Telangana High Court

Union Bank Of India Erstwhile Andhra ... vs Sri. Chalasani Samba Siva Rao on 2 September, 2025

          THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

               SECOND APPEAL NO.391 of 2025

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri N. Dhananjay Chavan, learned counsel for

the appellant and Sri N. Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for

the respondent, on the question of admission. Perused the

record.

2. This Second appeal under Section 100 of Civil

Procedure Code has been filed by the appellant/defendant

aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated

04.08.2025 passed by the VI Additional District Judge at

Sathupally in A.S.No.1 of 2025 confirming the Judgment and

decree dated 08.01.2025 passed by the Senior Civil Judge,

Sathupally in O.S.No.126 of 2019.

3. The respondent herein filed suit vide O.S.No.126 of

2019 for eviction, recovery of possession and damages

against the appellant herein on the basis of Lease Deed dated

17.07.2013/Ex.A1. Said Lease Deed is for a period of

five years for the suit schedule property consisting of Door

No.17-47 in Sy.No.95/F, Ayyagaripeta Village (Sathupally

Municipality), Sathupally Mandal, Khammam District in the

boundaries given in detail in plaint schedule. The Trial Court

after full-fledged trial, decreed the suit with costs directing

the appellant herein to vacate the suit schedule property

within three months and to pay an amount of Rs.6,45,435/-

with interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing of the

suit till the date of realization together with suit cost.

Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred an appeal vide

A.S.No.1 of 2025 and said appeal was dismissed upon

hearing both the counsels confirming the judgment and

decree passed by the Trial Court.

4. Upon delivering of concurrent findings by the Trial

Court and the First Appellate Court, the appellant herein

sought admission of Second Appeal canvassing the following

substantial questions of law:

(i) Whether the Learned Appellate Court Judge is justified in bypassing the provision of Section 92 of Indian Evidence Act (Section 95 of BNS), which postulates that when the terms of any such contract, Grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of document, have been proved according to a law section, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted as between the

parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to or subtracted from it terms.

(ii) Whether the learned Appellate Court Judge is justified in considering the Legal Notice dated 04.02.2019 constitutes Valid Termination Notice in the light of the deeming clause of extension of lease by paying enhanced rent @ 25% on the same terms and conditions.

(iii) Whether the learned Appellate Court Judge is justified in framing the points for consideration in a proper manner.

(iv) Whether the learned Appellate Court Judge is justified in passing the impugned Judgment without considering the evidence on record in a proper perspective.

(v) Whether the learned Appellate Court Judge is justified in not accepting the contention of an Appellant/Defendant Bank that acceptance of enhanced payment of rent with the renewal clause @ 4 (iii) of the Registered Lease Deed Ex.A1, which creates an implied extension of the lease.

(vi) Whether the learned Appellate Court Judge is justified in granting damages without there being any documentary evidence on record.

5. A perusal of the above substantial questions of law

shows that the questions at (ii) to (vi) are all questions of facts

that are to be raised before the First Appellate Court which

deals with appropriateness of findings of facts as well as law.

In the Second Appeal, this Court cannot go into the findings

of facts given by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court

unless they are perverse.

6. A perusal of the judgments passed by the Trial Court

and the First Appellate Court shows that there is a balanced

discussion about the facts as presented by both the parties

and application of law. There are no perverse findings with

respect to facts or law neither by the Trial Court nor by the

First Appellate Court. Among the substantial questions of law

that are sought to be considered by this Court, the only

substantial question of law at (i) is about bypassing of Section

92 of Indian Evidence Act (Section 95 of BNS), which

contemplates that when there is a written contract and the

same is proven according to law, no evidence of any oral

agreement or statement shall be admitted for the purpose of

contradicting, varying, adding or subtracting the permitted

terms. This Court examined the judgments passed by both

the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court to ascertain

whether said Courts have permitted oral evidence to

contradict the terms of the Lease Deed dated 17.07.2013.

More particularly, reference is made to condition Nos.1 and

4(iii) of the terms and conditions, which are as below:

1) That the duration of the lease shall be for a period of (5) years commencing from 23.04.2013 to 22.04.2018 with the option for renewal and extension of the lease for a further period of (5) years with increase in rent by 25%, on the same terms and conditions detailed herein which option shall be exercised or shall be deemed to have been exercised in the manner hereinafter provided.

4)(iii) That in the event of the Lessee desiring to vacate the premises on the expiry of the period of lease stipulated above the lessee shall give written, notice thereof to the Lessor during the subsistence of the lease. The Lessee shall have right to extend the lease for a further period of 5 years. The Lessee may give written notice of their intention to so extend the lease for, such further period. In the event of failure or omission to give such notice to the Lessor, the period of the Lease and deemed to have been extended for further period of 5 years on the same terms and conditions contained herein.

7. The aforesaid terms and conditions of the Ex.A1

Lease Deed have been perused by the Trial Court and the

First Appellate Court, discussed in right perspective and

arrived at a concurrent finding that the appellant herein is

not entitled to continue in the subject premises as lease

holder not only on account of receipt of a letter dated

06.02.2018 but also due to Ex.A2 legal notice dated

04.02.2019. The objection is raised about non-marking of

letter dated 06.02.2018. However, there is admission by the

witness of the appellant as DW1 about the receipt of letter

dated 06.02.2018 as well as Ex.A2 legal notice dated

04.02.2019.