THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No. 93 OF 2014 Dated:04-07-2014 Between:
Sri Seshagiri Rao ... PETITIONER AND D. Mahesh Chandra and three others .. RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No. 93 OF 2014 JUDGMENT:
The sole defendant in O.S No. 1024 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller-cum-XII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad filed this second appeal. The respondents filed the suit for eviction of the appellant from the suit schedule property. It was pleaded that the rent for the premises was Rs.1,200/- per month, exclusive of electricity consumption charges and in spite of repeated demands, the appellant did not vacate the premises. It was also stated that the appellant filed O.S No. 7843 of 2004 in the Court of X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for perpetual injunction with false allegations. The respondents have also pleaded default in payment of rents by the appellant.
The appellant filed written statement opposing the suit. It was stated that the tenancy commenced in the year 1980 with a rent of Rs.350/- per month and that it was enhanced to higher amount. It is stated that a sum of Rs.10,000/- was kept as a deposit with the respondents. The appellant further pleaded that in the widening of the road, substantial portion of the building was demolished and that the suit was filed only with a view to get the portion of the premises and to give it on lease to others.
The trial Court decreed the suit through judgment dated 26- 11-2009. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed A.S No. 367 of 2009 in the Court of XI Additional Chief Judge, C i t y Civil Court, Hyderabad. The appeal was dismissed through judgment dated 30- 09-2013. Hence, this second appeal.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.
The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration:
“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of the defendant from the plaint schedule property?
2. Whether the defendant is due and liable to pay an amount of Rs.14,270/- with interest as alleged?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages at Rs.2,700/- per month as prayed for?
4. To what relief?”
The 3rd respondent deposed as PW 1 and he filed Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the appellant, DWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-6 were filed. The suit was decreed and in A.S No. 367 of 2009 filed by the appellant herein, the lower appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration:
“1. Whether the respondents/plaintiffs are entitled for a decree for a sum of Rs.14,270/- with costs against the transfer of property of the appellant/defendant along with interest?
2. Whether the respondents/plaintiffs are entitled for eviction of the appellant/defendant from mulgi bearing M.No.1-9-325/9 situated at Ramnagar Gundu, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad?
3. Whether the respondents/plaintiffs are entitled for damages @ Rs.2,700/- per month as well as the costs of the suit?
4. Whether there are any grounds to set aside the judgment and decree of the lower court?
5. To what relief?”
and ultimately dismissed the appeal.
The appellant does not dispute the tenancy in respect of the suit schedule premises though he made an attempt to dispute the quantum of rent or the condition of the premises. All of them become irrelevant once the suit is governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. Before filing the suit, the respondents got issued notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Though the respondents pleaded that there were arrears of rent that hardly makes any difference, in a suit for eviction.
The trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court have taken the correct view of the matter and this Court does not find any question of law much less substantial question of law in this second appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. However, the appellant is granted time till the end of this year subject to payment of the undisputed rents on or before fifth of every month and submitting 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 premises on or before 31-12-2014.
Miscellaneous petitions filed in this second appeal shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 4th July, 2014 ks