Kum L Annapurna Sri, M.A.,M.L.,

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: VIJAYAWADA

Present: KUM L.ANNAPURNA SRI, M.A., M.L.,

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

Monday, this the 30th day of April, 2012

O.S.NO.729/2011

Between:

Chimakurthi Vallabhai Patel

..Plaintiff

And

Maddi Venkata Siva Hari Prasad

..Defendant

This suit coming on 23-4-2012 before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt P.Sree Devi, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri P.Niranjan Rao, Sri P.Sudhakar Rao, Sri B.Bhargav, Advocates for the defendant and upon the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The plaintiff filed the suit seeking eviction of the defendant from the plaint schedule property.

2.The brief averments in the plaint are as follows:

That the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the building situated at plot No.12, 1st lane, Syndicate Bank Colony, Chittinagar, Vijayawada. He is retired Bank Manager living with his family in 2nd floor and let out the 1st and ground floors while the defendant entered into the premises as a residential tenant in the ground floor on 1.10.2008 on a monthly rent of

Rs.4,000/- payable on or before 5th of every succeeding month, excluding the electricity charges. There was no written rent agreement.

There is no passing of receipts for the payment made by the defendant.

At the time of entering into the premises, the defendant paid two months rent, i.e., Rs.8,000/- as advance, which is refundable with an understanding that the premises is being let out only for residential purpose. Though it was agreed that the defendant should vacate the 2 premises within year, on the request of the defendant, the plaintiff extended the rent period for one more year till 1.10.2010.

That though the defendant agreed to pay rent on or before 5th of every succeeding month, he violated his promise and used to pay rent only after 10th of every succeeding month. He also used to pay

Rs.3,960/- as rent in stead of Rs.4,000/- and used to pay the balance

Rs.40/- at the end of every accumulating it to make Rs.480/-. The defendant is damaging and misusing the schedule property by using the same for the purpose of other than for which it is let out; he states that there is a shed in the ground floor which remained unlocked by the time of entry of defendant and it was being used by the landlord/plaintiff for the purpose of keeping old and repair furniture etc. The defendant had also badly damaged the roof of the shed by keeping the heavy package sheets etc., on the asbestos sheeted roof due to which now the shed came to a collapsing condition. The compound wall too is badly damaged with the fire set frequently to the paper wastage of the repacking business.

The plaintiff is aged about 64 years (senior citizen) and had been suffering from knee pains and his wife too is also a BP patient. Recently the doctors prescribed him a surgery for knee joint replacement, due to that reason he requested the defendant to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the premises by the end of October, 2010, as he needs the schedule property for their personal occupation and that he can’t extend the rent period any more. Then the defendant promised to vacate by the 10th December, but again requested for two months time.

Accordingly, on 1.2.2011 when plaintiff asked the defendant, who promised to vacate the premises within one month, but in vain.

When the plaintiff is waiting for the vacant possession of the house with a hope that the defendant was going to adjust the advance amount to the month of March, 2011 payable on 1st April, 2011, to his 3 surprise the defendant sent Court summons in OS.353/2011 pending

before the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. The defendant

sent Rs.2,500/- by way of Demand Draft, calling it to be the rent for the month of April, 2011. The plaintiff issued a demand notice, dt.18.5.2011 by annexing the said Demand draft to it as the defendant sent only

Rs.2,500/- instead of Rs.4,000/- and that the defendant is indebted to pay rent for the month of March too which he is liable to pay. Later the defendant got issued a reply, dt.26.5.2011 with all false contentions.

But he neither pays the balance of rent nor vacated the premises.

Hence, the suit.

3.Per contra, the defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiff by filing written statement and contended that the allegations in the plaint are all false. That at the time of induction the plaintiff and defendant agreed the lease period for a term of 3 years at monthly rent of

Rs.2,500/- and also agreed that the rent will be enhanced 10% on the existing monthly rent after above terms of 3 years. A prior notice of three months before vacating the tenanted premises by either party to be informed as per their understanding. At the time of entering into the tenanted premises, the defendant paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards rental advance. The rent is payable on or before 10th of every succeeding month and plaintiff regularly collected the same as per his convenience before 10th of every month and mentioned the same in his note book.

The defendant is having heart problem and undergone treatment at Manipal hospital, the plaintiff knowing fully aware of the fact and he harassed him at his convenience to vacate the tenanted premises without due process of law. He never stated and promised that he would vacate the premises. In the month of January, 2011 the plaintiff demanded to enhance the monthly rent from Rs.2,500/- to Rs.5,000/- and defendant expressed his inability and the plaintiff disconnected the 4 amenities at his convenience to harass the defendant and the plaintiff also locked all the main doors on 16.4.2011 and the wife of plaintiff lodged a complaint before the SHO, II Town police station, Vijayawada and he also tried to vacate the defendant from the tenanted premises illegally without due process of law. At that time, the defendant filed suit

OS.353/2011 and the Court granted temporary injunction on 21.4.2011.

That when the defendant approached the plaintiff on 5.5.201 to pay monthly rent of April, 2011 the plaintiff refused to receive, so that he sent a demand draft of Rs.2,500/- vide DD.No.058830, dt.7.5.2011.

The existing monthly rent is being paid as per the understanding held in the year 2008. The defendant never fell due any amount except for the month of April, 2011 which was sent to the plaintiff by way of demand draft. Hence, suit is liable to be dismissed.

4.Basing on the respective pleadings of both the parties to the suit, the following Issues were settled for trial:

1) Whether the Quit notice, dt.18.5.2011 is valid and binding on the defendant ?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the vacant possession of plaint schedule property by evicting the defendant from the plaint schedule property ?

3) To what relief ?

5.During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and also PW.2 on his behalf and exhibited A1 to A17. Whereas, the defendant examined himself as DW.1 and also DW.2 on his behalf and exhibited B1 to B7.

6.Heard both sides.

7.ISSUE NO.1:-

Absolutely, there is no dispute with regard to the landlord and tenant relationship in between the plaintiff and the defendant. Further, there is no dispute that the defendant has deposited an amount of

Rs.10,000/- as advance at the time of induction of the tenancy which is 5 refundable to him and that the defendant has filed a suit in

OS.No.353/2011 and also filed RCC.122/2011 against the plaintiff.

Absolutely, the suit is filed by the plaintiff for eviction of the tenant/defendant from the plaint schedule property contending that the lease period existing in between the plaintiff and defendant is completed and despite the defendant agreed to vacate the plaint schedule property by 10th December, 2010, again on 1.3.2011, but he did not vacate it, thereby the plaintiff has got issued a notice, dt.18.5.2011 determining the tenancy of the defendant by assigning the reasons that the plaintiff being a Senior citizen who is suffering with

Arthritis requires the plaint schedule property for his personal occupation as he has advised the knee joint replacement surgery.

In order to prove that the plaintiff has validly terminated the tenancy of the defendant, PW.1 categorically stated that originally the rent amount payable by the defendant is Rs.3,600/-, but the defendant has been paying it at Rs.4,000/- per month and the defendant is damaging and misusing the schedule property and he is aged about 64 years and due to increase of age, he has been suffering from knee pains. The Doctors diagnosed to be Arthritis and the Doctors advised him to avoid using steps and to live in ground floor and his wife too is not only Diabetic but also a B.P.patient and some heart attack symptoms are also visible in her health. Recently, the Doctors prescribed him surgery for knee joint replacement and he requested the defendant to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises by the end of October, 2010 as he needs the possession of the premises by the end of October, 2010 as he needs the schedule property for his personal occupation.

Then the defendant promised to vacate by 10th December, 2010, but again requested for two more months time saying that he could not secure suitable house for shifting. Accordingly, on 1.2.2011 he 6 reminded him to vacate the house and again on 1.3.2011 usually the defendant promised to vacate within one month and also brought

Municipal Corporator and in his presence he gave word that he can vacate by 1.4.2011 and asked him to get the remodeling done in the meanwhile. Then he got remodeled the front two rooms. But he did not vacate the premises.

In support of the evidence of PW.1, he has exhibited A1 Pension

Identity card in order to establish his age. Admittedly, he is retired employee and Ex.A1 is disclosing that his date of birth is 15.2.1948 and he retired on 30.6.2001 as Manager of Syndicate Bank. So, this document establishes now he is 65 years and he is a senior citizen.

Ex.A2 is Valuation certificate, dt.1.10.1992. A3 is Municipal plan approved by the Municipal authority discloses that the building was constructed in the year 1992. As seen from Ex.A2, the market value of the building is Rs.34,85,050/-. A4 is the letter, dt.7.5.2011 under which the plaintiff has not only requested the defendant for vacation of the plaint schedule property and also send back the demand draft by 10.6.2011. Under Ex.A4, the tenant has sent an amount of Rs.2,500/- along with demand draft for Rs.2,500/-.

A5 Office copy of legal notice got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant, dt.18.5.2011. Under A6 the defendant got issued a legal notice for reply of Ex.A4 denying the contents raised by the plaintiff. A7

Medical record belongs to PW.1 discloses that he is suffering with knee pains. A8 is disclosing that order is given for security gate and thereby the worker received an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards advance. A9 to

A14 are photos with CD disclosing the security gate as well as renovation made to the building. A15 are the receipts pertaining to plaint schedule property. These receipts are disclosing that the monthly rent is being paid by the defendant is Rs.3,750/- and A16 is served copy of the plaint in OS.No.353/2011 and A17 is Judgment copy in 7

OS.353/2011 is disclosing that Permanent Injunction is granted in favour

of the tenant/defendant that he cannot be evicted forcibly from the plaint schedule property.

Now the Court has to observe that, whether the legal notice issued under Ex.A5 is valid or not. On observation of Ex.A5, it is disclosing that “the plaintiff is dire need of ground floor portion for their personal occupation as the surgery is to be undertaken as early as possible for the purpose of joint knee replacement and further the plaintiff has demanded the defendant to sent Rs.4,000/- towards rent for the month of April, 2011 (as the rent of February and March were adjusted towards advance) and vacate the ground floor premises by 10.6.2011 and hand over the vacant possession of the ground floor to him”. So, Ex.A5 clarifies that the plaintiff has demanded the defendant to vacate the premises by the end of 10.6.2011.

On this aspect, it is clear PW.1 has categorically explained his dire need of plaint schedule property under Ex.A5 as well as in his evidence.

PW.1 during the cross-examination has also stated that he asked the defendant to vacate the suit schedule property by the end of October, 2010. On this aspect, the evidence of DW.1 is observed, his contention is lease period is 3 years, it will be completed by the end of October, 2011. DW.1 in his cross-examination stated, he was inducted as tenant in the plaint schedule property in the month of October, 2008 and further stated by the end of October, 2011 3 years lease was completed.

But absolutely despite the defendant is contending as per the understanding between the plaintiff and defendant the lease period which was agreed in between them is 3 years, it is not at all supported by any documentary proof. When the plaintiff is contending that the defendant should vacate the premises within one year, but on the request of the defendant he re-extended the lease period for one more 8 year. So, according to the plaintiff it will be ended by the end of

October, 2010. But the contention of the defendant is that the lease period will be expired by the end of October, 2011. But the above said fact is not at all supported by any other evidence. It is well settled law, if there is no written agreement in between the landlord and tenant, it is considered that tenancy is month-to-month, and as per Section 106 of

Transfer of Property Act, the plaintiff has issued a legal notice under

Ex.A5 requesting the defendant to vacate the premises on the ground of personal occupation, i.e., by the end of 10.6.2011.

Absolutely, in the above discussion the documents are clearly disclosing that the plaintiff is a Senior citizen and suffering with knee joint pains and the cross-examination of DW.1 is also disclosing that the defendant has permitted the plaintiff to renovate the premises, i.e., make it convenient for the stay of the plaintiff in the suit schedule property. It infers the defendant knew that the requirement of premises by the plaintiff. On clear observation of the above said facts and the evidence available on record, it establishes that the plaintiff has demanded the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule property under

Ex.A5. But the defendant did not vacate the premises by 10.6.2011 by contending that, by the date of Ex.A5, the lease period was not expired and it will be determined by the end of October, 2011. Even assuming the contention of the defendant is correct, he did not vacate the premises after 3 years completion of lease period also. But evidently, there is no written agreement in between plaintiff and defendant. So, it will be deemed that the tenancy is month-to-month.

Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act clearly describes:

“Duration of certain leases in absence of written contract or local usage. In the absence of 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 6 months notice expiring with the end of a 9 year of the tenancy, and a lease of immovable property for any other purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by 15 days notice expiring with the end of a month of the tenancy.” “Every notice under this section 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 tendered or be delivered 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.”

So, when there is no written lease agreement in between the plaintiff and defendant, terminating the tenancy as per above Section, under Ex.A5 is valid, pertaining to the plaint schedule property.

Here, one more fact has to be observed, the plaintiffs contends he requires premises for his personal occupation, as he is suffering with knee pains ground floor is advisable to him. The defendant also agreed with regard to renovation of the building. In the cross-examination of

DW.1, he states that some grills were removed and one wall existing in between hall and verandah and made hall larger and in the place of grill the wall was constructed. So, it appears that one front room was extended. It appears that it is not subsequently renovated and there is no jurisdictional bar as described U/s.32 of Rent Control Act, because there is no substantial renovation and there is no new assessment for the building. So, the question of attracting Rent Control Act does not arise and if the above said factors are remembered, the plaintiff has demanded the defendant to vacate the premises by the end of June, 2010, i.e., after completion of 2 years tenancy period validly. It is also not the contention of defendant, it is renovated subsequently.

So, in these circumstances I am in view that under Ex.A5 notice the plaintiff has rightly determined the tenancy of the defendant. Thus, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

8.ISSUE NO.2:-

Absolutely, the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Exs.A1 and A7 are disclosing that he is Senior citizen and suffering with knee joint pains.

10 Apart from that, if the entire chief-examination of PW.1 is observed including Ex.A5, it has been disclosing that the plaintiff is in dire need of ground floor and being a landlord/owner, absolutely the plaintiff/landlord has every right to choose his premises where he has to reside and the tenant has no manner of right to dictate terms to the landlord. If really, the plaint schedule property is not convenient to defendant, the defendant has no necessity to squat on the property and he has every chance to vacate it.

Absolutely, there is no written agreement in between the plaintiff and defendant as above discussed and after completion of the lease period, the defendant has no right to squat on the property of the landlord and the landlord has every right to reside in his ground floor after duly evicting the defendant from the ground floor portion when he is suffering with knee joint pains and Court did not find any oblique motive in the contention of plaintiff. As such, there is duty cast upon the tenant to vacate the premises and hand over the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff/landlord.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the above discussion made above, I am in view that the plaintiff has proved the reasons assigned in Ex.A5 that he is in dire need of plaint schedule property. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff.

9.ISSUE NO.3:-

IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff:

1)The defendant is directed to vacate the plaint schedule premises and to deliver its vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff within Two months from the date of this Judgment;

2)Each party is directed to bear their own costs.

11

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 30th day of April, 2012.

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiff:Defendant:

PW1: Chimakurthi Vallabhai PatelDW.1 : Maddi Venkata Siva PW2: Atukuru Satyanarayanamma Hari Prasad DW.2 : Gottipulla Krishna

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 : Pension Identity card to confirm the age of PW.1 Ex.A2 : Valuation certificate for the purpose of assessment of rental value, dt.1.10.1992 Ex.A3 : Municipal plan approved by the Municipal authority, Dt.1.10.1992 Ex.A4 : Letter addressed by the defendant along with Xerox copy of Demand draft, dt.7.5.2011 Ex.A5 : Office copy of legal notice issued by PW.1 to the defendant, Dt.18.5.2011 Ex.A6 : Reply notice got issued by the defendant to PW.1, dt.26.5.2011 Ex.A7 : Medical record belongs to PW.1 and his wife (15 pages) Ex.A8 : Security gate order given by worker, dt.2.4.2011 Exs.A9: to A14: Photos along with CD Ex.A15: Receipts pertaining to plaint schedule property to show previous tenant paid Rs.3,750/- to plaint schedule property (28 receipts in number) Ex.A16: Served copy of the plaint in OS.No.353/2011 on the file of I Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada Ex.A17: Certified copy of Judgment in OS.353/2011

Defendant:

Exs.B1: Photographs along with CD pertaining to plaint schedule to B5 : property Ex.B6 : Photographs along with CD (6 in number) Ex.B7 : Receipt No.89 issued by Vijayawada City Commissioner along with Photostat copy of report given by DW.1, dt.25.3.2012

II AJCJ, VJA.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: VIJAYAWADA

Present: KUM L.ANNAPURNA SRI, M.A., M.L.,

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

Friday, this the 4th day of May, 2012

O.S.NO.296/2011

Between:

Koppuravuri Venkata Ramanjaneyulu ..Plaintiff.

And

Inti Deva Karunakara Rao …Defendant.

This suit coming on 25-4-2012 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri U.R.P.Srinivas, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri B.Sambasiva Rao, Sri Ch.Ravi Kumar, Sri G.Jayaram, Advocates for the defendant and upon the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The plaintiff filed the suit seeking for (a) ejecting the defendant from the plaint schedule tenement and for surrender of unconditional possession of the same to the plaintiff; (b) directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- towards arrears of rent; c) directing the defendant to pay damages at Rs.8,000/- p.m., together with interest at 12% p.a., from the date of filing the suit for unauthorized use and occupation of plaint schedule tenement and (d) costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments in the plaint are as follows:

That the plaintiff is the landlord and the defendant is tenant from month to month in the RCC roofed ground floor constructed in D.No.1-4/3- 20/2, which is plaint schedule tenement. After the plaintiff has purchased the plaint schedule property from the defendant under a registered Sale

Deed, dt.13.7.2010, as a temporary adjustment to seek an alternative accommodation, the defendant joined as a tenant from month of month on a monthly rent of Rs.4,000/- per month, during the month of July, 2 2010. The corresponding tenancy month starts from 1st to 1st of succeeding month. The plaintiff used to pass receipts for the rent paid towards the plaint schedule tenement, whereas the defendant used to acknowledge the receipts on the counter-foils.

Since 1.12.2010 the defendant is not paying the rents and thereby committed default in payment of rents. Despite repeated demands, the defendant has been postponing the payment of arrears of rent. Apart from the default the defendant is mis-utilizing the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff got issued a registered notice, dt.10.2.2011 to the defendant calling upon him to surrender the vacant possession of the plaint schedule tenement by the end of tenancy month, i.e., 28.2.2011, after paying the arrears of rent. The defendant evaded to receive the said notice and received the notice sent under certificate of posting and the defendant failed to comply the demand. If the defendant surrenders the vacant possession of the property, he might have get an amount of

Rs.8,000/-, which is modest claim having regard to the prevailing rates of rent in the neighbourhood. Hence, the same is claimed towards damages for his unauthorized use and occupation. Hence, the suit.

3.Per contra, the defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiff by filing written statement and contended that the allegations in the plaint are all false. This defendant is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff deliberately suppressed the truth to the Hon’ble

Court. The defendant is not the tenant of the plaintiff. In fact, the defendant obtained loan of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest at 30% p.a., i.e.,

Rs.2.50 per month per hundred and the said loan was arranged by the brokers by name Palakollu Balakrishna Reddy and B.Satya Surya Kiran. At that time, the plaintiff obtained the signatures of this defendant on some white papers and at the instance of the plaintiff, he executed a Sale Deed as security for the loan obtained by him. The defendant had no intention to sell and the plaintiff had no intention to buy the suit schedule property.

3 The plaintiff with a view to have illegal and unlawfully grab the suit schedule property and got filed this suit with a view to have illegal and unlawful gain for himself and thereby to cause much loss and harassment to him. The plaintiff never issued any notice prior to filing of the suit.

Hence, suit is liable to be dismissed.

4.Basing on the respective pleadings of both the parties to the suit, the following Issues were settled for trial:

1) Whether there is a Jural relationship in between plaintiff and defendant?

2) Whether plaintiff has validly terminated the tenancy of defendant?

3) Whether the Quit notice, dt.10.2.2011 is valid and binding on the defendant ?

4) Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover vacant possession of property from the defendant?

5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover arrears of rent of Rs.12,000/- from defendant?

6) To what relief ?

5.During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and on his behalf and exhibited A1 to A5. Whereas, the defendant examined himself as DW.1 on his behalf and no documents were exhibited.

6.Heard the plaintiff.

7.ISSUE NOs.1 to 4:-

As these issues are inter-linked, this Court inclined to discuss them jointly.

The specific contention of the plaintiff is that he is the landlord and the defendant is tenant from month to month in the RCC roofed ground floor constructed (plaint schedule property). The plaintiff has purchased the plaint schedule property from the defendant under a registered Sale 4 Deed, dt.13.7.2010, as document No.3510/2010 for cash consideration.

As temporary adjustment to seek an alternative accommodation, the defendant joined as a tenant from month of month on a monthly rent of

Rs.4,000/- per month during the month of July, 2010. The plaintiff used to pass receipts for the rent paid towards the plaint schedule tenement, whereas the defendant used to acknowledge the receipts on the counter- foils.

Since 1.12.2010 the defendant is not paying the rents and committed default in payment of rents. In spite of repeated demands made by on behalf of plaintiff, the defendant has been postponing the advent of payment of arrears of rent as well as rents payable to the plaint schedule tenement on one pretext of the other. The plaintiff got issued a registered notice on 10.2.2011 to the defendant calling him to surrender the vacant possession of the plaint schedule tenement by the end of tenancy month, i.e., 28.2.2011, after paying the arrears of rent. The defendant evaded to receive the said notice and received the notice sent under certificate of posting. There are absolutely no bonafides on the part of the defendant in not surrendering the vacant possession of the plaint schedule tenement ad in committing default in payment of rents towards the schedule tenement. In case of defendant’s surrendering the vacant possession of the plaint schedule tenement, he might have get an amount of Rs.8,000/-, which is modest claim having regard to the prevailing rates of rent per mensum in the neighbourhood.

But the contention of the defendant is that, he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. The defendant is not the tenant of the plaintiff. In fact, the defendant obtained loan of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest at 30% p.a., i.e., Rs.2.50 per month per hundred and the said loan was arranged by the brokers by name Palakollu Balakrishna Reddy and B.Satya Surya Kiran. At that time, the plaintiff obtained the signatures of him on some white papers. At the instance of the plaintiff, 5 he executed a Sale Deed as security and he had no intention to sell and the plaintiff had no intention to buy the suit schedule property. The plaintiff with a view to have illegal and unlawfully grab the suit schedule property and got filed the suit with a view to have illegal and unlawful gain for himself and thereby to cause much loss and harassment to the defendant. There is no cause of action for the suit and the plaintiff never issued any notice prior to filing of the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

In order to establish the claim of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and he has reiterated the above said facts in his evidence and exhibited A1, i.e., office copy of registered notice got issued by the Plaintiff to the defendant, dt.10.2.2011. A2 is returned cover of A1.

A3 is certificate of posting form and A4 are counterfoils/receipts (5 in number) and A5 is marked through DW.1, in his cross-examination.

In order to disprove the contention of the plaintiff, on behalf of the defendant, the defendant himself examined as DW.1 and he has also reiterated his contentions in his evidence and no documents are exhibited by the defendant.

PW.1 in his evidence has stated that he is the landlord and the defendant is tenant from month to month in the RCC roofed ground floor constructed in D.No.1-4/3-20/2, which is plaint schedule tenement. After he has purchased the plaint schedule property from the defendant under a registered Sale Deed, dt.13.7.2010, as a temporary adjustment to seek an alternative accommodation, the defendant joined as a tenant from month of month on a monthly rent of Rs.4,000/- per month, during the month of July, 2010. The corresponding tenancy month starts from 1st to 1st of succeeding month. He used to pass receipts for the rent paid towards the plaint schedule tenement, whereas the defendant used to acknowledge the receipts on the counter-foils. Since 1.12.2010 the defendant is not paying the rents and thereby committed default in 6 payment of rents. Despite repeated demands, the defendant has been postponing the payment of arrears of rent. Apart from the default the defendant is mis-utilizing the plaint schedule property. He got issued a registered notice, dt.10.2.2011 to the defendant calling upon him to surrender the vacant possession of the plaint schedule tenement by the end of tenancy month, i.e., 28.2.2011, after paying the arrears of rent.

The defendant evaded to receive the said notice and received the notice sent under certificate of posting and the defendant failed to comply the demand.

From the above reading of his evidence, it reveals that he has terminated the tenancy of defendant under Ex.A1, dt.10.2.2011. On perusal of Ex.A1, it reveals that, “since 1st December, 2010 the defendant is not paying the rents and committed default in payment of rents and thereby plaintiff called upon to vacate the leasehold tenement w.e.f., the expiry of fortnight from the receipt of notice and by the end of 28th

February, 2011”.

But the contention of the defendant is remembered, he contends that he is not tenant of the plaint schedule property and there is no jural relationship in between him and plaintiff as landlord and tenant.

But on perusal of Ex.A4 counter foil receipts filed by the plaintiff, the counter foil receipts contain the signature of the defendant. On this aspect, DW.1 after going through the counter foil receipts, he admitted his signature on the counter foil receipts. Further, he has stated that the plaintiff has given only two receipts and the signature on other three counter foil receipts, dt.1.10.2010, 1.11.2010 and 1.12.2010 appears to be belongs to him. The admission of DW.1 that the plaintiff gave two receipts to him infers that the defendant agreed to pay the rent amount of Rs.4,000/- per month towards rent. If the defendant is not tenant of plaint schedule property, obviously Ex.A4 will not be in picture. The oral evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.A1 and admission of DW.1 proves the 7 landlord and tenant relationship in between the plaintiff and defendant and the admission of DW.1 coupled with Ex.A4 not only establishes the jural relationship in between the plaintiff and defendant, but also it proves the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant has agreed to pay the rent at Rs.4,000/- per mensum towards rent.

Even though, the defendant is denying the execution of Ex.A5, so far he did not take any steps for cancellation of Ex.A5. On this aspect,

DW.1 during the cross-examination, he categorically admitted, Ex.A5 Sale

Deed for consideration amount of Rs.9,09,000/-. But the defendant did not produce any documentary proof or any other supporting evidence in order to establish that originally he received an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- towards loan and Ex.A5 is executed as security for the above said amount. Except self-made statement of DW.1, there is no authenticated proof that the defendant executed Ex.A5 as security. So, absolutely there is no authenticated proof to believe that the defendant has executed

Ex.A5 as security to the amount availed by him from the plaintiff.

The contention of plaintiff is that, he has terminated the tenancy of defendant under Ex.A1 validly. DW.1 states that he does not remember with regard to receiving of original of Ex.A1. But he has categorically stated that the door number which is mentioned in his chief affidavit as well as in the plaint and in Ex.A1 is one and the same. So, it infers that

Ex.A1 is sent to the correct address particulars of the defendant. As seen from Ex.A2, intimation was served, but the defendant did not claim the legal notice issued by the plaintiff. It is well settled law, if notice is sent to the correct address particulars of other party, if it is not claimed, it is sufficient service in the eye of law.

But here, it is very relevant to observe the new fact came into light of Court during the cross-examination of PW.1. He has sold away this property to one Kennedy for an amount of Rs.9,50,000/- and there is no mention with regard to attornment of tenancy of the defendant in the 8 Sale Deed. But PW.1 did not state about this fact, i.e., he purchased it for

Rs.12,50,000/- and sold it for Rs.9,50,000/- in his pleadings. But he did not state when it was sold to the above said Kennedy.

It is not the case of the defendant that prior to filing of the suit itself the plaintiff has sold away this property to Kennedy. Admittedly, the defendant is in use and occupation of the plaint schedule property as tenant. On keen observation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it establishes that the defendant has paid rents to the plaintiff and it is also supported by Ex.A4. As seen from Ex.A4, the defendant paid rents upto 1.12.2010 to the plaintiff. But, PW.1 admittedly lost his control over plaint schedule property. Now, he has no right, interest over the plaint schedule property after he sold away the property to Kennedy. So, undoubtedly he is not entitled for recovery of vacant possession of plaint schedule property.

Even after cross-examination of PW.1 also, he did not incline to add

Kennedy as party to the suit proceedings and did not incline to examine him whether Kennedy has given any authorization to the plaintiff to collect the rents as well as for ejectment of the defendant from the plaint schedule property. Actually, there is no answer from the plaintiff side on this aspect. This Court is totally dissatisfied with regard to the suppression of the material fact by the plaintiff before this Court. Either plaintiff or Kennedy did not issue any notice to the defendant. When the plaintiff is sold away the property to Kennedy, automatically Kennedy steps into shoe of plaintiff. But the Kennedy also did not come on record as party to the suit proceedings. After the plaintiff has sold away the property to Kennedy, issuing of Ex.A1 to defendant, terminating the tenancy of defendant does not hold good and Ex.A1 lost its sanctity in the eye of law.

Absolutely, the plaintiff did not come before the Court with clean hands. He has suppressed the material facts before this Court. Even 9 though, PW.1 has admitted subsequently he sold away the property to

Kennedy and then also there is a suggestion to DW.1 that this property is not sold away to any others. It shows, there is no iota of truth in the contention of the plaintiff.

Once the plaintiff lost interest and right over the property and sold the plaint schedule property to the Kennedy, automatically the plaintiff lost the right of recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property, because he is no way concerned with regard to the plaint schedule property. From the above said discussion, I am in view that, even though

PW.1/plaintiff has sent legal notice to the correct address particulars of the defendant, he has no locus standi to terminate the tenancy of defendant and to recover the vacant possession of plaint schedule property from the defendant. Accordingly, these issues are decided against the plaintiff.

8.ISSUE NO.5:-

The contention of the plaintiff is that the monthly rent amount payable by the defendant is Rs.4,000/-. Since 1.12.2010 the defendant is not paying the rents, thereby committed default in payment of rent.

Despite repeated demands, the defendant did not pay the rent amount to the plaintiff. Absolutely, Ex.A4 also discloses that the rent was paid on 1.12.2010 for the month of November, 2010 and the defendant did not file any receipt subsequent to 1.12.2010 to establish that he paid rent for the month of December, 2010. But the cross-examination of PW.1 revealed that he sold away the property to the person by name Kennedy.

But plaintiff did not clarify when it was sold away to Kennedy and whether

Kennedy has given any authorization to collect rent from the defendant by the plaintiff and plaintiff did not file Sale Deed, to show that whether

Kennedy has agreed to collect rent and on what basis the plaintiff is claiming rent from the defendant.

10 But, the plaintiff’s contention is remembered that, in case the defendant surrenders the vacant possession of the plaint schedule tenement, the plaintiff might have get an amount of Rs.8,000/-, which is modest claim having regard to the prevailing rates of rent per mensum.

But absolutely, the plaintiff did not examine any person in the vicinity to establish that the plaint schedule property fetches Rs.8,000/- per mensum. But after selling away the property, how the plaintiff is entitled for further damages is also not explained by the plaintiff. Absolutely, the plaintiff disinclined to take steps either to produce Sale Deed in between him and Kennedy; or to add the Kennedy as party to proceedings whether

Kennedy authorized him to get evict the defendant from the plaint schedule property and permitted him to collect rent from the defendant/tenant. When the plaintiff came to Court for relief, there is duty cast on him to come with real facts before Court, the verandah’s of

Court are not kept vacant for this type of people who knocks the doors with unclean hands. It infers that there is no iota of truth in the contention of the plaintiff.

In view of the discussions made in the above issues, this Court is in view that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the arrears of rent as claimed by him. As such, this issue is decided against the plaintiff.

9.ISSUE NO.3:-

IN THE RESULT, the suit is dismissed. Each party is directed to bear their own costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 4th day of May, 2012.

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

11 Plaintiff:Defendant:

PW1: Koppuravuri Venkata DW.1 : Inti Deva Karunakara Rao Ramanjaneyulu

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Office copy of registered notice issued by the Plaintiff to the defendant, dt.10.2.2011 - Nil – Ex.A2: Returned cover Ex.A3: Certificate of posting form Ex.A4: Counterfoils signed by the defendant Ex.A5: Certified copy of Sale Deed executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff, dt.13.7.2010

Defendant: Nil.

II AJCJ, VJA.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT:- KUM L.ANNAPURNA SRI, M.A.,M.L. II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

Tuesday, this the 1st day of May, 2012

O.S.NO.222/2012

Between:

Smt Meghna Rohra @ Bindu Achhpeliya Rep. by her GPA and brother-Vishnu Narayan Achhpeliya

..Plaintiff.

And

Potluri Rajesh …Defendant.

This suit coming on 30.4.2012 before me for consideration in the presence of Sri Somu Krishna Murthy, Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, Advocates for plaintiff and the defendant called absent, set exparte and the Court, upon perusing the material on record till this day, delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. The suit for (a) ejecting the defendant from the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to deliver the plaint schedule property in vacant position to the plaintiff; (b) directing the defendant to pay a sum of

Rs.7,000/- as arrears of rent; (c) directing the defendant to pay future damages at Rs.14,000/- per month from the date of suit till the date of vacating the premises; and (d) costs of the suit.

2.The chief affidavit on behalf of plaintiff is filed and the same is taken as chief-examination of PW.1 and Exs.A1 to A3 are marked.

Reported no further evidence. Hence, closed. Heard.

3.In order to establish the contention of plaintiff, PW.1 who is the

General Power of Attorney Holder of plaintiff categorically stated that the monthly rent payable by the defendant/tenant is Rs.7,000/- per month and the defendant has paid a sum of Rs.14,000/- as security deposit and the defendant has paid the monthly rent till the tenancy month of

November, 2011, thereafter he has committed willful default in payment 2 of monthly rent for the month of December, 2011 and the defendant abused him and his father in filthy language and the defendant has deposited an amount of Rs.7,000/- being the rent for the month of

December, 2011 on 10.1.2012 in the account of the plaintiff. In view of the attitude of the defendant, the plaintiff has decided to determine the tenancy of the defendant in the plaint schedule property, thereby got issued quit notice, dt.10.1.2012 terminating the tenancy in the plaint schedule property by the end of tenancy month February, 2012, i.e., mid night of 29.2.2012 and the said notice was returned with an endorsement of ‘intimation’ and he did not chosen to vacate the premises.

4.In support of the oral evidence of PW.1, he has exhibited A1 is the

General Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of PW.1. A2 is Quit notice, dt.10.1.2012and A3 is returned cover relating to A2 with an endorsement that ‘Intimation’, dt.11.1.2012.

5.The defendant is residing as tenant to the plaintiff and the plaintiff has sent legal notice under Ex.A2 to the correct address particulars of the defendant and the plaintiff has reiterated the above said fact in her notice terminating the tenancy and informed the defendant to vacate and hand over the plaint schedule property on expiry of tenancy month of

February, 2012. Wherein, she has also stated that he is liable to pay an amount of Rs.14,000/- as damages for unauthorized use and occupation of the schedule property. Despite intimation is served, the defendant did not claim the quit notice. So, in these circumstances the Court can drawn an inference that it is served upon the defendant.

6.So, the oral evidence of PW.1 coupled with Exs.A2 and A3 is established that the plaintiff has terminated the tenancy of the defendant validly, thereby the plaintiff is entitled to recover the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property and from the evidence of PW.1, it reveals that the defendant as deposited an amount of Rs.7,000/- being the rent 3 for the month of December, 2011 on 10.1.2012 in the account of the plaintiff.

7.So, it establishes the defendant has paid the rent upto the month of

December, 2011. But the evidence of PW.1 further discloses that there is a deposit of Rs.14,000/-, which has to be repaid without interest at the time of vacating the plaint schedule property. When there is a deposit amount is lying with plaintiff, he can recover the rent payable by the defendant to the plaint schedule property from the deposit amount, and for future damages, she has claimed at Rs.14,000/- per month. But as she did not file any documentary proof to establish that she is entitled future damages at Rs.14,000/- per month, no persons in the vicinity are examined. So, the plaintiff is at liberty to file separate petition for future damages as claimed by her in her suit. As such, this Court disinclined to grant relief on this aspect in favour of the plaintiff.

8.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs partly:

1) The defendant is directed to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff within

One month from the date of this Judgment;

2) The plaintiff is entitled to recover the arrears of rent for the month of February, 2012 from the deposit amount of

Rs.14,000/- kept with plaintiff;

3) The plaintiff is at liberty to file separate application for damages under Order 20, Rule 12 of CPC.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 1st day of May, 2012.

II Addl., Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiff:Defendant:

4

PW.1 : Vishnu Narayan Achhpeliya - None –

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Plaintiff:Defendant:

Ex.A1: General Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of PW.1, dt.29.2.2012 Ex.A2: Quit notice, dt.10.1.2012 - Nil - Ex.A3: Returned cover relating to Ex.A2 with an endorsement that ‘Intimation’, dt.11.1.2012

II AJCJ, VJA.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT:- KUM L.ANNAPURNA SRI, M.A.,M.L. II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

Tuesday, this the 1st day of May, 2012

O.S.NO.695/2011

Between:

Shaik Mahaboobi

..Plaintiff.

And

Mothi Masjid Shaadi Khana Committee, Vijayawada-9, Rep. by its Secretary- Syed Mahaboob Basha …Defendant.

This suit coming on 25.4.2012 before me for consideration in the presence of Sri Syed Kareemulla, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant called absent, set exparte and the Court, upon perusing the material on record till this day, delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.Thesuitforpermanentinjunctionrestrainingthe defendant/committee, their kith and kin, servants, followers, henchmen, agents and all his co-members from on any way, interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff by evicting her forcibly except under due process of law and for costs of the suit.

2.The chief affidavits of plaintiff and her witness are filed and the same are taken as PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A3 are marked. Reported no further evidence. Hence, closed. Heard.

3.Originally, this suit is filed against Mothi Masjid Shaadi Khana

Committee, represented by its Secretary Syed Mahaboob Basha. The plaintiff is doing business of supplying marriage feast samans in the plaint schedule property since her husband died on 18.5.2003 and she is statutory tenant and on 20.7.2011 the defendant and his members and 2 rowdy elements had come to the plaint schedule property and hatched a plan to throw away the supply samans of the plaintiff on the ground.

4.Absolutely, the plaintiff has to establish her possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the date of filing of this suit.

In order to establish the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself examined as PW.1 and she introduced PW.2 in support of her claim. The oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A3 establish that PW.1/plaintiff is conducting the business in the plaint schedule property after the death of the husband of PW.1/plaintiff. Now, the petition schedule property is in use and occupation of the plaintiff.

5.The defendant was originally appeared before this Court engaged

Counsel, subsequently the Counsel appearing in favour of the defendant fled a Memo reporting that, as Committee is changed, he is withdrawing his vakalat, without furnishing any information with regard to new

Committee, as it is not supported by any proof it was dismissed on 17.2.2012.

6.Even assuming that if really, new Committee is formed, automatically the new Committee steps into the shoe of old Committee.

It is well settled law that, the plaintiff can’t be evicted except under due process of law.

7.Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case,

I am inclined to hold that the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for.

8.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendant by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant/committee, their kith and kin, servants, followers, henchmen, agents and all his co-members from on any way, 3 interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff by evicting her forcibly except under due process of law.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 1st day of May, 2012.

II Addl., Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiff:Defendant:

PW.1 : Shaik Mahaboobi - None – PW.2 : Shaik Zakeer Hussain Saheb

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Plaintiff:Defendant:

Ex.A1: Photographs with corresponding - Nil – Negatives (9 in number) Ex.A2: Death certificate of the husband of PW.1, dt.18.5.2003 issued on 7.6.2003 Ex.A3: Lease Agreement, dt.21.1.2006

II AJCJ, VJA.

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT: - KUM L.ANNAPURNA SRI, M.A., M.L.,

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada

Friday, this the 4th day of May, 2012

O.S.No.46/2012

Between:

Canara Bank, Venkateswarapuram Branch, Vijayawada-10, Rep. by its Branch Manager & Principal Officer … Plaintiff. AND 1.Brugumalla Veera Venkata Subrahmanyam 2.Bayana Krishna Prakash …Defendants.

This suit coming on 4.5.2012 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.L.Prasad, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 called absent, set exparte and having stood over the consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The suit for recovery of Rs.43,901/- being the principal and interest due under Personal Loan availed by the 1st defendant, for which DPN along with Take Delivery Letter to DPN, dt.19.4.2006 executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of plaintiff-Bank for Rs.30,000/- towards personal loan, repayable with interest at 14.25% p.a., with monthly rests to be repayable in 36 monthly instalments at Rs.1,030/- p.m., commending from May, 2006 for which the 2nd defendant is co-obligant to the 1st defendant and for costs of the suit. On 23.1.2007 the 1st defendant made last payment of Rs.590/- and acknowledged the debt.

2.The chief affidavit on behalf of the plaintiff-Bank is filed and the same is taken as chief examination of PW.1 and Exs.A1 to A5 are marked. Reported no further evidence, closed. The defendants 1 and 2 called absent, set exparte. Heard.

3.Perused the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A5. Suit claim is proved. Hence, suit is decreed for a sum of Rs.43,901/- with costs and subsequent interest at 12% p.a., from the date of suit till decree and thereafter at 6% p.a., till realization on the principal amount of Rs.42,707/-.

Pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 4th day of May, 2012.

II Addl., Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. -2-

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiff: Defendants:

PW.1 : Puli Rupas - None –

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Plaintiff: Defendants:

Ex.A1: Original demand promissory note executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of Plaintiff Bank, dt.19.4.2006 Ex.A2: Certified copy of account - Nil - Ex.A3: Office copy of notice issued by Plaintiff Bank to the defendants 1 and 2, dt.1.4.2007 Ex.A4: Postal acknowledgment from 1st defendant Ex.A5: Postal acknowledgement from 2nd defendant

II A.J.C.J,

VJA.