G.K. Jayasree on 20 June, 2025

      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

          CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.218 OF 2019

JUDGMENT:

This is an appeal filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by

the judgment and decree, dated 28.12.2018 passed in

O.S.No.170 of 2015 by the learned XXVII Additional Chief Judge,

City Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short "the trial Court").

2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent

is the plaintiff before the trial Court. The parties herein are

referred to as they were arrayed in the suit before the trial Court

for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that the

plaintiff is the owner of Flat No.503, Bhaskara Residency,

Namalagundu, Warasiguda, Secunderabad (hereinafter referred

to as 'schedule of property') and that the defendant is a tenant

paying monthly rent. While so, the plaintiff was in need of

money to perform the marriage of her daughters, therefore, she

has offered to sell the schedule property and the defendant has

agreed to purchase the same and an agreement was entered into

on 29.04.2006. Subsequently, another agreement was entered

on 25.10.2006 for a total sale consideration of Rs.12,20,000/-

ETD,J CCCA No.218_2019

and that the defendant herein had to pay the balance sale

consideration by 26.02.2007 and to get the sale deed registered.

However, as the defendant failed to pay the balance sale

consideration on time, the agreement of sale was terminated.

4. The grievance of the plaintiff is that the defendant stopped

paying rents from the date of execution of agreement of sale

@Rs.3,500/- from April, 2006 to February, 2008 and it is further

alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant failed to pay the

maintenance charges also from April, 2006 to October, 2007

@Rs.400/- and from November, 2007 to February, 2008

@Rs.600/-, thus, in all the plaintiff is claiming arrears of rent

and maintenance charges to an extent of Rs.90,500/-. Thus, the

plaintiff's case is that since the defendant is not paying rents and

has also not complied with the agreement of sale, she is liable to

be evicted and therefore, filed the present suit seeking eviction of

the defendant from the schedule premises and also for payment

of arrears of rent.

5. The defendant has filed written statement admitting that

she was a tenant with the plaintiff initially and was paying a rent

of Rs.3,500/- per month but once the agreement of sale was

executed on 29.04.2006, she was staying in the premises as an ETD,J CCCA No.218_2019

agreement holder and that she is not liable to pay any rents. It is

further contended by the defendant that she has already paid the

advance amount of sale consideration to an extent of

Rs.7,65,000/- and that, time is not the essence of contract and

also that she was always ready and willing to pay the balance

sale consideration to get the property registered but it is the

plaintiff who did not come forward to complete the transaction. It

is averred by the defendant that the plaintiff cannot unilaterally

cancel the agreement of sale and cannot seek eviction, as she is

entitled to stay in the premises as an agreement holder.

Therefore, she prayed to dismiss the suit.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed

the following issues for trial:

"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the suit schedule property from the defendant?

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover arrears of rent and maintenance charges from April, 2006 to February, 2008, if so how?

3. To what relief?"

7. At the time of trial, PW1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A11

were marked. On behalf of the defendant, DW1 was examined

and Exs.B1 to B11 were marked.

ETD,J CCCA No.218_2019

8. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has

decreed the suit directing the defendant to vacate the suit

schedule property within three months from the date of decree

and handover the possession of the suit schedule property and

further to pay Rs.90,500/- toward arrears of rent and

maintenance charges @12% per annum from the date of filing of

the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @6% per annum till

the date of realization. Aggrieved by the said judgment and

decree, the present appeal is preferred by the defendant.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri S.R.Sanjeev Kumar, learned

counsel for the appellant and Sri Devashish Dash, learned

counsel for the respondent.

10. The learned appellant counsel has submitted that the trial

Court ought not to have ordered for her eviction and that the trial

Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in a proper

perspective. He further argued that when the relationship

between the plaintiff and the defendant has ceased to be that of

an owner and a tenant from the date of agreement of sale, there

is no question of getting the defendant evicted from the suit

schedule property. It is contended by the counsel that once the

agreement of sale was executed on 29.04.2006 the relationship ETD,J CCCA No.218_2019

between both the parties is that of a vendor and a vendee under

an agreement of sale and that they shall not be treated as the

owner and tenant. He further argued that since the plaintiff was

in necessity of money, it was orally agreed upon by her that the

defendant shall pay her certain amounts for meeting the

expenses of her daughters' marriages and that the defendant

need not pay any rent from then on. Pursuant to the said oral

agreement, they have continued in the premises as an agreement

holder and thus, they cannot be evicted and they need not pay

any arrears of rent to the plaintiff.

11. The learned respondent counsel, on the other hand, has

argued that the defendant got inducted as a tenant in the suit

schedule premises and has subsequently entered into an

agreement of sale. However, once she has not expressed her

willingness to get the sale deed executed, she cannot claim any

right as an agreement holder, once she has committed default,

then she cannot take any shelter under the agreement of sale.

He further argued that when the defendant failed to comply the

conditions laid down in the agreement of sale, the plaintiff has

terminated the agreement of sale as per the conditions stipulated

therein and therefore, the defendant is bound to pay rents and is ETD,J CCCA No.218_2019

also bound to vacate the suit schedule property. He therefore,

prayed to confirm the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

12. Having heard the above rival submissions, this Court

frames the following points for consideration:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to evict the defendants from the suit schedule property and to claim vacant possession of the same?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the arrears of rent and maintenance charges to an extent of Rs.90,500/-?

3) Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court are sustainable in law and under the facts?

      4)    To what relief?


13.   POINT NO.1:

a)    It is an admitted fact that the defendant entered into suit

schedule premises as a tenant of the plaintiff and that

subsequently an agreement of sale was executed between them.

However, the plaintiff contends that the defendant cannot

continue as a tenant anymore and thus, is seeking eviction,

while the defendant contends that she has been staying as an

agreement holder in the premises from 29.04.2006 i.e. the date

of agreement of sale.

ETD,J CCCA No.218_2019

b) PW1 has asserted that the defendant failed to comply the

conditions laid down in agreement of sale and thus, she got it

terminated. In her cross examination she has admitted that she

made a demand of another Rs.1,00,000/- for car parking and the

total consideration is Rs.12,00,000/-. It is elicited from her

cross examination that by 09.02.2007, she received an amount

of Rs.7,65,000/- out of total consideration of Rs.12,00,000/-. It

is not out of place to mention in this regard that the marriage of

her first daughter was performed in 2006 and marriage of second

daughter was performed on 09.02.2007, therefore, she was in

dire necessity of money and it is elicited from her that she was in

need of money by the end of May, 2006 and that is why it was

agreed upon to pay the entire balance amount within three to

four months from 29.04.2006. It is borne out by record that the

balance sale consideration was not paid by the defendant till

01.01.2008 and there was no readiness expressed by the

defendant to pay the same and to get the sale deed executed.

PW1 has admitted that she has not written any letter to the

defendant asking her to pay the arrears of rent after the

execution of second agreement of sale/Ex.A2 dated 25.10.2006.

She admitted that there is no mention about the cancellation of

agreement of sale dated 29.04.2006 in Ex.A2. She has stated in ETD,J CCCA No.218_2019

her cross examination that she wrote a letter on 13.09.2007, the

said document was not filed initially but after the cross

examination, it was filed under Ex.A10 along with a courier

receipt/Ex.A11. She also admitted that she has not filed any

suit for cancellation of agreement of sale and further she has

admitted that she is bound to register the agreement of sale by

receiving balance sale consideration but she added that she is

not bound to register it after a lapse of 10 years.

c) PW1 contends that she has addressed a letter dated

13.09.2007/Ex.A10 calling upon the defendant to pay the

balance sale consideration, and has filed Ex.A11 to prove that

she has sent a letter to the defendant but Ex.A11 does not bear

the signature of the consignee. It is pertinent to mention in this

regard that O.S.No.110 of 2010 was filed by the defendant herein

seeking specific performance of agreement of sale, which was

dismissed by the trial Court, against which CCCA No.324 of 2019

is filed.

d) It is already held in issue Nos.1 to 3 in CCCA No.324 of

2019 that the defendant was not ready and willing to perform her

part of contract and that the agreement of sale is not binding on ETD,J CCCA No.218_2019

the defendant and that the defendant is not liable to execute the

sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.

e) It is admitted by the defendant in the present suit that she

has not been paying rents from the date of agreement of sale.

Her contention is that she was staying as an agreement holder in

the schedule property. When the agreement of sale itself is not

binding, then she is not entitled to get the sale deed executed,

she is bound to pay the rent continuously till date. It is an

admitted fact that the defendant is continuing to stay in the suit

schedule premises without paying any rents. Therefore, it is held

that once the defendant is staying in the suit schedule premises

as a tenant, she is supposed to pay the rents to the plaintiff. The

plaintiff has issued a notice marked under Ex.A3 dated

01.01.2008 asking her to vacate the schedule premises. Further,

the plaintiff has also expressed in the said notice about her

bonafide requirement of the suit schedule premises for the

accommodation of her old aged mother. Though the contention

of the defendant is that the said notice is not valid under Section

106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and that it is an oral

rental agreement and the rent is payable on monthly basis, once

the plaintiff has made a request to vacate the schedule premises

through the said notice, the plaintiff has expressed her intention ETD,J CCCA No.218_2019

of getting the suit schedule premises vacated, then the defendant

continuing to holdover in the premises without paying any rent is

not just and proper. Therefore, it is held that the defendant is

liable to vacate the premises and the plaintiff is entitled to vacant

possession of the schedule premises. Point No.1 is answered

accordingly.

14. POINT NO.2:

a) DW1 has admitted that she has not been paying

maintenance charges because the association was not accepting

maintenance from them.

b) DW1 has stated that at the time of getting inducted as

tenant, the maintenance charges were included in the rent, but

in her cross examination, she has admitted that from 2007 the

maintenance was increased to Rs.600/- per month and that

initially, the maintenance charges were Rs.400/- per month.

She further admitted that from April, 2012 the maintenance was

increased to Rs.1000/- per month. Though she has averred that

she used to pay the maintenance charges, she failed to prove it.

Though she has filed receipts under Exs.B9 to B11, they disclose

the name of the owner of the property i.e. Jayasree who is the

plaintiff in O.S.No.170 of 2015. Moreover, Ex.B9 is paid towards ETD,J CCCA No.218_2019

maintenance for the months of January to May, 2005. The other

receipt Ex.B10 is towards the motor repair and Ex.B11 is

towards a function. Therefore, the defendant could not place any

evidence on record to show that she was paying the maintenance

charges. Though the defendant has pleaded that there were

major repairs and that the window shutters were not fixed at the

time of occupation and that she has invested amounts in getting

them fixed and also the seepage of water etc., repairs were

conducted by her, she could not place any evidence in this

regard. Moreover, she has admitted that the repairs in the

premises were minor in nature. She admitted that she stopped

paying rents and maintenance charges from 29.04.2006 after

execution of Ex.A1. She admitted that Ex.B11 has nothing to do

with the maintenance and also admitted that Exs.B9 to B11 are

issued in the name of the plaintiff. She categorically stated in

her cross examination that she does not have any other receipts

except Ex.B9 towards the payment of maintenance charges. But

Ex.B9 is issued in the name of the plaintiff and it does not prove

that the maintenance charges are paid by the defendant who is

the tenant. DW1 has also admitted that she has not paid rents

from the date of agreement of sale. Thus, the plaintiff could

prove that the defendant has not paid maintenance from ETD,J CCCA No.218_2019

29.04.2006. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to recover arrears of

rent and maintenance charges from the defendant.

c) Therefore, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled for the

relief of eviction and is entitled to recover an amount of

Rs.80,500/- towards arrears of rent from April, 2006 to

February, 2008 and also is entitled to recover the maintenance

charges which comes to an extent of Rs.10,000/- i.e. @Rs.400/-

from April, 2006 to October, 2007 and @ Rs.600/- from

November, 2006 to February, 2008. Point No.2 is answered

accordingly.

15. POINT NO.3:

In view of the reasoned findings arrived at point Nos.1 and

2, it is held that the judgment and decree passed by the trial

Court are found to be well reasoned and hence, they are held to

be sustainable in law and under the facts and circumstances of

the case.

16. POINT NO.4:

In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the

judgment and decree, dated 28.12.2018 passed in O.S.No.170 of

2015 by the learned XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil

Court, Secunderabad. No costs.