and Decree dated 13.10.2003 in O.S. No. 425 of 1999 (hereinafter will be
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be arrayed as per their
I. BRIEF FACTS:
3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the available record
AKS,J & VRKR, J
the rent. The mutual rent agreed was Rs.59,077/- for Godavri - I Gas power
project office and Rs.25,319/- for Hyderabad Lisason office. Besides the
areas, cleanliness of common areas etc. The plaintiff paid a refundable
deposit of Rs.16,87,920/- under an agreement dated 27.02.1996. It was
interest thereon. The plaintiff also deposited a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for the
28.08.1996. Thereafter disputes arose between the parties and defendant
failed to execute the registered sale deed as per the understanding. Thus,
that the tenancy is terminated by the end of the tenancy month.
A3 respectively were issued. The defendant got issued reply under Ex.A5.
AKS,J & VRKR, J
charges. In Ex.A5, the defendant gave permission to affect the repairs as
mentioned therein. However, the differences continued between the parties
leading to issuance of notices and reply notices between the parties. The
original position. The plaintiff was prepared to pay the same and expect
4. In reply to the plaint averments, the defendant filed written statement
amount. Thus, the contention of the defendant is that the plaintiff is liable
II. ISSUES FRAMED BY THE TRIAL COURT:
5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of
Rs.21,07,527.99 paise from the defendant with interest @
12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of
realisation?
AKS,J & VRKR, J
2) Whether there is no cause of action to file the suit?
3) Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?
4) Whether the defendant is entitled for arrears of rent from
01.03.1997 and also estimated costs of Rs,.8,21,989/- to
rectify the damages caused to the premises as pleaded by the
defendant?
5) Whether the plaintiff is liable to be pay the rents from
01.03.1997 till the end of lease period of Rs.18,56,712/-?
6) Whether the defendant is entitled for counter claim of
Rs.4,87,781/- from the plaintiff as prayed by the defendant?
7) To what relief?
III. EVIDENCE ON RECORD:
6. During the course of trial, the General Manager of plaintiff examined
as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A17 on behalf of plaintiff and whereas
the Engineer of the defendant was examined as DW1 and got marked
Exs.B1 to B5 on behalf of defendant.
IV. FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT:
7. After considering the rival contentions, the Trial Court, by judgment
dated 13.10.2003, decreed the suit partly in favour of the plaintiff awarding
a sum of Rs.17,44,658/- with a future interest thereon at 6% simple interest
AKS,J & VRKR, J
per annum from 01.04.1999 till the date of realization. The rest of the
claim of the plaintiff and the counter claim of the defendant were
dismissed.
8. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed the present Appeal to set
aside the impugned judgment and decree.
9. Heard both sides and perused the record including the grounds of
appeal.
V. ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION:
10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the
defendant, and having gone through the material on record, the only issue
that arises for consideration in this Appeal is:
"Whether there are any grounds to set aside the impugned
judgment dated 13.10.2003 passed in O.S. No. 425 of 1999
on the file of IX Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil
Court, Hyderabad?"
VI. ANALYSIS:
11. During the pendency of the appeal, Sri Y. Shanker Rao, i.e.,
Managing partner of appellant/defendant died, as such, the legal
representatives of Sri Y. Shanker Rao were brought on record as appellant
AKS,J & VRKR, J
Nos.2 and 3.
12. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship of owner and
tenant between the defendant and plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule
premises.
13. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant contended that the
trial Court ought to have observed that Ex.A12, which is said to be a
refundable deposit agreement, could not have been be marked as an exhibit,
as it is not a registered one.
14. An unregistered document that should have been registered is
generally inadmissible as primary evidence of a transaction involving
immovable property. However, an unregistered refundable deposit
agreement can be admitted for "collateral purposes" that do not affect the
property itself. The said document is helpful to establish the existence of a
landlord-tenant relationship or confirming the payment of a deposit. It can
also be useful to determine the nature of possession and the fact of the
tenancy. The plaintiff being a tenant of the suit schedule property is
entitled to establish his claim for recovery of the security deposit based on
the unregistered agreement, provided the claim is framed as a personal
claim for money owed rather than an attempt to enforce property rights.
AKS,J & VRKR, J
Hence, the above contention of the learned counsel for the defendant is
unsustainable.
15. The learned counsel for the defendant contended that the trial Court
ought to have observed that the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff
failed to prove that the person, who signed the plaint had any authorization
or connection with the plaintiff company and therefore, the plaint itself
ought to have been rejected.
16. It is pertinent to note that the above said ground has already been
raised by the defendant before the trial Court and while answering issue
No.1 the said ground has been answered by the trial Court. It was observed
in the impugned judgment that PW1 is the principal officer of the company
being the General manager and in fact he was authorized by the board by
way of its resolution, which is marked as Ex.A17. Thus, it is clear that
PW1, who was examined on behalf of the plaintiff, is none other than the
General Manager and he is authorized to represent the plaintiff by way of
resolution passed by the plaintiff company under Ex.A17. Hence, the
above contention of the learned counsel for the defendant is untenable.
17. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant further argued that
PW1 in his cross examination clearly admitted that he has not inspected the
AKS,J & VRKR, J
leased out premises personally before taking possession and he was also
not present at the time of handing over the possession, in such
circumstances, his evidence cannot be taken into consideration as he does
not know any of the facts of the case personally. It is further contended
that though the plaintiff issued notice on 03.03.1997 terminating the lease
and vacating the premises on or before 30.06.1997, but even after
30.06.1997 the plaintiff continued in the said premises and paid rents till
August, 1997, which clearly shows that notice issued by plaintiff was
vague and thus, the plaintiff is liable to pay the rents for the full lease
period. It is further contended that the trial Court failed to observe the
contents of Ex.B4, which is a letter addressed by the plaintiff informing the
defendant that they are responsible for rent, maintenance charges,
electricity charges till 31.08.1997 and asked the defendant to make
arrangements to take over the premises from them by 31.08.1997, which
clearly shows that the plaintiff did not give any importance to the
termination notice given on 03.03.1997.
18. It is further contention of the defendant that when the plaintiff did
not hand over the possession of the premises to the defendant, the trial
Court erred in giving a finding that possession was delivered and even as
per letter dated 03.03.1997 the plaintiff failed to vacate the premises, thus,
AKS,J & VRKR, J
without any further notice the lessee is liable to pay the rents for the full
lease period even if the plaintiff vacates.
19. The trial Court failed to observe that according to the lease deed, the
plaintiff had to hand over the premises in the original condition and since
the plaintiff made some interior alterations and additional work over the
suit schedule property, a sum of Rs.8,21,989/- is required to bring the
premises to its original condition. Moreover, the trial Court failed to
consider the estimation given by DW2, who is competent civil engineer. It
is further contended that the trial Court failed to observe that Exs.A7 to A9
were not proved as the author was not examined.
20. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant further contended
that the trial Court failed to look into the Commissioner's report and the
photographs which clearly shows the damaged portion of the roof of the
premises, electrical connections, wiring, broken glass, window frames,
damages of the tiles, tap connections, broken sanitary pipes and
discontinuance of water supply to the bathrooms for which an amount of
Rs.8 lakhs is required to bring the premises to its original condition.
21. As seen from the impugned judgment, all the above grounds raised
by the defendant were answered by the trial Court by taking into
AKS,J & VRKR, J
consideration of Exs.B3 to B5. It is pertinent to note that though Exs.B3 to
B5 are the letters sent by the plaintiff, they were marked through the cross
examination of PW1. Since, Exs.B3 to B5 are marked at the instance of
defendant, the genuineness of Exs.B3 to B5 cannot be suspected. There is
no dispute that the plaintiff did not pay the rents from March, 1997 to
August, 1997. Ex.B5 is the notice dated 09.09.1997 addressed by the
plaintiff to the defendant. As per Ex.B5, the key to the main door was
handed over to the defendant on 01.07.1997 and that the plaintiff vacated
the premises on 05.07.1997 itself and started functioning in a different
place at Banjara Hills. After issuance of Ex.B5 by the plaintiff, the
defendant did not issue any reply notice to the plaintiff company
demanding the return of the keys of the premises.
22. The trial Court observed in the impugned judgment that the
correspondence under Exs.B3 to B5 discloses that negotiations were going
on in between the plaintiff and defendant with regard to the repairs that are
to be attended and there was a difference of opinion between them. Since
the plaintiff did not pay the rents for six months i.e., from March, 1997 to
August, 1997, certainly the defendant is entitled for recovery of said arrears
of rents to a tune of Rs.5,06,376/-. Merely because the plaintiff did not
vacate the premises as promised, the defendant cannot contend that the
AKS,J & VRKR, J
plaintiff is liable to pay the rents for entire lease period. In fact, the
defendant is entitled for recovery of rents for the months during which the
plaintiff utilized the premises of the defendant. It is also to be noted that
admittedly though the lease is from month to month, the plaintiff being
tenant is having right to terminate the lease by giving a three months notice
and accordingly the plaintiff had issued three months notice to the
defendant expressing its intention to vacate the premises. The plaintiff did
not make any attempts to evade any of the dues that are to be paid to the
defendant and it has been making every attempt to intimate the same to the
defendant from time to time expressing its intention to adjust the due
amount from the deposit amounts that are lying with the defendant.
23. So far as compensation claimed by the defendant towards damages
by relying on the oral evidence of DW2 i.e., Rs.8,21,989/- is concerned,
though the defendant relied upon the oral evidence of DW2, who is alleged
to be competent civil engineer, no documentary evidence is adduced to
establish that the damages as assessed by DW2 are appropriate. The trial
Court observed in the impugned judgment that the claim made by the
defendant towards damages was exorbitant. Though the defendant
contended that the Commissioner's report and the photographs were not
considered by the trial Court, the said commissioner report and
AKS,J & VRKR, J
photographs were not marked and they are not even part of the material on
record placed before this Court. The plaintiff did not refuse to pay any
compensation to the defendant for the damages caused to the premises. The
plaintiff got assessed the damages to a tune of Rs.2,40,750/- and intimated
the same to the defendant under Ex.B4. The defendant did not even issue
any reply notice to Ex.B4 disputing the assessment made by the plaintiff
with regard to the damages caused to the schedule premises. The trial
Court awarded Rs.2,40,750/- for the damages caused by the plaintiff to the
schedule premises. Hence, we are of the view that there is no error
committed by the trial Court in awarding Rs.2,40,750/- towards damages,
which is appearing to be just and reasonable.
24. Though the plaintiff claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum on
the refundable deposit amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, the trial Court observed in
the impugned judgment that the plaintiff is not entitled for any interest as
the defendant deposited the said amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with A.P. Transco
Authorities for the purpose of additional power. As there was no specific
terms of the agreement in between the parties for payment of interest at the
rate of 18% per annum on advertisement charges under Exs.A7 to A9, the
trial Court did not award any interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
25. The refundable security deposit amount of Rs.16,87,920/- was lying
AKS,J & VRKR, J
with the defendant and out of which an amount of Rs.5,06,376/- i.e., rents
for six months and Rs.2,40,750/- towards damages were adjusted. Apart
from that the trial Court awarded an amount of Rs.2,68,126/- towards
interest at the rate of 18% per annum on Rs.9,40,794/-, which is the balance
amount left in the refundable security deposit after adjusting the rents for
six months and damages. The trial court awarded Rs.5,00,000/-, which is
the refundable deposit made by the plaintiff for additional power
requirement and Rs.35,738/-, which is 50% of the advertisement costs.
Thus, in all, the trial Court awarded an amount of Rs.17,44,658/- to the
plaintiff. So far as the counter claim made by the defendant to a tune of
Rs.4,87,781/- is concerned, the trial Court dismissed the entire claim on the
ground that self serving testimony of DW1 and his witness does not give
any details with regard to the assessment of the damages. It was further
observed that the commissioner's report was not placed before the trial
Court and no such steps were taken by either counsel. The trial Court
observed in the impugned judgment that there is no piece of evidence
available on record with regard to the estimation that was pleaded by the
defendant. It appears that except filing number of photographs showing the
damages that were noticed by him at the time of inspection, the
commissioner did not even make any effort to find out the amount required
for attending the repairs of the damages caused to the property through any
AKS,J & VRKR, J
Engineer or any appropriate authority. Moreover, the DW2 admitted in his
evidence that he has assessed the damages at the request of defendant.
Hence, reliance cannot be placed on the evidence of DW2, more
particularly, when DW2 did not file any documentary evidence to
substantiate that his assessment is appropriate and not exorbitant. As can be
seen from the record, except the self serving testimonies of DWs 1 and 2,
there is no other cogent and convincing material placed on record by the
defendant to establish its counter claim.
VII. CONCLUSION:
26. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that
the trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence
adduced on behalf of either sides, rightly decreed the suit partly in favour
of the plaintiff and dismissed the counter claim of the defendant entirely
and thereby, we do not find any tenable grounds to interfere with the well
reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court. Thus, the appeal is devoid of
merits and liable to be dismissed.
VIII. RESULT:
27. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances, there
shall be no order as to costs.
AKS,J & VRKR, J
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in the appeal,
shall stand closed.
_______________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
__________________________________
VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, J
Date: 26.09.2025
AS
