THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No. 370 OF 2014 Dated:11-07-2014 Between:
Amarnath Goud ... PETITIONER AND A. Karthik and another .. RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No. 370 OF 2014 JUDGMENT:
The appellant is the lessee in respect of the premises owned by the respondents. He filed O.S No. 73 of 2008 in the Court of VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for perpetual injunction against the respondents. After receipt of summons in the suit, the respondents not only filed written statement but also filed a counter claim for eviction. They pleaded that though a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act requiring the appellant to vacate the premises was issued, he did not vacate the premises. Through its judgment dated 20-07- 2012, the trial Court dismissed the suit but decreed the counter claim. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed A.S No. 225 of 2012 in the Court of XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The appeal was dismissed through judgment dated 24-03-2014. Hence, the second appeal.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.
It is not in dispute that the respondents are the owners of the premises and the appellant herein is their lessee. Before the suit was filed, the respondents got issued a quit notice dated 30- 12-2010, Ex.A-3. The trial Court framed the following issues:
“1. Whether there is any illegal interference into the possession of plaintiff/tenant by defendants?
2. Whether the defendants/plaintiffs have terminated the tenancy?
3. Whether the tenant became defaulter in payment of rents?
4. Whether Landlords entitled for eviction of tenant?
5. Whether they are entitled for arrears of rent?
6. Whether tenant is entitled for perpetual injunction?
7. To what relief?”
On behalf of the respondents, PW 1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-4 were filed. On behalf of the appellant, DW 1 was examined and no documents were filed.
On the suit being dismissed and the counter claim being decreed, the appellant filed A.S No. 225 of 2012. The lower appellate Court framed the following points for consideration:
“1. Whether the findings of the trial court by which it was held that the respondents are entitled to rent from November 2006 to March 2008 to the tune of Rs.34,800/- and also entitled to mesne profits from April 2008 is incorrect, if so, it is liable to set aside?
2. Whether the judgment of the trial Court by which the Appellant herein was directed to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises is incorrect and liable to be set aside?
3. To what relief?” and the appeal was dismissed.
In a suit or counter claim for eviction, what becomes relevant is as to whether there is any dispute as to the existence of title on the lessee and whether notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was issued to the lessee. In the instant case, the trial Court recorded the findings in favour of the respondents on both the aspects. The lower appellate Court has also undertaken extensive discussion and upheld the decree passed by the trial Court.
Learned counsel for the appellant is not able to point out any error of law, much less existence of any substantial question of law.
The second appeal is accordingly dismissed.
A request is made on behalf of the appellant to grant time for the appellant to vacate the premises. The same is opposed by the respondents.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, time is granted till 30-11-2014 to the respondents to vacate the premises subject to payment of rents regularly.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in this second appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 11th July, 2014 ks