THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No. 266 OF 2014 Dated:25-07-2014 Between:
L. Ravindranath ... PETITIONER AND MK Shashirekha and three others .. RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No. 266 OF 2014 JUDGMENT:
The respondents filed O.S No. 162 of 2009 in the Court of XIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad against the appellant for eviction from the suit schedule property. It was pleaded that though a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short ‘the Act’) was issued, the appellant did not vacate the premises. The suit was opposed by the appellant by filing a written statement raising several grounds. Through its judgment dated 03-12-2010, the trial Court decreed the suit. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed A.S No. 16 of 2011 in the Court of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. The appeal was dismissed on 15-07-2013. Hence, this second appeal.
Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the notice filed as Ex.A-1, dated 12-01-2009 was not in terms of Section 106 of the Act. He contends that reacting to the text of the notice, the appellant expressed his willingness to enhance the rent and once the willingness is expressed, the very purpose of notice ceases to exist. He submits that the trial Court and the lower appellate Court did not take certain important aspects into account.
Sri Vijay B. Paropkari, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the notice was issued directly in terms of Section 106 and the quantum of rent hardly figures in matters of this nature.
On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for consideration:
“1. Whether the defendant failed to hand-over property tax bills and receipts and obtain rent receipts?
2. Whether the defendant failed to enter into agreement of lease in writing?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to eviction of defendant as prayed for?
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to Rs.25,000/- from defendant towards arrears of mesne profits from 16.2.2009 to 12.3.2009 at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per day as claimed?
5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to future mesne profits as claimed?
6. To what relief?”
On behalf of the respondents, PW 1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-8 were filed. The appellant deposed as RW 1 and he filed Exs.B-1 and B-2. On the suit being decreed, the appellant filed A.S No.16 of 2011. The lower appellate Court framed the following points for consideration:
“1. Whether Ex.A-1 quit notice dt. 12.1.2009 is valid and whether there was proper termination of tenancy?
2. Whether the conduct of plaintiffs in accepting the rents after termination of tenancy by 15.2.2009 amounts to assent or waiver?
3. Whether the impugned decree and judgment are liable to be set side?”
and dismissed the appeal.
The notice which is required to be issued under Section 106 of the Act is not in a stipulated form. In the process of requiring the lessee to vacate the premises, the lessor may state reasons which he feels relevant for the subject. Unlike in the petitions filed for eviction under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, the plaintiff in a suit for eviction based on the notice under Section 106 of the Act is not required to plead any grounds for eviction. Viewed in that context, the plea raised by the appellant cannot be sustained. The appellant is not able to point out any error of law in the decree passed by the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court.
This Court does not find any substantial question of law in this appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that his client is undertaking business activity, in a busy locality, in the suit schedule premises and it will take quite some time to acquire alternative premises and prays for reasonable time. The request made on behalf of the appellant is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is dismissed, however, by granting time up to 31-07- 2015 to the appellant to vacate the premises, subject to his filing an undertaking before the trial Court within four weeks from today to the effect that he would put the respondents in vacant possession of the premises on or before 31-07-2015. He shall also be under an obligation to pay the rents before the fifth of every month.
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