THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA SECOND APPEAL No. 1284 OF 2013 Dated:12-06-2014 Between:
E. Satyanarayana @ Satti Babu ... APPELLANT AND Smt. D. Gowri .. RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA SECOND APPEAL No. 1284 OF 2013 ORDER:
This second appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 31- 10-2013 passed in A.S No. 200 of 2013 by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad confirming the judgment and decree dated 26-04-2013 in O.S No. 413 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
The respondent – plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit seeking eviction of the appellant from the suit schedule shops stating that she is the owner of the shops and let out the same to the appellant herein on oral agreement at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month for running vegetable business. It is the case of the respondent that it was agreed between the parties that if the appellant fails to pay rent for three months or does any other illegal business other than vegetable business, the respondent without giving any notice can ask the appellant to vacate the premises. Since the appellant committed default in paying the rents and doing illegal financial and other business, the respondent cautioned the appellant and demanded him to pay the arrears of rent due by him, but the appellant did not do so. Therefore, the respondent got issued legal notice dated 12-07-2011 calling upon him to vacate the premises and to pay the arrears of rent to which the appellant did not issue any reply. It was further alleged that since the appellant refused to vacate the premises and threatened the husband of the respondent, the husband of the respondent filed a private complaint and as a counter blast to the same, the appellant filed O.S No. 2241 of 2011 before the learned V Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad. Since the respondent intended to run business in the suit schedule shops to eke out their livelihood and since the appellant has no right to continue his business for committing default in paying rents, the respondent got issued quit notice dated 14-10-2011 to the appellant to vacate the suit schedule shops and to deliver vacant possession of the same.
The appellant filed his written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint contending that the agreed rent is only Rs.5,000/- per month and that he paid an advance of Rs.2,00,000/-. It is further stated that he did not cause any hardship and inconvenience to the respondent and that he earned invaluable reputation and goodwill in his vegetable business and in fact the respondent is creating nuisance due to which he filed the aforesaid suit which was decreed in his favour.
Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:
“1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit schedule premises as prayed for?
2) To what relief?”
In order to prove her case, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were got marked on behalf of the plaintiff-landlord. On behalf of the defendant, DWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were got marked.
The trial Court after hearing both sides and considering the material on record dismissed the suit holding that the respondent is entitled to recover the suit schedule property from the appellant and accordingly directed the appellant to vacate and handover the vacant and physical possession of the suit schedule shops to the respondent within three months from the date of the judgment.
Aggrieved by the same, the appellant carried the matter in appeal before the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad which was also dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant – defendant and perused the record.
It is the case of the respondent that the suit schedule shops were let out to the respondent orally at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month for running vegetable business and that it was also agreed between the parties that if the appellant fails to pay the rent for three months and does any business illegally other than vegetable business, the respondent can ask the appellant to vacate the suit schedule shops and since the appellant did not pay rent and doing illegal financial business, she is entitled to evict the appellant and, therefore, sought his eviction. Whereas, it is the case of the respondent that he is not in arrears of rent and not doing any illegal business as alleged by the respondent and, therefore, he is entitled to continue in the suit schedule shops.
It was agreed between the parties that the suit schedule shops would be let out on month to month lease and as rightly held by both the Courts below in the present case one month’s notice is sufficient to seek eviction under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is clear that the respondent continued his possession illegally even after receipt of quit notice.
In the circumstances, both the Courts below are justified in passing decree against the appellant. The findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below do not give rise to any question of law much less substantial question of law warranting interference of this Court.
The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, the appellant is granted time up to 30-09-2014 for vacating the suit schedule premises.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending consideration shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J 12th June, 2014 ks