IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
(SENIOR DIVISION), (FTC), GUDIVADA
Present: Dr. B. Lakshmi Narayana,
Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gudivada,
FAC/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), (FTC), Gudivada.
Friday, this the 13th day of September, 2024.
O.S.No.220/2018
Between:-
Parvathaneni Gangaiah Chowdary, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, Aged about 48 years, Business, R/o. Gangaiah Oil Company, Ganga Sadan, Eluru Road, Gudivada. …Plaintiff.
And
1. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Southern Regional Office, Indian Oil Bhavan, 139, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-34.
2. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Divisional Office, Rep. by Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager, G.V.R. Towers, 3rd floor, Bharathi Nagar Ring Road, Vijayawada.
3. Parvathaneni Praneela Bharathi, D/o. Gangaiah Chowdary, Aged about 21 years, Student, R/o. Eluru Road, Gudivada.
4. Parvathaneni Srena Venkata Chowdary, D/o. Gangaiah Chowdary, Aged about 17 years, Student, being minor, Rep. by her mother by name Parvathaneni Lavanya, R/o. Flat No.301, Sai Residency, Hyder Nagar, Miyapur, Hyderabad.
(Defendant Nos.3 and 4 are added as per orders in I.A.No.944/2022, dated 25.01.2024). …Defendants.
This suit came before me on 13.09.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. Rajesh, Advocate for the Plaintiff. The Defendant Nos.1 to 3 remained exparte and the suit against the Defendant No.4 is
O.S.No.220/2018 2 ACJ (SD), (FTC), GDV
abated. After hearing on plaintiff’s side, having stood over for consideration till this day and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff to evict the defendant
Nos.1 and 2 from the plaint schedule property, to deliver the land to the plaintiff, to recover the arrears of rent of Rs.71,880/- (Rupees
Seventy One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Only) from the defendant Nos.1 and 2, to grant compensation of an amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) for loss caused to the plaintiff from the defendant Nos.1 and 2 for not vacating the schedule property even after termination of the agreement, for costs and for other reliefs.
2.The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:-
(i)The father of the plaintiff by name Parvathaneni
Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Late Gangaiah, resident of Gudivada has applied outlet dealership of defendant Nos.1 and 2’s company and the company granted an outlet shop by name and style as “Ganga
Oil Company, Gudivada”. On 04.09.1999 the father of the plaintiff and defendants executed a registered agreement vide Document
No.4189/1999 of Sub Registrar Office, Gudivada. As per the terms of agreement, the father of plaintiff is the owner of the vacant place or parcel of the land admeasuring of Ac.00.63 cents (3049 square yards) or there abouts situated at R.S.Nos.47/2B and 47/3B-2 of
Nagavarappadu Village, Gudivada, which is the plaint schedule property. As per the terms and conditions herein thereafter for the purpose of defendants’ company business of operating the petrol or high speed diesel and servicing and lubricating stations for using the said land and premises as oil and petrol depo for storage and
O.S.No.220/2018 3 ACJ (SD), (FTC), GDV
use of oil petroleum and other products. The defendants with all ways passages, lights, drainage, sewages and water courses, easement rights, advantages and appetencies whatsoever to the said place are parcel of the land belongs or their withhold or enjoyed or together also with the right of the defendant Nos.1 and 2.
(ii)Further pleaded that the agreement is valid from 04.09.1999 to 03.09.2029 i.e., for a period of 30 years and monthly rent fixed at Rs.4,500/- (Rupees Four Thousand and Five Hundred
Only) from the beginning of the 1st month to end of the 5th year,
Rs.4,950/- (Rupees Four Thousand and Nine Hundred and Fifty Only) from the 6th year to 10th year, Rs.5,445/- (Rupees Five Thousand
Four Hundred and Forty Five Only) from 11th year to 15th year,
Rs.5,990/- (Rupees Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Only) from 16th year to end of the 20th year, Rs.6,589/- (Rupees Six
Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Nine Only) from 21st year to 25th year, Rs.7,248/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Forty
Eight Only) from 26th year to 30th year and the monthly rent amount has to be paid on the 10th day of each and every succeeding month.
(iii)Further pleaded that the father of the plaintiff was running the Oil company under the name and style as “Ganga Oil
Company” and he died on 23.07.2004 as intestate. The father of the plaintiff executed a Will in favour of the plaintiff on 21.04.2003 and as per the said Will, the plaintiff became an absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and he is operating the Outlet of Indian Oil
Dealership. On 23.08.2007 some unknown persons gave report to the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Vijayawada alleging that the
O.S.No.220/2018 4 ACJ (SD), (FTC), GDV
Kerosene is mixed in the petrol. Basing on the alleged report, the Oil company seized the plaintiff’s petrol bunk. Then the plaintiff approached the Divisional Manager, Vijayawada and also South
Regional Office, Chennai to show the alleged report is false and to permit the plaintiff so as to run the petrol bunk, but the defendant
Nos.1 and 2 did not accepted the request of the plaintiff.
(iv)Further pleaded that the plaintiff filed Writ Petition
No.20118/2007 before the Hon’ble Telangana and Andhra Pradesh
High Court, Hyderabad and the defendant Nos.1 and 2 were also filed Writ Petition No.24804/2009 against the plaintiff. The Hon’ble
Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court of Hyderabad passed a common order that “the two Writ Petitions are allowed and also stated that the plaintiff filed a new application before the defendant
Nos.1 and 2 for allotment of new dealership, does not survive and therefore it is hereby set aside on 09.02.2015”. The plaintiff filed a new application before the defendant Nos.1 and 2 but the defendant
Nos.1 and 2 intentionally did not allot the retail outlet petrol bunk.
On 21.03.2017 the 2nd defendant gave notice to the plaintiff by stating that the outlet shop of the plaintiff is terminated.
(v)Further pleaded that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 are trying to allot outlet shop to others and making repairs and laying the gravel on the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff objected and requested the defendants not to continue the acts of the defendant
Nos.1 and 2 and not to make any repairs and constructions and also laying the gravel, but the defendant Nos.1 and 2 did not care the objections of the plaintiff. The plaintiff came to know that, the outlet retail shop will be allotted to others, if so the plaintiff will be caused
O.S.No.220/2018 5 ACJ (SD), (FTC), GDV
irreparable damages. Further pleaded that the plaintiff approached and demanded the higher authorities of the Indian Oil Corporation to vacate the plaint schedule property and handed over the premises as per their terms and agreement and also requested the due rent from the month of March, 2017 onwards, an amount of
Rs.89,850/- (Rupees Eighty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty
Only) of arrears are due to the plaintiff, but the defendant Nos.1 and 2 did not hand over the plaint schedule property and did not pay due rent from the year 2017. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 were knowing about the termination of the plaintiff’s petrol bunk, but they did not vacate the plaint schedule property. Therefore the plaintiff filed this suit for eviction, for recovery of arrears of rent and for other reliefs. Hence, the suit.
3.The defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed written statement and denied some of the pleadings of the plaint. The brief facts of the written statement of defendants are that:
(i)The defendant Nos.1 and 2 admitted that late
Parvathaneni Venkateswara Rao leased out the plaint schedule premises to the defendant Nos.1 and 2 on 04.09.1999 under registered lease agreement for the purpose of operating the petrol bunk/outlet with the following terms and conditions among others.
(a) The lease period is for 30 years from 04.09.1999 to 03.09.2029.
(b) The lease agreement was executed by the “lessor”
Parvathaneni Venkateswara Rao and after his death, the plaintiff became the owner of the plaint schedule property and is bound by
O.S.No.220/2018 6 ACJ (SD), (FTC), GDV
the terms and conditions of the lease agreement, vide Para II in
Page No.12 of lease agreement.
(c) The monthly rents payable by the defendants to the plaintiff are as follows:
Period FromPeriod toMonthly Rent (in Rs.) 04.09.199903.09.20044500/- 04.09.200403.09.20094950/- 04.09.200903.09.20145445/- 04.09.201403.09.20195990/- 04.09.201903.09.20246589/- 04.09.202403.09.20297249/-
(d) The lessee/the defendants are entitled to use the plaint schedule premises through their authorized persons such as agents, sales representatives, distributors, local dealers, other licensees, etc., and the lessee/the defendants are free to assign, transfer, sublet, underlet or part with possession of the same or any part thereof to any persons whomsoever it chooses without the consent of the lessor, vide Clause ‘h’ in Page No.10 of the lease agreement;
and
(e) The lessee shall remove the buildings, structures, fixtures, etc., from the plaint schedule premises only at the determination of lease period. The plaintiff has no right to demand for removal of these structures before the expiry of the lease period.
(ii)Further stated that the plaintiff committed malpractices in his business. Failure of MS sample in RON and stock variation beyond permissible limit were irregularities/malpractices committed by the plaintiff unscrupulously. The plaintiff violated the Marketing
Discipline Guidelines (MDG). Exercising the rights under clauses 4, 27, 54 (a) (i) & (k) of the Petrol/HSD pump dealer agreement dated
O.S.No.220/2018 7 ACJ (SD), (FTC), GDV
04.09.1999, the defendants terminated the retail outlet of the plaintiff on 23.08.2007. The plaintiff filed the Writ Petition
No.20118/2007 in respect of termination order dated 23.08.2007 and another Writ Petition No.24804/2009 in respect of the defendants’ paper publication seeking to appoint retail outlet dealer
before the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in
Hyderabad. The Hon’ble High Court passed a common order in the aforesaid two petitions on 09.02.2015 in favour of plaintiff, directing the defendants to consider the plaintiff’s letter dated 07.12.2006. As directed by the Hon’ble High Court, the defendants perused the letter of plaintiff’s dated 07.12.2006 and confirmed the termination of the retail outlet of the plaintiff by furnishing the cogent reasons fortermination.Thedefendantsintimatedthe confirmation/upholding of the termination to the plaintiff on 21.03.2017.
(iii)Further stated that after termination of the plaintiff’s retail outlet, the defendants started the outlet in the plaint schedule property as “Corporation Owned and Corporation Operated (COCO).
The defendants have been running the retail outlet through adhoc partnership firm under the name of “U. Krishna Murthy” since 27.12.2017. The plaintiff’s company M/s Ganga Oil Company is erstwhile whereas M/s U. Krishna Murthy, COCO is current retail outlet dealer in the plaint schedule premises. The defendants are at liberty to appoint dealer/adhoc dealer/any other mode with policy limitations. The plaintiff has no right to interfere with, or challenge, the acts of defendants as the lease of the plaint schedule premises is valid upto 03.09.2029. The plaintiff mislead the court in obtaining
O.S.No.220/2018 8 ACJ (SD), (FTC), GDV
exparte ad-interim orders in I.A.No.631/2018 and created the case of action in I.A.No.795/2018 for the alleged contempt of court.
(iv)Further stated that the defendants paid rents to the plaintiff regularly and they never defaulted in the payment of rents.
After payment of rentals to the plaintiff upto June, 2017, the defendants had to defer the rents for compliance of the GST, but the plaintiff did not cooperate with the defendants in submission of GST invoices. On receipt of arrears of rent on 27.07.2018, the plaintiff approached the court with false pleas and obtained exparte orders with false claims. The plaintiff is not entitled for Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) towards compensation of alleged loss, but there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendants for compensation.
(v)Further stated that the defendants have every right to continue as lessee of the plaint schedule premises and they have not violated any terms and conditions. The plaintiff has no right to demand eviction of the defendants from the plaint schedule premises before expiry of the lease period. The lease is valid upto 03.09.2029. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
4.Subsequently the defendant Nos.3 and 4 who are nothing but daughters of plaintiff were added as per orders in
I.A.No.944/2022 dated 25.01.2024, but the defendant Nos.1 to 3 did not choose to file additional written statement as well as written statement inspite of conditional order also, so that the defendant
Nos.1 to 3 remained exparte on 11.07.2024. Meanwhile the plaintiff did not choose to represent the process for 4th defendant, so that
O.S.No.220/2018 9 ACJ (SD), (FTC), GDV
the claim against 4th defendant abated on the said date i.e., on 11.07.2024.
5.Based on the pleadings and documents, the following issues are framed on 11.03.2019 for the purpose of Trial.
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of
the defendants from the plaint schedule
property and for delivery of vacant possession
as prayed for?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for arrears of rent as prayed for?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five
Lakhs Only) as prayed for?
4. To what relief?
6.During the course of trial, plaintiff himself got examined as PW.1 and exhibited 04 documents which were marked as Exs.A1 to A4. One more witness got examined as PW.2.
7.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.
8.To substantiate the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff himself got examined as PW.1 by filing his examination in chief as affidavit and exhibited 04 documents, which were marked as Exs.A1 to A4, by reiterating the contents of the plaint in his examination in chief.
9.During the course of cross examination, PW.1 admitted that the period of lease under Ex.A1 is 30 years from 04.09.1999 to 03.09.2029 and the defendant-company is a Central Government company. He admitted that he has no other disputes with the defendants except the dispute with regard to the plaint schedule property. He denied that till 03.09.2029, he has no right to file any suit against the defendants claiming any relief against them in view of Ex.A1. He admitted that the defendant-company allotted petrol
O.S.No.220/2018 10 ACJ (SD), (FTC), GDV
bunk in the name of his father during his lifetime and after his death, he was given permission to run the petrol bunk on the same terms and conditions, and no separate document was executed between him and the defendants and that as he is the legal heir of his father he was given permission to run the same. He denied that he violated the guidelines of Petroleum Corporation and mixed kerosene in Diesel and sold the material and therefore he was warned by authorities in that connection. He admitted that the sample seized from his petrol bunk was sent to Chemical analysis and a report was given stating that it was adulterated, and therefore his petrol bunk was seized and his dealership was terminated on 23.08.2007.
10.PW.1 further admitted that as per the terms of Ex.A1, though his dealership was terminated, defendants are having authority to run the petrol bunk in the premises through other agencies. He admitted that the defendants appointed one U.
Krishna Murthy on adhoc basis on 27.12.2017 to run the petrol bunk in the premises, which would be called as "COCO" (company owned and company operated) bunks. He denied that by the time of filing of the suit, the said U. Krishna Murthy was operating the petrol bunk in the schedule property as COCO bunk. He denied that the averment in the plaint that the defendants have been contemplating to give the dealership to others, is not correct. He deposed that he has not filed any paper publication allegedly issued by the defendants in the present suit. He admitted that the Hon'ble
High Court passed common orders in W.P.Nos.20118/2007 and 24804/2009 filed by him, ordering to reconsider the application filed
O.S.No.220/2018 11 ACJ (SD), (FTC), GDV
by him on 07.12.2006. He denied that the defendants passed an order on his application, dated 07.12.2006 stating that his request to grant dealership would be considered in the future appointments.
He admitted that the defendants confirmed the termination of his dealership on 21.03.2017.
11.PW.1 further admitted that he did not question or challenge the said confirmation orders, dated 21.03.2017. He admitted that as per the terms of agreement, he is not entitled to seek eviction of the defendants from the schedule property by removing the structures. He denied that the defendants paid rents regularly to him upto June, 2017. He deposed that only upto 31.03.2017, defendants paid the rents regularly. He denied that only due to implementation of GST, the rents could not be paid by the defendants upto the date of filing of the suit. He admitted that the defendants used to transfer the rent amounts to his account online.
He denied that in July, 2017, defendants sent a letter to him asking to provide GST number to facilitate them to transfer the rental amount, through online. He admitted that on 27.07.2018 all the arrears of rental amounts till then were sent to his account through online by the defendants. He denied that he approached the defendants and orally said that he was not allotted any GST number and therefore they resolved the problem in their systems and then transferred the said amounts to him and therefore the delay was occurred.
12.PW.1 further admitted that thereafter defendants have been regularly paying the rents. He admitted that he has not mentioned in his chief examination affidavit that the defendants
O.S.No.220/2018 12 ACJ (SD), (FTC), GDV
paid the arrears of rent in July, 2018 and thereafter they have been regularly paying the rents to him. He admitted that he also claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) in his chief examination affidavit. He denied that he has no right to claim any compensation without any prayer in the suit. He deposed that he has not given any notice to the defendants U/Sec.80 CPC before filing of the suit. He denied that he misled the court and obtained interim order in I.A.No.631/2018, and that the petition in
I.A.No.795/2018 is not maintainable. He denied that the suit as framed by him is not maintainable and the present suit is filed only as a threatening measure to obtain the dealership.
13.The plaintiff got examined his cousin brother as PW.2, who in his examination in chief filed as affidavit reiterated the pleadings of the plaint. During the course of cross examination, he deposed that the plaintiff is son of his own junior paternal uncle and he knew about the family affairs of the plaintiff. He deposed that he knew that the father of the plaintiff leased out the plaint schedule mentioned property to the 1st defendant and the lease agreement is in force upto the year 2030. He deposed that he do not know whether the dealership of the plaintiff was cancelled on 23.08.2007 and the company itself is running the petrol bunk in the plaint schedule mentioned property till now. He deposed that the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of rents but he do not know the period and details of the amount.
14.PW.2 further deposed that he do not know why the defendants did not pay the rents to the plaintiff. He deposed that the defendants used to pay the rents by way of cheque. He denied
O.S.No.220/2018 13 ACJ (SD), (FTC), GDV
that the defendants are paying rents by way of online payments. He deposed that he do not know whether the defendants using tin number so as to pay the rents through online. He deposed that he do not know whether the defendants issued notice to the plaintiff by seeking tin number of the plaintiff so as to pay rents to the plaintiff by way of online. He deposed that he do not know whether the defendants company paid total arrears on 27.07.2018 to the plaintiff by way of online and the same was credited to the account of the plaintiff. He deposed that he do not know about the date of filing of the present suit. He deposed that he do not know whether the arrears of rent adjusted to the account of plaintiff or not by the date of filing of the suit.
15.PW.2 further deposed that he knew about the execution of the Will by the father of the plaintiff in the year 2003. He knew that the children of the plaintiff filed suit for partition in
O.S.No.46/2015 on the file of Hon’ble X Additional District Judge’s
Court, Machilipatnam at Krishna District for the relief of partition by his daughter and subsequently the suit was disposed of before Lok
Adalath and Award was passed on 22.08.2015. He admitted that the plaintiff and children were entered into registered partition as per
Lok Adalath award, on 03.10.2015. He admitted that the plaint schedule mentioned property allotted to the two daughters of the plaintiff as per partition deed dated 03.10.2015. He admitted that the plaintiff relinquished his 1/3rd share as per partition deed dated 03.10.2015 in favour of his two daughters by way relinquishment deed dated 27.08.2018. He deposed that the plaintiff has no right in the plaint schedule mentioned property since 27.08.2018. He
O.S.No.220/2018 14 ACJ (SD), (FTC), GDV
admitted that the plaintiff filed the present suit after 27.08.2018. He deposed that the plaintiff is not entitled to file the present suit after relinquishment of his right in the plaint schedule mentioned property. He deposed that he do not know whether the defendants company is paying rents to the daughters of the plaintiff. He deposed that the plaintiff took steps for preparation of his chief examination affidavit and then he subscribed his signature. He deposed that he do not know the contents of his chief examination affidavit and he came to the court at the request of the plaintiff.
16.Issue Nos.1 to 3:- Issue Nos.1 to 3 are
interrelated to each other, so that answered together to
avoid repetition in discussion as well marshal the facts.
The plaintiff filed this suit for eviction of defendant Nos.1 and 2 from the plaint schedule property and delivery of the same to the plaintiff and also decree for an amount of Rs.71,880/- (Rupees
Seventy One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Only) against the defendant Nos.1 and 2 as arrears of rent as well as compensation of
Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) for caused loss to the plaintiff from the defendant Nos.1 and 2 vacate the plaint schedule property even before termination of the agreement.
17.In this regard the plaintiff at Para Nos.5 and 9 pleaded is as follows:
“5. The plaintiff humbly submits that, as per the agreement is valid from 04.09.1999 to 03.09.2029 only, i.e., 30 years. As per the agreement 1st and 2nd defendants for a term years commencing from 04.09.1999 but renewal able and determinable as herein after providing yielding and paying therefore during the said term a monthly rent as fixed hereunder paying Rs.4,500/- (rupees four thousand five hundred only) as monthly rental from the beginning of the 1st month to end of 5th year, Rs.4,950/- (Rupees four thousand nine hundred fifty only) as monthly rental from 6th year to 10th year, Rs.5,445/- (Rupees five
O.S.No.220/2018 15 ACJ (SD), (FTC), GDV
thousand four hundred forty five) as monthly rental from 11th year to 15th year, Rs.5,990/- (Rupees five thousand nine hundred ninety only) as monthly rental from 16th year to end of the 20th year, Rs.6,589/- (Rupees Six thousand five hundred eighty nine only) as monthly rental from 21st year to 25th year, Rs.7,248/- (Rupees seven thousand two hundred forty eight only) as monthly rental from 26th year to 30th year, table by the regular monthly payments of the 10th day of each and every succeeding month and also on the determination of the said term during any month then paying the proportionate part of that month's rent in respect of the portion of the month so elapsed at the time of determination and upon the conditions of the performance and observations of the covenants and conditions on the part of 1st and 2nd defendants herein.
9. The plaintiff approached so many times and demanded to the higher authorities of the Indian oil corporation to vacate the plaint schedule property and handed over the premises as per their terms and agreement and also requested the due rent from March 2017 to onwards, where an amount of Rs.89,850/- of arrears are due to the plaintiff. But the 1st and 2nd defendants did not respond the requests of the plaintiff and did not handed over the plaint schedule property and did not pay due rent from 2017 to onwards. The plaintiff suffer lot the 1st and 2nd defendants did not handed over the plaint schedule property and did not allotted Indian Oil outlet petrol bunk and also did not pay monthly rent, if the plaintiff gave the said schedule property to others the plaintiff can get an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- towards the land lease from 2007 to 2017. The 1st and 2nd defendants intentionally and knowing about the termination of the plaintiff's petrol bunk but the 1st and 2nd defendants wrongfully harassing the plaintiff and the 1st and 2nd defendants did not vacated the schedule property and do not return the said property as the actual stage of the agreement. So the plaintiff approached the Honorable court to seeking relief. Hence the suit.”
18.The plaintiff is seeking eviction of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 from the plaint schedule property as not paid the rents as pleaded in 9th Para of the plaint as we have observed from March, 2017 to till filing of the suit. Whereas the PW.1 in his cross examination clearly and categorically admitted that on 27.07.2018 all the arrears of rent amount till then were sent to his account through online by the defendants. He also admitted that thereafter the defendants have been regularly paying the rents. He admitted
O.S.No.220/2018 16 ACJ (SD), (FTC), GDV
that he is not mentioned in his examination in chief about defendants paid arrears of rent in July 2018 and thereafter have been regularly paying the rents to him. It is an admitted fact by the both parties that there is an agreement between the father of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 i.e., organization of Indian Oil
Corporation Limited under Ex.A1 for a period of 30 years commencing from 04.09.1999 to till 03.09.2029.
19.As per the admitted fact, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 has right and interest over the plaint schedule property and that cannot be questioned by the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s version that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 not paid the rents from the month of March, 2017 onwards. On that ground they are already paid the rents upto date as per the admission of the plaintiff. Though the defendant
Nos.1 and 2 paid the rents that fact not brought to the notice of the court. Moreover, as per the admission of the plaintiff in his cross examination, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 were always credited the rent to the account of plaintiff through online, inspite of that the plaintiff not filed any account copy, it clearly shows that the plaintiff not came to the court with clean hands.
20.Moreover, whatever contention taken regarding to the running of the petrol bunk over the plaint schedule property, it is out of scope of this suit because the present suit filed for eviction of defendant Nos.1 and 2 on the ground of not paid the rent from the month of March, 2017, but the defendant Nos.1 and 2 paid the rents as admitted by the plaintiff. For that the plaintiff inspite of accepted the rent not even given any explanation, how he entitled for eviction of defendant Nos.1 and 2 inpsite of accepted the rents from the
O.S.No.220/2018 17 ACJ (SD), (FTC), GDV
defendant Nos.1 and 2. Whatsoever, when the defendants are paying the rents, the plaintiff is not entitled for eviction of the plaint schedule property by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 as well as there is no termination of agreement under Ex.A1 and said fact also not established by the plaintiff. Hence, the other two reliefs i.e., to recover the arrears of rent of Rs.71,880/- (Rupees Seventy One
Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Only) from the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and to grant compensation of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) for loss caused to the plaintiff from the defendant Nos.1 and 2 for not vacating the schedule property even after the termination of the agreement. As arrears of rent and also damages of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) as per the admissions of plaintiff.
21.Though the plaintiff examined PW.2 who is relative of plaintiff when we perused he evidence, who repeatedly stated that “he do not know”. That itself shows that the PW.2 has no knowledge about the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and
2. Whatsoever on considered the above observation, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as prayed for in this suit. Accordingly, these issues are answered.
22.Issue No.4:-
In the result, the suit is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, after her transcription,
corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 13th day of September, 2024.
Sd/- B. Lakshmi Narayana,
Principal Civil Judge
(Senior Division), FAC/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), (FTC), Gudivada.
O.S.No.220/2018 18 ACJ (SD), (FTC), GDV
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for
PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS
PW.1:- Parvathaneni Gangaiah Chowdary. Exparte. PW.2:- Parvathaneni Kishore.
Exhibits marked on behalf of
PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS
Ex.A1 is the certified copy of agreement, dated 04.09.1999-Nil- executed by father of plaintiff in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2.
Ex.A2 is the death certificate of father of plaintiff by name Parvathaneni Venkateswara Rao.
Ex.A3 is the certified copy of Will,
dated 21.04.2003.
Ex.A4 is the legal notice dated 21.03.2017 got issued by the defendant Nos.1 and 2.
Sd/- B. Lakshmi Narayana,
P.C.J. (S.D),
FAC/A.C.J. (S.D), (FTC), GDV.