HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR SECOND APPEAL No.450 of 2002 DATED: 01.08.2014 Between:
S.Latha and others and .. Appellants/Defendants K.Raj Kumar and another .. Respondents/Plaintiffs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR SECOND APPEAL No.450 of 2002 JUDGMENT:
The appellants herein are the defendants/tenants in O.S.No.366 of 1991. The suit filed by the respondents herein/plaintiffs for eviction, was decreed by judgment and decree dated 27.02.1999 passed in O.S. No. 366 of 1991 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore. The appellants herein, carried the matter in appeal but were unsuccessful. The appellate Court, by judgment and decree dated 09.04.2002 passed in A.S. No. 23 of 1998 dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal has been filed.
2. The parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit for the sake of convenience.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs.
4. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
The plaint schedule house was constructed prior to 1981 and the same was let out to the first defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.700/- for a period of three years from 05.04.1986 to 04.04.1989. The monthly rent has to be paid on or before 5th of every month. After expiry of three years lease period, the rent has to be enhanced to Rs.800/- and Rs.12,000/- to be paid towards rent free security deposit. Though the rent period was expired, the first defendant paid rent only at Rs.775/- per month w.e.f. May, 1990. As the first defendant failed to pay the monthly rent properly and also caused nuisance by keeping tyres in the common passage of the house complex, they got issued legal notice on 07.06.1991 terminating the tenancy and to vacate the premises by the mid night of 04.07.1991 and also to pay arrears of rent from February, 1991. The first defendant got issued reply notice on 30.06.1991 with false allegations and also claiming that the provisions of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act would apply in the matter, whereas the relevant provisions of the Transfer of Property Act would not apply.
4. The first defendant filed written statement and subsequently he died and that the defendants 2 to 7 were added as his legal heirs. There is no dispute between the parties about the original agreement. It is contended that the schedule building was constructed much prior to 1981 and therefore, the provisions of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act are applicable and the suit filed under T.P. Act is not maintainable. The tenancy was extended after expiry of lease period of three years on a monthly rent of Rs.775/- and that they paid rents regularly. The agreement was not admissible in evidence, as the same was not registered.
5. The only point argued by the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants in this appeal is that Ex.B.42 shows that there was old building with the same house number prior to 20.08.1981. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that both the Courts below have given concurrent finding basing on the documentary evidence produced by the respondents/plaintiffs that the building was constructed in the year 1981. It is submitted that Ex.A.3 is the approved plan issued by the municipality on 03.08.1981, Ex.A.4 is the permission granted by the municipality to K.M.Navaneethamma, grand mother of the plaintiffs for raising construction and Ex.A.9 is the another plan for construction of first floor of the building and all these documents show that the building was constructed by August, 1981.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the plaintiffs have not taken the plea that there was old building and it was subsequently demolished and reconstructed and that the appellate Court has not considered this aspect.
7. The point for consideration in this appeal is whether there was any old building and whether it was subsequently demolished and constructed the present building in question, in its place as contended by the appellants?
8. A perusal of the evidence adduced by both the parties and documents filed by them, clinchingly establish that the building in question was constructed after August, 1981 and therefore, it is clear that the civil court has jurisdiction.
9. The trial court and the first appellate court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, have rightly came to the conclusion that the building was constructed in the year 1981 and the contention of the defendants is not correct. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the court below. Therefore, I hold that no substantial question of law arise in the appeal and that there are no merits in the appeal, as such the same is liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants/defendants are given six months time from today to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the schedule premises to the respondents/ plaintiffs. There shall be no order as to costs.
11. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stands closed.
B.CHANDRA KUMAR,J Dated: 01.08.2014 kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR SECOND APPEAL No.450 of 2002 Dated: 01.08.2014