THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No. 391 OF 2014 Dated:25-07-2014 Between:
H.T. Sudhakar Rao ... APPELLANT AND Smt. M. Kalavathi .. RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No. 391 OF 2014 JUDGMENT:
The sole defendant in O.S No. 47 of 2006 in the Court of the XIII Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court) , City Civil Court, Secunderabad, filed this second appeal. The respondent filed the suit against the appellant for eviction from the suit schedule premises and for recovery of arrears of rent, after issuing notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The suit was opposed contending that the facts mentioned in the notice under Section 106 of that Act are not true and that rents are being paid regularly, but the respondent was not issuing the receipts. The trial Court decreed the suit through judgment dated 29-01-2010. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed A.S No.31 of 2010 in the Court of XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. The appeal was dismissed on 06-03-2014. Hence, the second appeal.
Heard Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri C. Tulasi Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent.
The trial Court framed the following issues for consideration:
“1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to eviction of defendant from the suit schedule property?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the arrears of rent of Rs.76,000?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits at the rate of Rs.15,000/- pm?
3) To what relief?”
The respondent deposed as PW 1 and he filed Exs.A-1 to A-
5. The appellant deposed as DW 1 and no other evidence was adduced. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. On the suit being decreed, the appellant filed A.S No.31 of 2010. The lower appellate Court framed the following points for consideration:
“1. Whether there is any invalid termination of tenancy??
2. Whether the arrears of rent of Rs.76,000/- was deposited to the credit of the suit? and
3. Whether the impugned judgment and decree of the lower court is sustainable in law and facts?”
All the points were answered in favor of the respondent.
The appellant does not dispute the fact that he is the lessee in respect of the premises owned by the respondent. Though an attempt was made to point out the defect in the quit notice, Ex.A-2, dated 28-10-2005, the appellant was unable to establish the same. Much of the controversy turned around the arrears of rent. The trial Court determined the arrears for a particular period at Rs.76,000/- and left the question of ascertaining the mesne profits to be undertaken in a separate exercise. The other contentions urged by the appellant are untenable in view of the amendment caused to the Transfer of Property Act.
This Court does not find any substantial question of law in this appeal. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed.
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant be given adequate time to vacate the premises. The request is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is granted time till the end of January, 2015 subject to his filing an undertaking before the trial Court, within four weeks from today, to the effect that he would put the respondent in vacant possession of the premises on or before 31-01-2015 and that he shall also be under an obligation to pay the 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 25th July, 2014 ks