IN THE COURT OF THE III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : CITY CIVIL
COURT : HYDERABAD.
PRESENT : SMT. N.MANJULA,
III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.
Dated this the 19th day of April, 2023.
O.S.No.955 OF 2017
Between :
Raja Bahadur Venkata Rama Reddy Educational Society Represented by its Secretary Sri.K.Venkat Reddy, S/o.Sri.K.Mohan Reddy, Having its office at Hanuman Tekdi, Abids, Hyderabad. … Plaintiff AND
1. M/s. Adnock Chemicals, Represented by its Managing Partner, Mr.Haroor Khan, S/o.Khalid Khan, Shop No.11 GF, 4-1-882/1, RBVR Reddy Hostel Shopping Complex, Tilak Road, Hyderabad.
2. Mr.Haroor Khan, S/o.Khalid Khan, Partner of M/s. Adnoc Chemicals, R/o.23-3-664, Sultan Shahi, Hyderabad.
3. Mr. Mohd Muneer Hassan, S/o.Mohd. Hussain, Partner of M/s. Adnoc Chemicals, R/o.23-3-234, Sultan Shahi, Hyderabad. … Defendants
This petition is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.T.Sanjay Rao, Counsel of the Plaintiff, and Sri.Promod Kinhalkar, Counsel of Defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration and after hearing both sides, this court made the following:-
Page 2 OS.No.955 of 2017
J U D G M E N T : : : :
This suit is filed for ejectment and mesne profits.
2.The brief averments made in the plaint are as follows :
The plaintiff is a registered education society, registered under the Public Societies Registration Act, having Registration
No.17/56F. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the shop No.11, ground floor, admeasuring 360 square feet and a Mezzanine Floor of 230 square feet, Municipal No.4-1-882/1, Hanuman Tekdi,
Abids, Hyderabad hereinafter referred to as the plaint schedule property which is morefully described in schedule and the plan annexed to herewith.
3.The suit property was leased out to the defendants in the month of May, 1993 and later a lease agreement dated 25.05.1996 was executed and the defendants have agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs.2,015/- payable on or before 5th of every month, exclusive of water charges, maintenance and electricity charges. The defendants have deposited interest free security deposit of Rs.15,000/- and also three months rental advance of
Rs.5,250/-, which are refundable at the time of vacating and
Page 3 OS.No.955 of 2017
handing over of the premises after deducting amounts due by the defendants.
4.The tenancy was renewed from time to time on the same terms and conditions with increase in the rent and the prevalent rent now is Rs.3,532/-. The tenancy is month to month starting from first day of every month and ends on last day of the month according to the English Calender month. The defendants have been storing explosive materials or chemicals in violating to the terms of lease, which are hazardous and dangerous to the life and safety of other co-tenants. The plaintiff has requested the defendants to vacate the premises through letter dated 28.01.2011 and the defendant No.2 promised the plaintiff that they would run the business in total adherence to the terms of the lease and also agreed that they would enter into a fresh lease deed. Later the plaintiff has also issued another letter, dated 09.02.2011 requesting the defendants to settle the terms and conditions of the lease a fresh but of no avail. As such the plaintiff was forced to issued a legal notice, dated 30.12.2016 terminating the tenancy of the defendants and calling upon them to vacate the suit property and inspite of receipt of the same the defendants
Page 4 OS.No.955 of 2017
have not complied with the notice and on the other they got issued a vague reply notice, dated 31.01.2017.
5.The defendants have failed to comply with the legal notice, dated 30.12.2016 and that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession from the defendants. Hence this suit. The defendants have failed to vacate the premises after the tenancy has been terminated and that the possession of the defendants is illegal and for their illegal use and occupation, the defendants are liable to pay Rs.25,000/- per month towards damages/mense profits from date of termination of the tenancy i.e., from 30.12.2016 till the defendants vacate and handover the suit premises to the plaintiff. Hence this suit.
6. After receipt of summon defendants appeared and the counsel for the defendants filed vakalat. The defendants 1 to 3 appeared and filed written statement. The brief averment of written statement are as follows :
It is submitted that with regard to description of the plaintiff society, no reply required, but with regard to the present
Secretary who is representing the society, the plaintiff is put to strict proof that he is the competent person to represent the
Page 5 OS.No.955 of 2017
society, and also to depose in this case, as no specific documents are furnished to this defendant and plaintiff is put to strict proof of that Secretary is permitted by this Court to depose and represent the plaintiff in this case in the absence of Rule 32 petition and
Rule 33 affidavit under Civil Rules of Practice. With regard to the description of the defendants herein it is submitted and defendant
No.2 is not the partner of the defendant No.1 at present in fact the present partner is Mr.Khalid Ahmed, S/o.Gulam Ahmed as such the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the parties.
7.The plaintiff has not filed any document to substantiate their claim that said society is registered as such plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. It is a fact that plaintiff society is the absolute owner of the shop No.11, ground floor admeasuring 360 square feet and a Mezzanine floor of 230 square feet bearing
Municipal No.4-1-882/1, Hanuman Tekdi situated at Abids,
Hyderabad. It is not true and correct to the extent that suit property was leased out to the defendants in the month of May, 1996 under the lease agreement, dated 25.05.1996 on a monthly rent of Rs.2,013/- per month payable on or before 5th of every month exclusive of water charges, maintenance and electricity
Page 6 OS.No.955 of 2017
charges. The fact is that the defendant No.1 has been tenant of suit schedule property since the period from 1991-1992 and has been carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Lab
Systems. It is fact that defendants have deposited interest free security deposit of Rs.15,000/- and also three months rental advance of Rs.5,250/- with the plaintiff, which is refundable at the time of vacating and handing over the vacant possession of the premises, but it is denied that said deposit amount is to be refunded after deducting amounts due by the defendants.
8.It is true to the extent that tenancy is renewed from time to time on the same terms and conditions, but the rents were enhanced under the threat of eviction. It is a fact that the present rent of the suit schedule premises is Rs.3,532/-. It is denied that tenancy is month to month starting from every month and ends on last day of the month according to the English Calendar month explosive material and chemicals nor complied with the notice.
The fact is that these defendants have never done business for selling explosive since inception of tenancy and they are doing so at present. The plaintiffs have issued the legal notice, and that said notice is bad under the law as already the earlier Secretary of
Page 7 OS.No.955 of 2017
the society has undertaken that tenancy shall be for a period of 5 years, as such the notice is premature one, as such on this count also the suit is liable to be dismissed.
9.It is denied that defendants have failed to comply with the legal notice dated 30.12.2016 and that plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession and also the mesne profits from the defendants. The fact is suit is premature one as already the earlier
Secretary has undertaken that tenancy shall be for a period of 5 years as stated supra and thereafter a fresh lease deed will be executed incorporating all the terms and conditions as mutually settled in between the parties. It is denied that tenancy has been terminated and that the possession of the defendants is illegal and that defendants are liable to pay the mense profits @ Rs.25,000/- per month from the date of termination of tenancy till date of vacating and handing over possession of the suit schedule property. This Court cannot fix the damages in the absence of separate proceeding under Order 20 Rule 12 of CPC. The cause of action and no cause of action arose for filing the suit and the dates mentioned are imaginary one and created for the purpose of this case. This Court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief in this case,
Page 8 OS.No.955 of 2017
as already the plaintiffs have undertaken that tenancy shall for a period of 5 more years, as such this suit is not maintainable.
10.The defendants have been storing explosive material or chemicals in violation to the terms of lease, which are hazardous and dangerous to the life and safety of other co-tenants. Since inception of the tenancy i.e., since 1991 the defendant is carrying on business in laboratory equipments and allied profits. That defendants are dealing in laboratory chemicals and since the inception of the tenancy there is no complaint from any person, either in the management of plaintiff society, nor the adjacent shop owners/tenants. It is denied that the plaintiff ha requested the defendants to vacate the premises through letter dated 28.01.2011. It is fact that defendant No.2 has been running the business in total adherence to the terms of the lease since inception of the tenancy and also agreed that they would enter into a fresh lease deed. In fact these defendants are ready and willing to enter into a fresh lease with the plaintiff on the fresh terms which are mutually agreeable to both sides. It is denied that plaintiff had also issued another letter dated 09.02.2011 requesting the defendants to settle the terms and conditions of
Page 9 OS.No.955 of 2017
the lease a fresh. That at the cost of repetition the plaintiff has never sent any letter to the defendants to settle the terms of conditions of lease a fresh, in fact these defendants are now also ready and willing to settle the issue. The fact is that as per the demand of the plaintiff these defendants have increased the rent immediately on the demand of the plaintiff. It is specifically submitted that the plaintiff has undertaken that tenancy shall be renewed for a further period of 5 years from the date of enhancement of the rent and it is also admitted that tenancy will be renewed with the mutual consent of the both the parties by executing the fresh lease deed. As such present suit filed by the plaintiff is premature and liable to be dismissed on this count. The defendants reserves their right to agitate their right by way of separate suit as already the plaintiff has under taken that tenancy will be extended for further period of 5 years. It is denied that defendants failed to come forwards for executing a fresh lease deed, it is denied that defendants have not stopped storing.
Hence, prayer is misconceived and in view of the extended tenancy for a period of 5 more years, as such the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief as prayed by them in the suit, hence it is prayed that suit may be dismissed as termination is premature
Page 10 OS.No.955 of 2017
one and plaintiff is not entitled for eviction of these defendants and mesne profits. Hence, the present suit is dismissed with exemplary costs.
11.On the strength of the above pleadings the following issues are framed for trial.
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the ejectment of the defendant from the suit schedule premises ?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the damages at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per
month towards mesne profits from the
date of the suit to till delivery of
possession of the schedule property to
the plaintiff ?
3. To what relief ?
12.In the trial afforded by the both parties, the then
Secretary of plaintiff society was examined as P.W.1 which was eschewed. The Secretary of the plaintiff society is examined as
P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A13. Ex.A1 is the copy of bye laws, Ex.A2 is the letter of authorization, dated 23.03.2017, Ex.A3 is the letter from plaintiff to defendant No.1, dated 28.01.2011,
Ex.A4 is the letter from the plaintiff, dated 09.02.20111, Ex.A5 is the office copy of legal notice by plaintiff, dated 30.12.2016, Ex.A6
Page 11 OS.No.955 of 2017
is postal receipt, dated 07.01.2017, Ex.A7 is postal receipt, dated 07.01.2017, Ex.A8 is postal receipt, dated 07.01.2017, Ex.A9 is the postal acknowledgment, dated 09.01.2017, Ex.A10 is the postal acknowledgment, dated 09.01.2017, Ex.A11 is the returned postal covers, dated 10.01.2017, Ex.A12 is the reply notice, dated 31.01.2017, Ex.A13 is the original letter of authorization, dated 03.01.2022. G.Sunil Reddy who is the Manager of the plaintiff society who was examined as P.W.3 and Exs.A14 to A18 are marked on his behalf. Ex.A14 is the extract of Board Resolution,
dated 28.07.2012, Ex.A15 is the election proceedings, dated
04.05.2016, Ex.A16 is the letter of authorization, dated 23.03.2017, Ex.A17 is the extract of general body report, dated 26.11.2017, Ex.A18 is the election proceedings, dated 05.08.2019.
13.One of the Partner of the defendant company by name
Kahalid Ahmed was examined as D.W.1. Exs.B1 and B2 are marked through the cross-examination of the P.W.3. Exs.B1 and
B2 are the GST invoices of defendants. One Abdul Rahman Baig is examined as D.W.2. No documents are marked on behalf of the defendants.
14.Heard both sides. Perused the material available on
Page 12 OS.No.955 of 2017
record. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on
AIR 2019 Supreme Court 2665 in Sevoke Properties Ltd.,
vs. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company
Ltd., 2. In SLP © No.27519 of 2014 in Satendra Singh vs. Vinod
Kumar Bhalotia
15.Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for both parties and perusing the record it is seen that the following facts are admitted and disputed by both parties.
Admitted Facts : The Plaintiff society is the landlord and defendant is tenant, suit schedule property was letout to the defendants in the month of May, 1993. Lease agreement was executed on 25.05.1996 and initial rent is Rs.2,015/- . The defendants have deposited interest free security deposit of Rs.15,000/- and three months rental advance amount of Rs.5,250/- and service of legal notice, dated 30.12.2016.
Disputed Facts : The defendant have been storing explosive materials or chemicals, in violation to the terms of lease which are hazardous and dangerous to the use and safety of co-tenant.
16.ISSUE No.1 :
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the ejectment
of the defendant from the suit schedule
premises ?
The learned counsel for the plaintiff would argued that the plaintiff society is landlord and the suit schedule property was
Page 13 OS.No.955 of 2017
letout to the defendants in the year 1993 and later lease agreement was executed on 25.05.1996 with rent of Rs.2,015/-.
Now the present rent is Rs.3,532/- and it is month to month, the defendants have been storing explosive material in violating the terms of lease, as such the plaintiff have got issued letters under
Exs.A3 and A4 dated 28.01.2011 and 09.02.2011 with a request to vacate the presmises and also to settle the terms and conditions of the lease as a fresh. but the defendant failed to comply the letters as such the plaintiff was forced to issue legal notice under
Ex.A5 on 30.12.2016 by terminating the tenancy of the defendant and calling upon them to vacate the suit schedule property.
Inspite of that defendant failed to complied notice under Ex.A5.
Further argued that in a suit for eviction issuance of notice under
Section 106 of T.P.Act is not necessary where the tenancy is terminable from month to month.
17.To shore up their contention, Secretary of the plaintiff society is examined as P.W.2 and filed chief-affidavit in lieu of examination in chief by asserting all material averments of the plaint. In support of their contention, he got marked Exs.A1 to
A13. Ex.A1 is the copy of bye laws, Ex.A2 is the letter of
Page 14 OS.No.955 of 2017
authorization, dated 23.03.2017, Ex.A3 is the letter from plaintiff to defendant No.1, dated 28.01.2011, Ex.A4 is the letter from the plaintiff, dated 09.02.20111, Ex.A5 is the office copy of legal notice by plaintiff, dated 30.12.2016, Ex.A6 is postal receipt, dated 07.01.2017, Ex.A7 is postal receipt, dated 07.01.2017, Ex.A8 is postal receipt, dated 07.01.2017, Ex.A9 is the postal acknowledgment, dated 09.01.2017, Ex.A10 is the postal acknowledgment, dated 09.01.2017, Ex.A11 is the returned postal covers, dated 10.01.2017, Ex.A12 is the reply notice, dated 31.01.2017, Ex.A13 is the original letter of authorization, dated 03.01.2022.
18.G.Sunil Reddy who is the Manager of the plaintiff society who was examined as P.W.3 and filed chief-affidavit in lieu of examination in chief by asserting all material averments of the plaint. In support of their contention, he got marked Exs.A14 to
A18. Ex.A14 is the extract of Board Resolution, dated 28.07.2012,
Ex.A15 is the election proceedings, dated 04.05.2016, Ex.A16 is the letter of authorization, dated 23.03.2017, Ex.A17 is the extract of general body report, dated 26.11.2017, Ex.A18 is the election proceedings, dated 05.08.2019.
Page 15 OS.No.955 of 2017
19.In support of his contention, he had placed reliance on
1. In AIR 2019 SC 2664 in Sevoke Properties Ltd.,
vs. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution
Company Ltd., wherein it was held in Para 15 “… once this be the position, there can be no manner of doubt that the position of the respondent on the expiration of the lease was of the tenant at sufferance. In the circumstances, there was no necessity of a notice for the termination of the lease under the provisions of Section
106. The respondent having squarely admitted in its written statement that it was in occupation for a term of fifteen years, that term having expired, the lease stood determined by efflux of time. Once the lease stood determined by efflux of tie, there was no necessity for a notice of termination under Section 106”.
2. In SLP © No.27519 of 2014 in Satendra Singh vs. Vinod Kumar Bhalotia wherein it was held in para No.10 “Now, we shall deal with the second contention. Insofar as the plea under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is concerned, it was the assertion of the respondent/landlord, that there was a fixed term tenancy under the rent agreement dated 01.08.1981 too June, 1982, and that, on the expiry of the express terms of term of tenancy depicted in the rent agreement, the petitioner did not remain the respondents tenant. It was submitted, that on the expiry of the rent agreement, the petitioner was truly a trespasser. Accordingly, no notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was required to be issued by the respondent/landlord, before filing the suit for the eviction of the petitioner.
20.On the otherhand, the learned counsel for the defendant admitted the jural relationship and contended that the defendants are paying the rents regularly. Further argued that the
Page 16 OS.No.955 of 2017
defendants have never done business for selling explosives since inception of the tenancy to till date. Further argued that the legal notice which was issued byt he plaintiff under Ex.A5 is bad under the law and as already the earlier Secretary of the
Society has undertaken that the tenancy shall be for a period of 5 years, as such the notice is premature one.
21.In support of his contention, one Kahalid Ahmed who is partner of the defendant firm was examined as D.W.1 and filed chief-affidavit in lieu of examination in chief by reiterating the contents in written statement. Exs.B1 and B2 are marked through the cross-examination of the P.W.3. Exs.B1 and B2 are the GST invoices of defendants. One Abdul Rahman Baig is examined as
D.W.2 and filed chief-affidavit in lieu of examination in chief by stating that the defendant firm sell all the chemical required in the laboratory, which are used for cleaning houses. They never sell the chemicals which are harmful and hazardous and dangerous to the human life. Further the defendants are carrying on said business by obtaining the valid license.
22.In cross-examination of the P.W.2, it is elicited that the property was let out to M/s.Adnoc Chemicals. Further admitted
Page 17 OS.No.955 of 2017
that in the year 2013 they have enhanced the rents, thereafter there is no enhancement of rent. After filing of the case also they have not enhanced rent of the suit schedule property. At present the rate of rent of schedule of property is Rs.3,532/- per month.
Further elicited that they do not have any proof to substantiate their claim that defendant is storing explosive material in the schedule property. He admitted that there is no explosive material found in defendant No.1 shop nor there was any complaint with respective defendant No.1 shop. Further admitted that the allegations made in the termination notice that explosive material in the defendant No.1 is not correct. He denied the suggestion that notice of the termination is not proper and this Court has no jurisdiction to try the case as the tenancy is not covered under
Section 106 of T.P.Act. Further denied the suggestion that the suit is premature as earlier Secretary as undertaking to enhance the period of tenancy for 5 more years.
23.During cross-examination of P.W.3, it is elicited that at present the defendants are paying Rs.3,532/- as rent. Further elicited that they have not filed any documentary proof to show that the defendants are storing explosive materials and chemicals
Page 18 OS.No.955 of 2017
which are hazardous and dangerous to the life and safety of co- tenants. Except this nothing could be elicited to discredit the testimony of the P.W.2 and P.W.3.
24.During the cross-examination of the D.W.1, it is elicited that the suit schedule property was leased out to him in the year 1992. The suit property mulgi No.11 and the area is around 360 square feet. The defendant firm is a partnership firm there are 2 partners Mohd. Muneer Hussain and Kahalid Ahmed. The another partner Mr.Mohd. Muneer Hussain is aware about the filing of the suit for eviction and with his consent he is deposing as a witness in the case. Further admitted that the lease executed in the year 1993 was for a period of 3 years and the lease comes to the end in the year 1996. Further admitted that with the lease deed entered into 25.05.1996 was for a term of 5 years commencing from 01.05.1996 and expiring on 30.04.2001. Further elicited he does not remember whether they have entered into a fresh lease after 30.04.2001. Further admitted that the plaintiff has been requesting him for execution of fresh lease deed but the same could not happen for some reasons. Further he admitted receiving the legal notice, dated 30.12.2016. He denied the suggestion that
Page 19 OS.No.955 of 2017
he is storing explosive material or chemical in violation of the terms of the lease which are hazardous and dangerous to the life and property of other co-tenants. Further denied the suggestion that there was no understanding between the plaintiff and defendant for extension of the lease for the period of 5 years. He admitted that he has not filed any documents in support of his contention.
25.It is settled law that in a suit for eviction compliance of
Section 106 of T.P.Act is statutory required.
26.In the instant case, there is no lease agreement in between the plaintiff and defendant, it is a oral tenancy and it is month to month.
27.While arguing the matter the learned counsel for the defendant argued that after institution of the suit and after issuance of quite notice the plaintiff society is receiving the rents.
Therefore, the tenancy is deemed to be subsisting and as such the quite notice is invalid. On the otherhand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff would argued that they have received the rents under protest and without prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff.
Page 20 OS.No.955 of 2017
28.But, in my view, acceptance of rent after the issuance of quite notice does not amount to giving assent for the continuance of the tenancy. In K.S.Abdullah vs. S.Srinivasa (1971 (1) MLJ 385) , the Hon'ble Madras High Court had an occasion to deal with similar situation. In that case also, the landlord accepted rent after the issuance of quite notice. Similar contention as is raised in the present case was raised on behalf of the tenant therein. The Hon'ble Madras High Court on an interpretation of the provisions of Section 113 of the Transfer of property act held that "The plain language of section 113, indicates that a waiver does not ipso facto result from any act of omission or commission on the part of the lessor, but the act must be such as clear evidence of lessor's intention to treat the lease as subsisting which is the predominant and deciding factor in bringing about a waiver and not any particular act by itself. Illustration (a) must, therefore, be understood and applied in consonance with the principle underlying the section with due reference to the intention of the lessor. There is no warrant for the view that mere receipt of rent, whatever may be the intention of the lessor, should of its own force, divorced from the circumstances of the case, be regarded as amounting to a waiver. Illusions are useful as aids to construction and for securing the proper meaning of the Section. The preponderance of the weight of judicial authority is that in addition to the receipt of rent by the landlord there should be proof that the this case the evidence is not specific as to whether the landlord received any rent due for the premises after the expiration of the notice with an
Page 21 OS.No.955 of 2017
intention to treat the lease as subsisting, before the filed the eviction petitions. I am of the view that on the facts of this case it is not possible for the petitioner to invoke the aid of Section 113 of the Transfer of Property Act".
29.As per the above judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High
Court, in addition to the receipt of rent by the landlord there should be proof that the receipt was with an intention to treat the lease subsisting and such an intention should be established by the tenant by producing evidence, and in the absence of evidence to the said effect it is not possible to hold that the acceptance of rent by landlord amounts to waiving the quit notice. Consequently, the Hon'ble Madras High Court negatived the contention which is raised by the tenant. In my considered view, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Madras High Court applicable to this case. In the instant case also, there is no iota of evidence adduced by the defendants/tenants showing the circumstances, which would indicate that the landlords accepted the rent only with an intention to continue the tenancy. The fact that evenafter the acceptance of rent by the landlords (plaintiffs) , the landlords did file the present suit for eviction gives rise to a clear indicates that landlords had never shows any intention either expressly or even impliedly to continue the tenancy. Therefore, I do not find force in
Page 22 OS.No.955 of 2017
the contention of the defendants that acceptance of rent after issuance of quit notice amounts to giving assent to the continuance of the lease.
30.The learned counsel for the defendant vehemently argued that the earlier Secretary has given undertaking that tenancy schedule for a period of 5 years, as such, the notice is premature one.
31.In support of his contention, he has not filed any undertaking which was alleged to be given by the earlier
Secretary. In absence of any proof this Court cannot come to a conclusion that the earlier Secretary has given undertaking of tenancy for a period of 5 years. Moreover, during the cross- examination of the D.W.1 it was elicited that he does not remember whether they have entered into a fresh lease after 30.04.2001.
32.This Court can safely presume that no fresh lease deed was executed after 30.04.2001 and tenancy is month to month.
Further contention of the defendant is that they never stored any hazardous chemicals in the suit schedule property, they are
Page 23 OS.No.955 of 2017
carrying business in laboratory equipments and allied products, as such, the quite notice under Ex.A5 is not valid.
In 2003 (3) Supreme 701 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "an objection as to validity or infirmity of notice under Section 106 of T.P.Act should be raised specifically and at the earliest, or else it will be deemed to have been wait even if there exist one".
33.The said observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is applicable to the facts of the case. The defendant in my view make an attempt to attacking the validity of the quit notice under
Ex.A5. Therefore, the challenge made by the defendant as to the validity of notice under Ex.A5 in this case, is not tenable.
34.Defendant further contended that the defendant is neither defaulted for payment of the rent nor storing any explosive materials or chemicals in violation of the terms of the lease which is hazardous and dangerous to the life and safety of other co-tenants. Further all the products are in packed conditions and there is no question of there-being hazardous or dangerous to the life and safety of the defendants. Further pleaded that non- execution of the lease deed is not a ground for eviction. The said contention could have been appreciated had the suit been instituted under the provisions of the Rent Control Act. When the
Page 24 OS.No.955 of 2017
landlord is bound to prove one of the ground as envisaged under
Section 10 of Rent Control Act before seeking eviction of the tenant.
35.But in a suit for eviction, instituted under the provisions of Section 106 of T.P.Act the landlord is not required to prove any such grounds for seeking eviction.
36.There is no dispute that the subject matter of the suit, is governed by the provisions of T.P.Act.
37.According to the plaintiff, the defendants are an undesirable tenant and he does not want to continue the defendants no longer as his tenant in the suit premises.
38.In the instant case, admittedly, the lease is month to month and is not for agricultural or manufacturing purpose, hence, 15 days notice is sufficient to terminate the lease. Admittedly, the plaintiff had issued notice under Section 106 of T.P.Act under
Ex.A5 on 30.12.2016 by terminating the lease by giving 15 days time and asking the defendant to vacate the suit schedule property. It is not the case of the defendant that Ex.A5 quit notice suffers from any default or that it does not satisfy the
Page 25 OS.No.955 of 2017
requirements under Section 106 of T.P.Act, the only contention of the defendant is that non-execution of the lease deed is not a ground for eviction.
39.In the instant case, the D.W.1 in his cross-examination admitted that he has received the notice.
40.Basing on admission of the D.W.1 and facts this Court can safely presumed that Notice under Section 106 was properly served upon the defendants and it is a valid notice.
41.Therefore, in my view the contention arised by the defendants are not germane for consideration in the present suit.
42.In a suit for eviction, the only question is whether the notice of termination is valid or not. The plaintiff is able to show that the termination notice in this case is valid. The same is sufficient for the plaintiff to seek eviction of the defendant.
43.In the circumstances, there cannot be any hesitation to hold that the defendant liable to be evicted from the suit schedule premises as prayed for by the plaintiff. This issue is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff holding that plaintiff is entitled
Page 26 OS.No.955 of 2017
for relief of eviction of the defendant from the suit schedule premises.
42.ISSUE No.2 :
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the
damages at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month
towards mesne profits from the date of the suit
to till delivery of possession of the schedule
property to the plaintiff ?
It is the case of the plaintiff is that he is entitled to the mesne profits @ Rs.25,000/- per month from the defendant from the date of termination of tenancy till the vacant possession of the premises is handed over to the plaintiff. The main contention plaintiff is that the suit premises would fetch rent of Rs.25,000/- per month. In support of his contention he is examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 by reiterating the contents of plaint. In the present case during the cross-examination of the D.W.1 he himself admitted that the suit property might fetch monthly rent of RS.15,000/- to
Rs.20,000/- in the area where it is located. Further admitted that he has received the legal notice dated 30.12.2016, but he has not issued reply notice. On perusal of the entire record, it is not the case of the defendant is that they were not in the possession of the suit schedule property, still they have been running business
Page 27 OS.No.955 of 2017
in the suit schedule property. It is settled law that admitted facts need not be proved.
43.In the present case, the plaintiff is claiming mesne profits @ Rs.25,000/- per month from the date of termination of the notice till handing over the possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. In view of the findings in issue No.1 the notice dated 30.12.2016 under Ex.A3 is valid.
44.In view of the above discussions and facts this Court can safely presumed that the rents would fetch @ Rs.15,000/- per month. Hence the plaintiff is entitled for the mesne profits @
Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of termination of tenancy till handing over the possession.
45.On perusal of the record, it is admitted facts that the defendants have deposited security deposit for an amount of
Rs.15,000/- and also 3 months rental advance of Rs.5,250/- which are refundable, at the time of vacating and handing over the premises after deducting the amounts due by the defendants.
Hence, the defendants are at liberty to deduct the amounts i.e,
Rs.15,000/- and Rs.5,250/- from the mesne profits amount and
Page 28 OS.No.955 of 2017
pay the balance amount to the plaintiff. This issue is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff holding that plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits.
46.ISSUE No.3 :
To what relief ?
In view of the findings in issue Nos.1 and 2, the plaintiff is entitled for the eviction and mesne profits.
47.In the result, the suit is decreed with cost in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants, by directing the defendants to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property within 2 months from today i.e., from the date of the order and also directed to pay the mesne profits @ Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of termination of the notice i.e., 30.12.2016 to till handing over the vacant possession to the plaintiff.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant directly on the
computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of April, 2023.
III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.
Page 29 OS.No.955 of 2017
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witness examined
For Plaintiff :
P.W.1 : K.Venkat Reddy, (Eschewed), P.W.2 : K.Matta Reddy, P.W.3 : G.Sunil Reddy,
FOR DEFENDANTS :
D.W.1 : Kahalid Ahmed, D.W.2 : Abdul Rahman Baig, Documents Marked
For Plaintiff :
Ex.A1 : Copy of bye laws, Ex.A2 : Letter of authorization, dated 23.03.2017, Ex.A3 : Office copy of the legal notice by plaintiff,
dated 31.12.2016,
Ex.A4 : Postal receipts, dated 07.01.2017, Ex.A5 : Postal receipts, dated 07.01.2017, Ex.A6 : Postal acknowledgment, dated 11.01.2017, Ex.A7 : Postal acknowledgment, dated 11.01.2017, Ex.A8 : Letter of authorization, dated 03.01.2021, Ex.A9 : Extract of Board Resolution, dated 28.07.2012, Ex.A10 : Election proceedings, dated 04.05.2016, Ex.A11 : Letter of authorization, dated 23.03.2017, Ex.A12 : Extract of General Body report, dated 26.11.2017, Ex.A13 : Election proceedings, dated 05.08.2019.
For Defendant:
NIL
III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.