THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
SECOND APPEAL No. 889 OF 2014 Dated:26-12-2014 Between:
Kundanmal Chouthiram ... APPELLANT AND T. Uma and others .. RESPONDENTS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
SECOND APPEAL No. 889 OF 2014 JUDGMENT:
The appellant is the lessee of the respondents in respect of commercial premises at Hyderabad. The respondents filed O.S No. 664 of 2011 in the Court of I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad for eviction of the appellant. It was pleaded that initially the period of lease was for five years and it was extended thereafter for another period of five years and though a notice dated 09-02-2011 was issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the appellant did not vacate the premises.
In his written statement, the appellant did not dispute the fact that he is the lessee of the respondents. It was however pleaded that there exists an agreement providing for payment of substantial amount as advance and if the same is taken into account, the suit becomes untenable. The trial Court decreed the suit through judgment dated 04-03-2013. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed A.S No.34 of 2013 in the Court of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. The lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal through order dated 03-11-2014. Hence, this second appeal.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents who filed caveat.
The suit was filed for eviction of the appellant from the schedule premises. Taking into account the pleadings before it, the trial Court framed the following issues for consideration:
“1 . Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for eviction of defendant from the suit schedule property as prayed for?
2 . Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for future mesne profits of Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of suit till recovery of the property as prayed for?
3. To what relief?”
On behalf of the respondents, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were filed. On behalf of the appellant, DW 1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-28 were filed. On the suit being decreed, the appellant filed A.S No. 34 of 2013 and the lower appellant Court framed only one point for consideration, namely, whether there exists any ground to set aside the decree passed by the trial Court. The appeal was ultimately dismissed.
The lease commenced with effect from 01-09-1999 and it was for a period of five years. Even according to the appellant, the leased was extended by another five years and that expired in the year 2009. The quit notice was issued in 2011. Virtually there was no valid objection for the appellant for the notice. Though a plea was raised to the effect that substantial amount was paid towards advance, the same was not substantiated. Assuming that the same is proved, it would have impact upon the quantification of damages. The obligation to vacate the premises arose with the expiry of the time stipulated in the quit notice.
The trial Court and the lower appellate Court have taken the correct view of the matter. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that his client may be granted reasonable time to vacate the premises since business is being carried out therein. The same is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, time till the end of June, 2015 is granted to the appellant subject to his filing an undertaking within four weeks from today before the trial Court to the effect that he would put the respondents in vacant possession of the suit schedule premises on or before 30-06-2015 and continue 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 26-12-2014 ks