IN THE COURT OF THE XI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT,
AT SECUNDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 23 rd DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT: SMT. HIMABINDHU GOLLA
XI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
O.S.No.946 of 2022
Between:
Madisetti Srinivas, S/o. Late M. Ramaiah, Aged 64 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.7-2-373, 1st Floor, Ashok Nagar,
Pot Market, Secunderabad-3....Plaintiff
AND
Manchala Ashok, S/o. Late M. Rajaiah, Aged 63 years, Carrying on Money Lending Business in the name and style of “Manchala Ashok Jewelers”, in the Mulgi in the ground floor in premises bearing No.7-2-367, Mission School Street,
Ashok Nagar, Secunderabad-3. ...Defendant
This suit is coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri P. Ramchander, the learned advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri Ravi Kandoori , the learned advocate for the defendant and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1.This suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant praying (i) to direct the defendants to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff, (ii) for recovery of arrears of rents from February, 2022 to October, 2022 @
Rs.36,000/- per month, aggregating to Rs.3,24,000/-, (iii) for recovery of future mesne profits @ Rs.50,000/- per month from the date of suit to till the date of deliver of vacant possession to the plaintiff, (iv) for costs of the suit.
2 of page 18 Fair Copy OS.No.946 of 2022
Suit Schedule Property
All that Ground floor Mulgi admeasuring 8’ x 23’ bearing Municipal Number No.7-2- 367 (Old No.3534) Mission School Street, Monda Market, Ashok Nagar, Secunderabad-3 and bounded by:
North : Public Road South : Public Lane East : H.No. 3533 West : H.No. 3535
2.The averments of the plaint are as follows:
(i)The plaintiff contended that the defendant was a tenant of plaintiff and in occupation of the suit schedule property on lease from plaintiff and executed lease agreement dated 01-04-2017 and the monthly rent payable by the date of termination of tenancy was at the rate of Rs.36,000/- per month exclusive of electricity consumption charges and 50% of the property tax and the tenancy is calculated from 1st of month to the end of the month according to English calendar month and the tenancy is month-on-month tenancy and that the defendant is very much irregular in payment of rents and the defendant paid rent up to the month of January 2022. Thereafter, he failed to pay the monthly rents payable from
January, February 2022. When the plaintiff demanded defendant to pay the due rent amounts, the defendant used to dodge the same on one pretext or another. The defendant is liable to pay rent amount from 01-02-2022 to 31-10-2022 aggregating to Rs.3,24,000/- towards the arrears of rent. It is further contended that the plaintiff was not interested to continue the tenancy of the defendants, therefore, constrained to terminate tenancy by issuing termination notice dated 19-10-2022 immediately after the expiry of 15 days from the receipt of the termination notice and that if defendants fail to vacate the property after expiry of 15 days from the receipt of the notice, the defendant is liable to pay damages at the rate Rs.50,000/- per month. It is further contended that the defendant received the 3 of page 18 Fair Copy OS.No.946 of 2022 termination notice on 21-10-2022 and failed to pay the arrears of rent and vacate the premises as demanded by the plaintiff. Therefore, with no other alternative, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit and contended that inspite of the termination notice dated 19-10-2022, the defendant is still in occupation, which is illegal, and that plaintiff is entitled to seek eviction of the defendant and also recover arrears of rents and future mesne profits at Rs.50,000/- per month from the date of suit till the date of delivery of vacant possession to the plaintiff.
3.The averments of the Written Statement are as follows:
(i)The defendant contended that the plaintiff filed the false case and bogus suit, which is not maintainable either on law or on facts and it has to be dismissed and denied all the allegations leveled by the plaintiff in the suit except which are specifically admitted herein and contended that the plaintiff has not placed any material at all and failed to make out any case for grant of the reliefs on the grounds mentioned in the suit and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed. It is further contended that plaintiff filed the false case against defendant by attributing false and baseless allegations with an intention to illegally evict the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property without any valid reasons by colluding with the neighbouring competitive business shop owners. The defendant admitted that he is a tenant of a plaintiff and in occupation of the ground floor Mulgi, which is a suit schedule property, but denied the lease agreement dated 01-04-2017 and contended that the defendant is a tenant over the suit scheduled property for more than 35 years and the defendant is running a workshop in the said premises from the date of inception of tenancy and is having a good reputation in the market with customers and that initially the tenancy was oral and later the plaintiff used to take unregistered rental deeds from the defendant and the defendant used to enhance the rent at 5% per annum on the existing rent and at 4 of page 18 Fair Copy OS.No.946 of 2022 present the defendant is paying a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month and there were no dues of arrear of rent as claimed by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff never issued any rental receipt as on today and because there was cordial relationship between plaintiff and defendant, the defendant never demanded for the issuance of the receipt inspite of payment of rent in the form of cash. It is further contended that defendant used to pay the electricity charges apart from the rent and as on today, the defendant is paying the electricity consumption charges separately from the rent and paying 50% property taxes and contended that the tenancy is calculated from 1st of the month to the end of the month according to English calendar month. The defendant denied that the tenancy is month on month and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same.
(ii)The defendant further contended that there is no reason for the termination of the tenancy and without any valid reason, the plaintiff issued a termination letter dated 19-10- 2022 with false and baseless allegations and demanded to vacate the premises. The defendant contended that they are in the possession of the property for more than 35 years, but there was never a habit of issuing the rent receipts by the plaintiff and now taking the advantage, have filed the false suit claiming that their plaintiff is in due of rents.
The defendant denied that he is in due of payment of rent of Rs.3,24,000/- to the plaintiff and contended that the plaintiff never allowed the defendant to keep one month's due rent and even during the COVID lock down period, the defendant paid the entire rent every month even though the shop was not operating. The defendant further contended that plaintiff was not interested to continue the tenancy with the defendant since he colluded with competitive business owners and trying to evict him by taking false claims and denied that the termination notice itself is not valid as it is issued on false and malafide intention.
the defendant further contended that in the recent times, the plaintiff approached the 5 of page 18 Fair Copy OS.No.946 of 2022 defendant and demanded to enhance the rent from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per month, which is illegal and contrary to the oral agreement between them and the defendant expressed his inability to enhance such a huge amount and expressed his unwillingness to enhance the rent up to 5% as per the terms of the tenancy every year on the existing rent, for which the petitioner stated that he will take some time to think about it and further assured that he will inform later, but without informing anything about the enhancement of the rent, he issued letter, that is, notice to the defendant with false and baseless allegations, and after receiving the said notice, the defendant approached the plaintiff and asked for the reasons for demanding to vacate the premises and then the plaintiff demanded to pay Rs.50,000/- rent per every month without giving any explanation or valid reasons for such illegal demands and the defendant further requested the plaintiff to withdraw the notice and expressed his willingness to increase the rent by 5% on the existing rent of Rs.30,000/-, for which, he orally agreed and since the plaintiff agreed to withdraw the notice, the defendant has not given any reply to the notice with a bonafide belief on the plaintiff.
(iii)The defendant contended that on one way the plaintiff agreed to renew the rental agreement and on another way he is negotiating with competitive shop owners and trying to evict the defendant on false and baseless allegations and contended that the defendant is running gold shops since more than 35 years and gained good reputation in the market, and that the family of the defendant is running on the business and there is no other income source to the family of the defendant. The defendant further contended that instead of withdrawing the notice as per the promise of the plaintiffs, he filed the present suit with false and baseless allegations to evict the defendant from the premises and after receiving the summons from the court, the defendant again approached the plaintiff and 6 of page 18 Fair Copy OS.No.946 of 2022 requested to withdraw the case after friendly negotiations, the plaintiff informed the defendant that he will withdraw the case with a condition to enhance the rent from
Rs.30,000/- to Rs.38,000/- per month to which the defendant agreed on the plaintiff's further promise that the lease period will be enhanced for a period of four years without any demand of eviction. The defendant further contended that as per the promise of the plaintiff to withdraw the case, the plaintiff approached the defendant and asked to sign some papers and further informed that the defendant need not appoint any advocate on his behalf to compromise the case and assured that his advocate will look after the withdrawal of the case. The defendant again blindly believed the plaintiff and signed some papers without going through the contents of those papers and then came to know that the plaintiff has obtained the signature on some papers by suppressing the true terms of compromise and played fraud and tried to file different terms of compromise for which the defendant did not agree. The defendant further contended that he approached the bench clerk and requested to give some time to appoint an advocate on his behalf, but then the bench clerk informed him that the vakalat was already filed for them on the record and upon inquiry, defendant got to know that the vakalat was also got filed by the plaintiff with another advocate and that she cannot recognize the defendant.
(iv)The defendant further contended that the plaintiff obtained the signature on some papers and vakalat from the defendant by playing fraud on him under the compromise proposal and tried to obtain the decree as per his terms, which are not agreed upon. It is further contended that at the time of compromise, the defendant paid Rs.76,000/- towards newly enhanced rent for October, 2022 and November, 2022 under the impression of compromise instead of Rs.30,000/- per month for which also the plaintiff not issued any receipt. The defendant paid every month's rent and there is no due as of today and 7 of page 18 Fair Copy OS.No.946 of 2022 because the plaintiff played fraud on the defendant, without the consent of the defendant, he refused to present joint compromise memo and demanded to return the said compromise memo and later defendant issued a notice to the plaintiff dated 23-12-2022 requesting to furnish his bank account to deposit the monthly rent and further demanded to hand over the compromise memo signed by him. On receipt of the said notice, the plaintiff issued a reply notice with false and baseless allegations and furnished the bank account without giving full particulars of the name and account number and branch and IFSC code, etc. Due to which, the defendant again issued a notice along with the cheque bearing no.910501 dated 07-01-2023 for the due amount. The defendant further contended that from the date of his tenancy, he used to enjoy the toilet facility and water supply along with
Mulgi, but after the compromise failed, the plaintiff locked the toilet room and not allowing the defendant and his wife, who are aged about 60 years, because of it, they are approaching the public toilet by crossing the road during busy hours also. The defendant demanded in a notice to restore the toilet and water facility, but the plaintiff refused the same in his reply. It is further contended that the defendant filed a separate petition for the restoration of toilet facility, which is pending, and contended that plaintiff resides on the first floor of the premises and from morning to evening, he is standing in front of the shop and spreading false rumors to the new and walk-in customers against the defendant that his gold items are not genuine. Because of the false allegations, the defendant is facing huge financial loss and prayed to dismiss the petition.
4. Basing on the pleadings following issues are settled for trial:
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession, as prayed for?
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is recovery of arrears of rent from 01-02-2022 to 31- 10-2022 aggregating to Rs.3,24,000/-?
8 of page 18 Fair Copy OS.No.946 of 2022
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for future mesne profits @ Rs.50,000/- per month?
(iv) To What relief?
5.Heard both the learned advocates on record and both the learned advocates filed written arguments.
6.Perused the material available on the record.
7.(i) During the course of trial, in order to prove the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW1 and got marked the documents as in Ex.A1 to Ex.A5.Ex.A1 is the Office copy of Termination notice addressed to defendant, dated 19-10-2022.
Ex.A2 is the Postal Receipt. Ex.A3 is the Postal Acknowledgment. Ex.A4 is the
Original Lease Agreement. Ex.A5 is the Certified copy of Order in IA.No.139/2023 in OS.No.946/2022. During the cross examination, PW1 mentioned that he studied upto 8th class, he cannot read and understand the English paragraphs and he does not remember when he signed the chief evidence affidavit, but mentioned that he knows the contents of chief affidavit as his counsel explained the contents and contended that he filed the suit for eviction and arrears of rents of Rs.3,24,000/- against the defendant. It is elicited that on 01-04-2017, he entered into the lease agreement with the defendant for the suit schedule property and even before that the defendant was his tenant for 25 years approximately. PW1 denied the suggestion that the defendant was his tenant since 35 years. PW1 admitted that apart from the business over the suit schedule property, the defendant has no other business and added that the defendant has wholesale business at Bhongir, 9 of page 18 Fair Copy OS.No.946 of 2022 which is looked after by his brothers and denied the suggestion that he suppressed the renewal of the lease agreement and suppressed that the defendant was his tenant prior to 2017 and also denied the suggestion that he went to foreign trips and temples in India along with defendant and his family members. PW1 admitted that he has good relationship with the defendant prior to filing of the case, but the defendant refused to vacate the suit schedule property even after completion of lease agreement. PW1 himself admitted that he never issued any receipts for receiving the rents for 35 years and admitted that he has no habit of issuing rent receipts. PW1 admitted that he has been receiving Rs.25,000/- per month from the defendant even after filing the present suit, but he has not issued any receipts to the defendant and that he is an income tax assessee and showing IT returns since 4-5 years. PW1 mentioned that he closed his business 4-5 years ago and sitting in the rented shop, but not doing any business. PW1 further admitted that Ex.A4 is the lease agreement and certain terms and conditions to be followed by both the parties. PW1 mentioned that he does not remember how much rent he has received from the defendant from 2017 to 2022 and he cannot say the compoundable rents as per the agreement without calculation. PW1 mentioned that he has not demanded for the enhancement of rent for every year from the date of execution of lease agreement, dated 01-04-2017, but he has demanded to vacate the premises. PW1 admitted that he should give rent receipts as per page 3 of Ex.A4, but he violated the terms and conditions of the lease agreement, dated 01-04-2017. PW1 mentioned that before expiring the lease agreement between him and the defendant, they did not have any terms about the extension of the lease agreement and admitted that for every five years, the lease agreement was extended from past 35 years. PW1 denied the suggestion that even before expiring 10 of page 18 Fair Copy OS.No.946 of 2022 of the last lease agreement, they have agreed for the extension of lease for another next five years and also denied that he agreed for the increase of 10% of the rent on the existing rent. PW1 admitted that the suit schedule property is in pot market with neighboring shops of gold and silver shops and the extent of the suit schedule property is 10 ft x 30 or to 35 feet approximately and they have way to go up from that. PW1 admitted that the plaint shows the suit schedule property as 8 x 23 feets. PW1 admitted that he resides in the pot market above the suit schedule property on the first floor. PW1 denied the suggestion that the similar Mulgi would be around Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- rent, but PW1 has demanded Rs.36,000/-.
PW1 admitted that he has not issued any notice to vacate from February, 2022 to
October, 2022 and denied the suggestion that he has received the rents for such period, due to which he has not issued the legal notice to the defendant. PW1 admitted that he has not issued any rent receipts towards the payment of the rents to defendant till the date, but denied the suggestion that he has taken the advantage of non-issuance of receipts to the defendant and then filed the case.
PW1 admitted that he claimed the damages of Rs.36,000/- per month from
February, 2022 to October, 2022 and apart from that, he has claimed other damages and the para 5 and 6 of the plaint shows the damage amount as
Rs.50,000/- per month. PW1 mentioned that because the defendant did not vacate inspite of repeated insistence, he has claimed the damages of Rs.50,000/- per month. But he does not know if it is legal or illegal to claim such amount as damages. PW1 admitted that after the filing of the case, they have arrived at a compromise and defendant has paid Rs.76,000/- or Rs.71,000/- approximately.
PW1 denied the suggestion that because there is no due from the previous rent, the defendant has paid enhanced rent of Rs.72,000/-. PW1 further admitted that 11 of page 18 Fair Copy OS.No.946 of 2022 the matter was compromised between plaintiff and defendant on the terms that they would pay Rs.36,000/- per month and stay for the next four years. The counsel for defendant got confronted Ex.P1 in the IA.No.130/2022 (though it is mentioned as IA.No.130/2022, the record shows as IA.No.139/2023) and the witness admitted it to be true and correct and the defendant's counsel got it marked by Ex.B1. Witness added that it was not acted upon by Ex.B1. Witness adds that Ex.B1 was never acted upon. PW1 admitted that Ex.B1 has no mention of increase of rent for every two years. whereas witness added that enhancement was agreed orally and denied the suggestion that Ex.B1 was signed by both the parties without reading it. PW1 expressed that he does not know if the defendant has engaged an advocate on the date 30-11-2022. The PW1 denied the suggestion that he tried to compromise the matter before the court with false compromise deed and the terms filed before the court are different and also have stopped the water facility and toilet facilities to the defendant as he is contesting the case, due to which the defendant is spending more than Rs.10,000/- for those facilities. PW1 mentioned that he does not remember if any notice was issued by the defendant for the restoration of water and toilet facilities, but he received the notice for the bank details for depositing the monthly rent receipts. PW1 admitted that the defendant is paying the rent of Rs.25,000/- from November, 2023 to till date to his bank account and failed to pay the monthly rent for August, 2023 and the witness is delaying to pay even that Rs.25,000/-. PW1 admitted that he has not filed any memo at the time of arguments in 15A petition about the payment of rent.
PW1 clearly mentioned that he is not ready to provide toilet facility and water facility as his family resides in the first floor and denied the suggestion that he is pressuring the defendants to vacate the suit scheduled property by way of doing 12 of page 18 Fair Copy OS.No.946 of 2022 bad propaganda of the defendant with customers at the suit scheduled property.
PW1 further denied the suggestions that he is not in requirement of the property and that he caused inconvenience by disconnecting the power connection and by taking the videographs of the shop while the defendant's daughter were sitting in the shop.
(ii)On the other hand, the defendant got himself examined as DW1 and got marked Ex.B2 to Ex.B6. However, Ex.B1 got marked upon confrontation by PW1 during the cross examination of PW1. Ex.B1 is the Joint Memo of Compromise.
Ex.B2 is the petition U/R. 109 (2) with memo prepared by the counsel for plaintiff.
Ex.B3 is the Legal notice. Ex.B4 is the Reply Notice, dated 29-12-2022. Ex.B5 is the Legal notice with postal receipt. Ex.B6 is the Reply, dated 18-01-2023. During the cross-examination, DW1 mentioned that he does not know the documents filed by his side in the present case and that he did not issue any reply notice to the legal notice issued by the plaintiff vide Ex.A1. DW1 admitted that as per Ex.A4, the rent has to be increased every two years at 20% on the present rent and also contended that he has increased the rent at 20% on the current rent for every two years and at the time of rental agreement, the rent amount was fixed for
Rs.25,000/- and after two years, the rent should be 30,000 and again after two years, the rent has to be Rs.36,000/-. DW1 denied that the rent from 01-02-2022 to till October 2022 was not paid. DW1 admitted that he is paying the rent of
Rs.25,000/- as on today, adding that the plaintiff is not providing the washroom facility due to which the rent is paid only Rs.25,000/- per month. DW1 denied the suggestion that he is not entitled for the washroom facility and water facility as per the agreement and therefore, he has no right to deduct the monthly rent every 13 of page 18 Fair Copy OS.No.946 of 2022 month. DW1 admitted that after filing the present case, four and a half years suit time was given under the joint compromise vide Ex.B1. DW1 added that he was forced to sign the joint compromise vide Ex.B1 and denied the suggestion that
Ex.B1 was signed by his willingness and then contesting the case to cause inconvenience to the owner/plaintiff. DW1 mentioned that the monthly rent of the premises in which they are staying now would fetch around Rs.30,000/-. The counsel for plaintiff got confronted the certified copy of order in the IA.No.139/2023 and witness admitted it to be true and correct and hence it is marked wide Ex.A5.
DW1 denied the suggestion that he is not entitled to stay in the suit schedule property inspite of receiving the legal notice and denied that he is not entitled to pay the damages and he is liable to be evicted.
(iii)Further, one Smt. Manchala Usha Kiran, who is the wife of defendant got herself examined as DW2. During the cross-examination of DW2, she clearly mentioned that the chief evidence affidavit was prepared by her advocate and she signed on it and she knows the contents of it. DW2 mentioned that she did not file any medical documents before the court. DW2 admitted that they have not filed any document before the court to show that they have good name in the market.
DW2 admitted that they are paying the rents of Rs.25,000/- per month and the actual rent is Rs.30,000/- and they are deducting Rs.5,000/- as the washroom and water facility was not given to them. DW2 mentioned that washroom and water facility was given to them as per the agreement and admitted that IA.No.139/2023 was dismissed. DW2 denied the suggestion that a rent of Rs.4,32,000/- is due.
DW2 admitted that they received the notice to vacate the property from Plaintiff for which they have not replied it and admitted the contents of clause no.1 of Ex.A4 as 14 of page 18 Fair Copy OS.No.946 of 2022 true. DW2 denied the suggestion that the plaintiff never colluded with competitors and tried to vacate them from suit schedule property. DW2 further admitted that if the suit schedule property is given for rent to others, the rent would fetch up to
Rs.50,000/- per month. Witness added that they are the only tenants over the property.
8.ISSUE NO.1 : (i) The present suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of eviction of the defendant from the suit schedule property and for delivery of vacant possession, along with recovery of arrears of rent for the period from February 2022 to October 2022 at the rate of Rs.36,000/- per month, amounting to Rs.3,24,000/-, and also for grant of future mesne profits at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month from the date of suit till delivery of possession of property to the plaintiff. In order to substantiate his case, the plaintiff relied upon Ex.A1 to Ex.A5, whereas the defendant relied upon Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 in support of his defence. It is pertinent to note that the defendant has admitted the plaintiff as landlord. In view of such admission, there remains no dispute with regard to the existence of landlord tenant relationship between the plaintiff and defendant. Accordingly, the said relationship stands conclusively established.
(ii)The plaintiff has specifically placed reliance on Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. Ex.A1 is the office copy of the termination notice dated 19-10-2022 issued to the defendant, Ex.A2 is the postal receipt evidencing dispatch of the said notice and Ex.A3 is the postal acknowledgment evidencing its service upon the defendant. These documents clearly establish that the termination notice was duly issued, dispatched and served on the defendant. It is also an admitted fact that the tenancy, subsequent to expiry of the lease agreement under would be continued as a month-to-month tenancy. Therefore, the 15 of page 18 Fair Copy OS.No.946 of 2022 tenancy is deemed to be a monthly tenancy governed by oral terms. In such circumstances, the notice issued vide Ex.A1 satisfies the statutory requirement for valid termination of a monthly tenancy with 15 days of notice period. Hence, this Court holds that the termination of tenancy effected through Ex.A1 is valid and in accordance with law.
The defendant’s contention that the tenancy has continued for over 35 years does not confer any right to remain in possession once the tenancy has been lawfully terminated.
The defendant has placed reliance on Ex.B1/joint compromise memo and alleged that it was obtained through fraud. However, the plaintiff did not press on the contention of the
Ex.B1. The plaintiff has clarified that the compromise was never acted upon. Accordingly, the said document does not advance the case of the defendant. The remaining documents produced by the defendant, namely Ex.B2 to Ex.B6, pertain to notices and proceedings subsequent to the dispute. These documents do not effectively rebut the plaintiff’s claim regarding the validity of termination notice. Accordingly,
Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff.
9.ISSUE NO.2 : (i) Coming to the aspect of arrears of rent, it is elicited during the cross-examination of PW1 that the defendant has been paying an amount of
Rs.25,000/- per month from November 2023 onwards by depositing the same into the bank account of the plaintiff. PW1 has further admitted that the defendant failed to pay rent for the month of August 2023 and that even the payment of
Rs.25,000/- per month is not being made regularly. However, it is pertinent to note that the said payments, even if accepted, are subsequent to the period for which arrears are claimed in the present suit, namely from February 2022 to October 2022.
16 of page 18 Fair Copy OS.No.946 of 2022
(ii)The record reveals that there is a petition filed by the plaintiff under Section 15A of
CPC seeking deposit of admitted rents in the year 2022 and was allowed vide
IA.No.780/2022, dated 07-03-2025. During the course of cross-examination, PW1
categorically admitted that he has been receiving rent at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per month from the defendant from November 2023 onwards. However, PW1 has failed to disclose the said fact in the IA.No.780/2022 and instead continued to seek a direction for payment of admitted rents, thereby suppressing material facts from the Court. This conduct of PW1 casts serious doubt on his fairness and bonafides in prosecuting the case.
(iii)Moreover, PW1 has admitted that no rent receipts were issued by him in respect of the amounts received from the defendant. In the absence of documentary proof, the burden squarely lies upon the plaintiff to establish that the defendant defaulted in payment of rents for the period from February 2022 to October 2022. However, no cogent or convincing evidence has been placed on record to substantiate such alleged default.
Further, the deliberate omission on the part of PW1 to mention the receipt of rents from
November 2023 onwards strengthens the inference that his testimony is neither reliable nor trustworthy. Further, PW1 has admitted during cross-examination that he received arrears of rent to the tune of approximately Rs. 71,000/- to Rs. 76,000/- from the defendant, and the said payment is also reflected in Ex.B3 legal notice. However, despite receipt of the said amount, the plaintiff has not placed on record any information of adjustment of arrears to indicate how the said payment has been appropriated or what is the balance, if any, still remains due from the defendant. In the absence of such material particulars and supporting evidence, the Court is left without clarity as to the actual subsisting arrears. This omission on the part of the plaintiff further weakens his case and creates serious doubt regarding the correctness of his claim for alleged arrears of rent. In 17 of page 18 Fair Copy OS.No.946 of 2022 view of the discussion above, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff failed to prove the arrears of rents from February, 2022 to October, 2022 @ Rs.36,000/- per month, aggregating to Rs.3,24,000/-.
10.ISSUE NO.3:- The plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits on filing of separate application under Order XX Rule 12 of CPC for ascertainment for future mesne profits.
Accordingly, the Issue no.3 is answered.
11.ISSUE NO.4:- In view of the finding on Issue no.1 to 3, Issue no.4 is answered accordingly.
12.In the result, the suit is decreed partly without costs and the defendant is directed to vacate and handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within two months from the date of this Judgment.
Further, the relief to the extent of arrears of rents is dismissed. However, the defendant is directed to continue to pay the rents till he vacates and handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff shall file a separate application for mesne profits under Order XX Rule 12 of
CPC for ascertainment for future mesne profits.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 23 rd day of April, 2026.
XI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.
18 of page 18 Fair Copy OS.No.946 of 2022
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Plaintiffs : For Defendant: PW1: Madisetti SrinivasDW1: Manchala Ashok DW2: Manchala Usha Kiran
EXHIBITS MARKED
For the Plaintiff :
Ex.A1 is the Office copy of Termination notice addressed to defendant, dated 19- 10-2022.
Ex.A2 is the Postal Receipt.
Ex.A3 is the Postal Acknowledgment.
Ex.A4 is the Original Lease Agreement.
Ex.A5 is the Certified copy of Order in IA.No.139/2023 in OS.No.946/2022.
For the Defendants :
Ex.B1 is the Joint Memo of Compromise.
Ex.B2 is the petition U/R.109 (2) with memo prepared by the counsel for plaintiff.
Ex.B3 is the Legal notice.
Ex.B4 is the Reply Notice, dated 29-12-2022.
Ex.B5 is the Legal notice with postal receipt.
Ex.B6 is the Reply, dated 18-01-2023.
XI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.