IN THE COURT OF THE V SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:CITY CIVIL
COURT: HYDERABAD:
PRESENT: Ms.C.P.VINDHESWARI, B.Com., B.L.,
V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad
Dated this the 30 th day of April , 2013
O.S.No.441 of 2012
Between: 1.Swaroop Kumar,S/o Late Balram Singh, Age 53 years, Occ:Business, 2.Manoj Kumar, S/o Late Balram Singh, Age 51 years, Occ:Business, 3.Raj Kumar, S/o Late Balram Singh, Age 49 years, Occ:Business, 4.Lalitha Bai D/o Late Balram Singh, Age 60 years, Occ:Household, 5.Prathiba Bai D/o Late Balram Singh, Age about 48 years, Occ:Household, 6.Saraswathi Bai,W/o Late Kirpa Shanker, Daughter in law of Late Balaram Singh, Aged about 58 years, Occ:Household, 7.Rajender Sing S/o Late Kirpa Shanker, Aged 38 years, Occ:Business, 8.Ravinder Singh, S/o Late Kirpa Shanker, Aged 36 years, Occ:Business, 9.Sobha Bai W/o Late Hindkishore, Daughter in law of Late Balaram Singh, 10.Vijender Singh S/o Late Hindkishore, Aged 38 years, Occ:Business, 11.Navinder Singh S/o Late Hindkishore, Aged 28 tears, Occ:Business, 12.Hemlatha Bai W/o Late Shravan Kumar, Daughter in law of Late Balram Singh Aged 47 years, Occ:Household
All are R/o 131989/2, Upper Dhoolpet, Hyderabad, Rep. by their GPA Holder (Plaintiff No.3) Sri Rajkumar, S/o Late Balram Singh,Aged 49 years, Occ:Business,R/o 131989/2, Upper Dhoolpet, Hyderabad
…Plaintiffs
A N D 1.The Secretary, Education Department, Government of A.P. Secretariat Building Hyderabad.
2.The District Education Officer (D.E.O.), Hyderabad 2 O.S.No.441/12 3.The Head Master, Government Girls, High School Mangalhat,Hyderabad, A.P. 4.Dy. Inspector of School Asifnagar, Range No.2,Hyderabad. 5.The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad.
6. Tahsildar, Asifnagar Mandal, Hyderabad (Amendment carried out under Order I.A.No.573/12 dt.17.12.12) …Defendants
This suit is coming on 26.4.13 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Pratap Singh Subedar, Advocate for the plaintiffs and the defendants were set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:
J U D G M E N T
1. The suit is filed for eviction and also for arrears of rents.
2.The case of the plaintiff is that is that he is the GPA Holder of the petitioners No.1and 2, 4 to 12, as such he well acquainted with the facts of the case.
3.The plaintiffs are the landlords and the defendants No.1 to 3, are the tenants of the premises bearing No.132373, adm.1090 sq.
yards, consisting ground floor, Old RCC Building, situated at
Mangalhat, Jali Hanuman, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad hereby referred suit schedule property, more fully described in the schedule.
4.The tenancy is year to year, and actually the suit schedule property was let out by the father of the first plaintiff late Sri Balram
Singh at monthly rents of Rs.750/, in the year of 1984, and that it was being extended by him year to year, and the 2nd defendant herein (DEO) increased Rs.300/, and passed the order Under
RC5975/A3/1994, on 15031994, and same was addressed to the
Executive Engineer P.W.D. for that effect.
5.Late Balram Singh expired on 19081996, and 3rd plaintiff herein being a GPA holder of Legal heirs of Late Balram Singh, represented for renewal of the above tenancy, before Defendant No.1 3 O.S.No.441/12 to 3 herein, and then The Director of School Education A.P.
Hyderabad was passed its proceedings bearing No. L.Dis.No.1914/F 2/97, on 14111997, towards renewal of Administrative sanction for payment of Rents of Rs.7,300/ per month to the private building occupied by (D1 to 3) Government Girls High School, Mangalhat,
Hyderabad, for the period from 131997 to 2021998, belonging to
Late Balram Singh payable to the GPA holder Sri Rajkumar/P3 herein.
6.During the year 1999 the plaintiffs filed one application to enhanced the monthly rents from Rs.7,300/ to Rs.15,900/ PM and that Dy. DEO recommended to the DEO/D2 herein to accord the enhancement monthly rents from Rs.7300/ to Rs.15,900/ PM through Letter No.RC.67/Rent/MP2/2000, dt.16.7.2000, but it was not enhanced. And that tenancy has been extended year to year till the month of Feb/2000.
7.The Commissioner and Director of School Education Govt. of
A.P. passed a further proceedings bearing No.L.Dis.No.1281/F 2/2000315, Dt.18082000, by renewed the tenancy of suit property for further period from 01032000 to 28022001. Accordingly and simultaneously the 2nd defendant herein again renewal the tenancy of suit schedule property from 01032002 to 28022003 through its proceeding RC.No.61/8422/A3/2002, dt.27.05.2002 and from 0103 2003 to 28072004.
8.The 3rd plaintiff represented before 3rd defendant in the month of November, 2003 by requested him to vacate and to handover the suit schedule property, as their entire family members are personally required suit premises for their joint family purpose to construct new building for their individual portions, as they are suffering with insufficient accommodation of their old previous residence at 4 O.S.No.441/12
Dhoolpet, and the monthly Rent of November/2003, received by 3rd plaintiff under protest from defendants No.1 to 3. Since then the plaintiffs did not receive the Rents, nor they vacated and handed over the vacant possession of suit schedule property to the plaintiffs. Even the defendants ever tried to deposit the arrears of rents either in 3rd plaintiff Bank Account or in the court. As a matter of facts the defendants always paid the monthly rents through cross cheque’s account number of 3rd petitioner. But always the plaintiff demanded them until they will vacated the suit premises they at least deposit the arrears of Rents either in the bank account of 3rd plaintiff or in the court of law. And has been demanding them to vacate. Whereas, the
D3 always has been alleging that the budget are not sufficient in the treasury of DEO.
9.In the month of July, 2010 the D1 to 4, attempted to make some renovations of suit schedule property, unauthorisedly, thus plaintiff had to issue a legal notice U/s 80 of CPC 16072010 against defendants from making any sort of construction over suit schedule property, and demanded them to tendered arrears of rents, but they did not replied after receipt of the said notice, nor tendered the arrears of monthly rents. Thereafter the plaintiff filed
W.P.21970/2010, which is pending.
10.The 3rd defendent willfully violated the terms and conditions entered by him with 3rd plaintiff in lease deeds authorized by govt. of
A.P. from 199798 to 28022004 are in the custody of D3. The plaintiffs awaited any reply of notice U/s 80 of CPC, dt.16072010 from defendents till the month of Dec.2010, then later the 3rd plaintiff got issued a notice U/s 106 of T.P. Act against D1 to D3 on 2712 2010 for termination of tenancy of suit schedule property as all the term and conditions was violated by the defendents No.1 to 3, and call upon them to vacate and to hand over the suit schedule property 5 O.S.No.441/12 within 15 days, with all arrears of rents till then calculated to
Rs.6,13,200/ arrears from the month of December, 2004 onwards.
After receipt of the above notice dt.27122010 the D1 to 3 did not choose to reply, nor handed over the vacant possession of suit property to the petitioners, the 3rd plaintiff has also claimed
Rs.30,000/ mesne profit per month, if defendant No.1 to 3 failed to vacate the suit schedule premises in the above notice.
11.When plaintiffs perusing the matter after issued of their notice
U/s 80 of CPC dt.16072010, the D2 call upon the 3rd plaintiff at his office, on 4122010 for settlement to extend the period of tenancy of suit property, and supplied a copy of proceedings
No.RCNo.10540/47/83/B3/Bldng/2010 to the 3rd plaintiff to convince him to extent the tenancy period, but plaintiffs did not agreed for extension.
12.Whereas, the condition of suit building is became dilapidated condition. The D3 did not maintained the suit property properly, even D3 did not pay MCH tax, water bills and electricity bills, and D 1 to 3, are having 96 months rents dues of arrears from the month of
December, 2004 to the March, 2012 and they are willful defaulters on their part, and on the other hand the plaintiffs are having bonafidely personal requirement of the suit schedule property. Hence D1 to D3 are not entitle to continue as tenants of suit schedule property and they are encroachers, and plaintiffs already terminated their rights of tenancy under notice dt.27122010, hence they are liable to be evicted. Whereas, the D1 to D4 are trying to raised new construction over suit schedule property illegally and unauthorisedly, on 332012 the plaintiffs objected from any sort of new construction over suit schedule property and warned them from dismantling the original structure of suit schedule property, but the D4 ignored and stated until any court stay they are not going to adopted. Whereas, the 6 O.S.No.441/12
Mandatory notices U/s 80 of CPC and notice U/s 106 of T.P.Act were already issued. Hence the suit.
13.D2 filed detailed written statement, D1, 3 & 4 adopted written statement filed by D2.
14.The case of the defendant is that the land is question falls in
T.s.No.24, BlockK, Ward30 of Kulsumpura village correlates to nil survey No. and the same has been classified as Government land in
Town Survey Record. In co.10 it is recorded as village and in col
No.20 it is recorded as GVM, in col.No.22 it mentioned as Government
Girls High School, to an extent mentioned as per TSLR 779 sq. Meters.
15.That plaintiff claiming their right through one Abdul Rehman
Khan who allegedly document No.1610/1961 sold away H.No.132 373 without mentioning any extent to one Chatru Singh describing the scheduled land with the following boundaries:
East Babulal House Reheempura West Gangadhar House North Way (Road) Sought Open land
16.Sri Chatru Singh in turn through document No.991/1964 alleged to have sold away the land premises (132273) to one Balram
S/o Balaji describing the land to an extent of 576 sq. yards with the following boundaries:
East House of Babulal West Portion of house area of vendor(neighbour house) North Common Way South Land included in sale of open land
There is variation in the schedule of property that was transferred by Abdul Rehman Khan to Chatru Singh & Chatru Singh to
Balram.
7 O.S.No.441/12
The rental deed, dt.19062001 which is stated to have been signed by the Official of Department of Education with the premises
No.132373 shows the scheduled land as having the following boundaries:
East Neighbour House West Neighbour House North Neighbour House South Road
The schedule property in all the three documents is not tallying with one another.
17.In fact the land which is being claimed by the plaintiff through aforementioned title document No.1610/1961 & 991/1964 not enclosed by appended plan of schedule site, has nothing to do with the land for which rental deed has been executed, it shows that fraud has occurred in execution of rental deed by the officers of education department in favour of the plaintiff herein. Therefore the rental deed is fraudulent document which cannot be relied upon. The scheduled land has been in the possession of Government since time in memorial and it was covered by a old structure which was constructed 60 years back and had been utilized for running government Girls High
School/GPS Mangalhat School, till it was dismantled for getting old and dilapidated. The Design of the Structure, which is no more now, clearly shows that which was constructed for the purpose of running a
School. It did not resemble like a residential house. The plaintiffs are claiming the said school building with premises No.132373 which is no way related to the suit schedule land. In fact as per TSLR which is a no way related to the suit schedule land. In fact as per T.S.L.R.
which has been prepared during 19671975 there is no premises number much less the House No.132373 for the schedule land. As per T.S.L.R. the scheduled land falls in T.S.No.23, BlockK, Ward30 of Kulsumpura village an extent of 779 sq. Meters has been recorded 8 O.S.No.441/12 in col.No.10 as village, Col.No.20 as GVM, Col No.22 as Government
Girls High School.
18.The above facts reveals that the certain employees of Education
Department colluded with the present plaintiff in 2001 and appears to have executed rental agreement in their favour, without questioning the genuiness of their claim. It is not knowledge to how the Head
Master of the school without ascertaining the classification of land from Revenue Department signed in the rental deed in favour of plaintiff herein. It is quite surprising how the said Head Master did not get a doubt about the genuiness of their claim, when they demanded rent in the year 199596, as owners of the land, though it has been under the enjoyment of the Education Department since time immemorial and a school had been running for more than 50 years by 1995 itself. After going through the records and noticing the fraud, the then Joint Collector Hyderabad ordered for an enquiry into the fraud vide Procd.No.17/2012 dt.612012 and pursuant to the said orders of the Joint Collector Hyderabad, the then DEO,
Hyderabad conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted a report stating that due to lack of knowledge that it is government Land they have paid rents to the plaintiffs.
19.The above facts clearly reveal that the land claiming by the plaintiffs under documents bearing No.1610/1961 & 991/64 is different and has nothing to do with land in question.
20. That the calling upon them herein failed to vacate the suit premises within 15 days to pay the immense profit of Rs.30,000/
P.M. and to evict the suit premises is not correct. In fact due to certain adverse news published in Times of India dt.05012012, the same day on the spot inspected by the Joint Collector, Hyderabad in
T.S.No.24, BlockK, Ward30 of Kulsumpura Village, which is 9 O.S.No.441/12 classified as Government Land as per the TSLR, the said land is handed over the Deputy Inspector of School in 2010 under cover of
Panchanama by the Tahsildar, Asifnagar Mandal, Hyderabad for reconstruction of school. The plaintiffs has undertaken agreement for payment of rents in the said premises along with building which is a
Government, hence the payment of Rent does not arise.
21.The plaintiffs filed IANO.262/2012 in the above. IA taken exparte injunction orders on 1532012 that not to change the nature of the property, in fact due to summer vacation the defendants want to construct a new school building. But by misleading the court the plaintiffs obtained exparte orders and stopped the construction.
22.The suit land falls in as per T.S.L.R and R.O.M. falls in
T.S.No.24, BlockK, Ward30, of Kulsumpura Village of Asifnagar
Mandal, Hyderabad and in col.No.10 it is recorded as “village” in col.No.20 recorded as “GVM” and Col.No.22 recorded as “Government
Girls High School” to an extent of 779 sq. meters. Already old structure Government School were running and the Government more specifically with the instructions and approval of the District Collector,
Hyderabad & Mandal Revenue Officer (Tahsildar), Asifnagar Range
No.II duly conducting the panchanama on 29052010 at 1.30 PM vide Letter R.C.No.Special/A4/DEO/2010, represented by the then
Deputy Inspector of Schools namely GBS Suresh Kumar. During 19641976, the government conducted the town survey in twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad under Andhra Pradesh Survey and
Boundaries Act 1923 and the property in question being vested with the Government recorded as GVM land and no objection to this effect were received from the plaintiffs are also not seeking any declaration despite knowing the fact that the columns of the T.S.L.R. are showing the ownership of the Government. On a detailed enquiry it’s learnt that the plaintiff’s and their predecessors hatched a plan to usurp the 10 O.S.No.441/12 property of the Government, hence survey and boundary Act U/s 14 of is final, any objection petition may be filed within 3 years period.
Without their being any right to the plaintiffs a lease deed was entered into though the plaintiffs are claiming the title under a sale deed registered as document No.1610/1961 dt.05101961, the said sale deed does snot speak about the extent of the land and Survey
Number or TS No. or Village etc., that was purchased by one
Mr.Chatru Singh. It is also pertinent to note that the boundaries of the said sale deed, the schedule of the property shown in the plaint and the schedule of the alleged lease deeds are not in consonance with each other. It is further emphasizes that for identification of the property the survey nos. of the property, the extent of the property, the localization of the property, village of the property whereas the sale deed itself speaks that there is no survey number besides there is no proofs of sanction of house number. There is so much of ambiguity in the case of the plaintiffs. As the plaintiff predecessors and the plaintiffs forefathers have hatched a plan by conniving with the government officials of the education department to appropriate the property hence got entered into a lease deed though plaintiffs and their predecessors do not have any right in the schedule property similarly in regard to entering into the lease deed and the rents were being paid by the Education Department without knowledge and concurrence of the District Collector as a matter of fact the District
Collector alone is the competent person either to entered into lease deed or to transfer the properties also in fact the /district Collector alone also cannot create any interest exclusively by the office without the approval of the Committee that is constituted to deal with the immovable properties. It is necessary to state normally the Cabinet sub committee constituting of the Ministers and the approval of the
Principal Secretaries also is required. In fact for the properties of the
Government Paying the rents by Education Department is not only ridiculous but is highly unsustainable in law.
.
11 O.S.No.441/12
23.That Sri Krupa Shanker and other including the plaintiff herein have filed W.P.No.21970/2010 against the other than Revenue
Department with allegations against sanction funds for reconstruction of the existing old building and cleverly avoided the District Collector and other Revenue Authorities from the array of defendants and he could not availed any relief from the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh. The said W.P. is pending though contested by Education
Department.
24.The plaintiff have filed another O.S. bearing No.677/12 against his family member including the District collector, Hyderabad District etc. seeking relief for partition and separate possession of the suit property to direct the attention of the court with a malafide intention to grab the Government Land duly inventing vague stories.
25.In the above circumstances, there is no material facts, prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
Heard the counsel for the plaintiff contended that ever since the defendents are tenants of the property. It is evident from Ex.A1 to
Ex.A12. The defendents are not paying rents. He filed IA.259/12 to direct the respondents to pay the arrears of rent, this Court allowed the petition on 17.12.12. Inspite of it defendants not paid the rents.
Hence, defence struck off. In the said circumstances, he prayed to decree the suit.
26.The District Collector, Hyderabad, Tasildar Asifnagar Mandal,
Hyderabad filed I.A.573/12 U.O.1 R.10 CPC to implead them as D5 &
D6. Said petition was allowed on 17.12.12. Accordingly they were impleaded. Inspite of several opportunities from the date of allowing petition, matter went several adjournments 26.12.12, 24.1.13, 28.1.13, 4.2.13,20.2.13, 4.3.13, and 8.3.13.
On 8.3.13 the Presiding Officer was on year and posted to 12.4.13.
12 O.S.No.441/12
27.From 12.4.13 to 26.4.13. On that day no written statement was filed. No representation, D5 & D6 were called absent.,Plaintiff counsel submitted defendants not complied orders in IA.259/12 dt.17.12.12.
Hence defence struck off. Plaintiff is presnet. Filed chief affidavit. PW1 is present examined in chief. Exs.A1 to A12 are marked. Reported no further evidence. Hence plaintiff side evidence is closed. Arguments heard. Posted for judgment on 30.4.13.
28.The point for consideration:
Whether the suit is to be decreed or not
29.After perusing the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profits.
30.The case of the plaintiff is that he is absolute owner of the property since his forefathers. The defendents are tenants.
31.To establish the same plaintiff No.3 is examined as PW1, wherein he reiterated the contents of plaint in chief affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to Ex.A12.
32.After perusing Ex.A1 is the letter addressed by DEO to the
Executive Engineer R&B alleging the Government Girls High School,
Mangalhat is mentioned in Private rented building and to fix the rent, dt.1531994. Ex.A2 is the proceedings of the Director of School
Education giving administrative sanction for payment of rent of
Rs.7,300/ per month to the private school building on 14111997.
Ex.A3 is the proceedings of Commissioner of Directorate of School
Education alleging that to pay rent to the building which belongs to
Sri Rajkumar, GPA of late Sri Balram Singh resident of Hyderabad.
Ex.A4 is the proceedings of DEO, Hyderabad administrative sanction for payment of rent which belongs to Rajkumar, GPA, dt.27052002
Ex.A5 is also proceedings of DEO, Hyderabad administrative sanction for payment of rent which belongs to Rajkumar, GPA, dt.16072003.
Ex.A6 is the advance receipt which contains the signature of Raj
Kumar, GPA. Ex.A7 is the proceedings of DEO to District Educational 13 O.S.No.441/12
Officer, Golkonda Zone in view pf legal notice from the counsel for the petitioner which contains sending detailed report. Ex.A8 is the
Notice U/s 80 of CPC issued by the petitioner to the respondent,dt.16 072010 Ex.A9 is the legal notice U/s 106 of Transfer of property Tact to the respondent to vacate the building, 27122010. Ex.A10 is the
GPA which was executed by the plaintiffs in favour of Sri Rajkumar i.e. the plaintiff No.3 who Act on behalf of the other plaintiffs, dt.05.01.2010. Ex.A11 is the bunch of receipt. Ex.A12 is the notice
U/s 213 of HMC Act, 1955 to plaintiff No.3 for assessment of tax dt.27082003.
33.After scrutinizing Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 from Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 it is evident that the property belongs to the plaintiffs and the school is running Government Girls High School is functioning in the said building and the rents are being paid by Educational Department.
From Ex.A12 dt.27082003 is also evident that the Municipality issued notice to Balram Singh to assess the tax.
34.After perusing Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 which recites private building bearing No.132373 situated at Dhoolpet.
Plaintiff has to established he is in possession of the property which is evident from Ex.A1 to Ex.A12. From Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 plaintiffs are in possession of the property since and prior to 1994.
35.The counsel for the plaintiff to strengthen his case he relied on following citations:
AIR 1998 Rajasthan 150 Talib Hussain
Vs.
Peer Azhar Hussain and others
Wherein their Lordships held that However in doing so the court must keep in mind that the sope of the suit is not enlarged and also the nature of the suit is not changed. It should also not cause any prejudice to either of the parties. It is also imperative that the party sought to be added under the provisions should have a direct interest in the subject matter of litigation. In every case the court has got a discretion but it should be 14 O.S.No.441/12 exercised in accordance with the settled principles of law.
AIR 1989 supreme Court 2187 Majati Subbarao
Vs
P.V.K.Krishna Rao (deceased) by LRs.
Wherein their Lordships stated that A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (15 of 1960), Sec.10(2)(vi)Denial of landlord’s titlePlea taken by tenant in proceeding for eviction itselfDenial not bonafideTenant can be evicted on that groundSeparate proceeding not necessary.
AIR 1981 Karnataka 78 Shankaralingappa
Vs.
Nanje Gowda and others
Wherein their Lordships observed that
(B) Evidence Act (1 of 1872) S.114Entries in record of rightsRaise
only rebuttable presumption. An entry in the record of rights or other revenue records is not conclusive and only raises a rebuttable presumption. An entry in the record of rights or other revenue records has necessarily to be considered in conjunction with all other evidence that a placed in a case and cannot be the sole basis to decide one way or the other against one or the other party.
AIR 1985 Calcutta 209 Mahabir Prosad Lohia
Vs
Karam Chand Thapar & Bros.Ltd.,
Wherein their Lordships held that (A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872) S.116 Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882) S.105 W.B. premises Tenancy Act (12 of 1956) S.13Term of lease of premises expiredpossession not restored to LandlordSuit by landlord for evictionUnder S.116 tenant is estopped from disputing landlord’s title.
In the instant case the rents had been paid by cheque and also accepted and receipts had been granted for the same. In the case reported in AIR 1934 Cal.499 Smt.Charubala Basu V. German Gomez it was held by a Division Bench of this High Court that where a tenant who had been let into possession by the plaintiff’s predecessor is sued as a trespasser
Factually the petitioner is still in occupation of the demised premises. Under the circumstances the petitioner is not entitled to by way of amendment to challenge the title and obtain the order as prayed for.
15 O.S.No.441/12
The application is dismissed. Cost in the cause.
AIR 1978 Allahabad 185 Smt Kunti Devi
Vs.
Radhey Shyam, Opposite party.
Wherein their Lordships held that (A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.74Proof of documentsMere fact that the documents are forthcoming from a Government department and bear its seal will not dispense with the necessity of formally proving those documents. (para7) (B) civil P.c. (5 of 1908) S.100
AIR 1966 supreme Court 629 Atyam Veerraju and others
Vs
Pechetti Venkanna and others
Wherein their Lordships stated that
(d)Evidence Act (1872) S.116Continuance of tenancyTenant cannot deny title of this landlordNor can he prescribe title in himselfAIR 1960 Pat 344 (FB), Doubted. A.S.No.198 of 1957, D/2431960 (Abdh.Pra.) Reversed.
36.In the above citations, the ratio desidendi is that tenant cannot deny the title of landlord.
After perusing along with the suit, plaintiff filed IA.259/12 u.O.15A CPC directing the respondents to deposit arrears of rent.
Said petition was allowed on 17.12.12 by directing the respondents to pay the admitted rents of Rs.7,300/ per month and also arrears to a tune of Rs.2,62,800/ within the period of one month and also continue to pay rent till disposal of main suit, failing which the defence will be strike off.
The said order was not challenged by the defendants even date.
It became final.
37.After perusing along with the suit, plaintiffs also filed
I.A.262/12 filed Under Order 39 R. 1 & 2 R/W/Section. 151 CPC to issue temporary injunction against the respondents, their Agents, servants, henchmen, claiming under them or through them, restraining all of them from changing the nature of the suit schedule 16 O.S.No.441/12 property in the interest justice.
38.This court on merits also allowed. Said petition on 17.12.12.
Even date defendants not challenged the order. It also became final.
To establish the case of D1 to D6, D5 and D6 who were impleaded as per orders on I.A.573/12 dt.17.12.12. Inview of non filing of written statement, inspite of reasonable opportunity were set exparte on 26.4.13.
Inview of orders in I.A.259/12, as D1 to D4 failed to comply the orders passed by this court on 17.12.12. Their defence was struck off.
39. According to Section.106 of T.P. Act:
Six months notice is mandatory for immovable property for agriculture or manufacture purpose for any other purpose 15 days notice is sufficient.
1. In the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary a lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee by six months notice; and a lease of immovable property for any other purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee by fifteen days notice.
2.Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the period mentioned in subsec(1) shall commence from the date of receipt of notice.
3. A notice under subsection (1) shall not be deemed to be invalid merely because the period mentioned therein falls short of the period specified under that subsection, where a suit or proceeding is filed after the expiry of the period mentioned in that subsection.
4. Every notice under subsec (1) must be in writing, signed by or on behalf of the person giving it, and either be sent by post to the party who is intended to be bound by it or be tendered or delivered 17 O.S.No.441/12 personally to such party, or to one of his family or servants at his residence, or if such tender or delivery is not practicable affixed to a conspicuous part of the property.
40.On perusal of Ex.A9 legal notice it is evident that the plaintiff issued notice to the defendant to vacate the premises within 15 days after receipt of legal notice. In view of the receipt of legal notice, as the lease period was expired, as the plaintiff is required the suit schedule property for his personal use. The defendant is liable to vacate from the suit schedule property.
After perusing Ex.A9 office copy of legal notice 27.12.10 it recites the defendants has to vacate the premises by 11.01.2011.
In view of above provision, defendants are liable to evict the suit premises.
41.Inview of above discussion, basing on the evidence of PW1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A12, plaintiff is entitled to evict the defendants from the suit schedule premises.
In view of the above discussion, plaintiff is entitled for decree with costs.
42.In the result, suit is decreed with costs.
In the result, defendants are directed to vacate the premises within three months from the date of decree, failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to follow due process of law.
In the result, defendants are directed to pay arrears as per order in I.A.259/12 dt.17.12.12.
In the result, plaintiff is directed to file separate petition for mesne profits.
Typed to my dictation to the Senior Assistant corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of April,
2013.
V Senior Civil Judge
18 O.S.No.441/12
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses Examined
For plaintiff: For defendant
Rajkumar :NIL:
Exhibits Marked
For Plaintiff:
Ex.A1 Letter addressed by DEO to the Executive Engineer R&B dt.1531994. Ex.A2 Proceedings of the Director of School Education giving administrative sanction for payment of rent of Rs.7,300/ per month to the private school building on 14111997. Ex.A3 Proceedings of Commissioner of Directorate of School Education alleging that to pay rent to the building which belongs to Sri Rajkumar, GPA of late Sri Balram Singh resident of Hyderabad. Ex.A4 Proceedings of DEO, Hyderabad administrative sanction for payment of rent which belongs to Rajkumar, GPA, dt.2705 2002 Ex.A5 Proceedings of DEO, Hyderabad administrative sanction for payment of rent which belongs to Rajkumar, GPA, dt.1607 2003. Ex.A6 Advance receipt which contains the signature of Raj Kumar, GPA. Ex.A7 Proceedings of DEO to District Educational Officer, Golkonda Zone in view pf legal notice from the counsel for the petitioner which contains sending detailed report. Ex.A8 Notice U/s 80 of CPC issued by the petitioner to the respondent,dt.16072010 Ex.A9 Legal notice U/s 106 of Transfer of property Tact to the respondent to vacate the building, 27122010. Ex.A10 GPA which was executed by the plaintiffs in favour of Sri Rajkumar i.e. the plaintiff No.3 who Act on behalf of the other plaintiffs, dt.05.01.2010. Ex.A11 Bunch of receipts.
Ex.A12 Notice U/s 213 of HMC Act,1955 to plaintiff No.3 for assessment of tax dt.27082003.
For Defendant: Nil:
V Senior Civil Judge,
City Civil Court:Hyderabad.