Dr. S.Rajani

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XI-ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

KRISHNA AT GUDIVADA.

Present: Dr. Smt. Sattaru Rajani.,

X-Addl. District Judge-Cum-Special Sessions Judge,

Krishna, Machilipatnam

FAC XI Addl.District Judge, Gudivada.

Tuesday, this the 9 th day of April, 2019

ORIGINAL SUIT No.23/2018

Between:

M/s.K.R.K.Build Well Developers, Guntur, rep. by its Managing Partner Karpurapu

Ramakrishna Murthy. .... Plaintiff

A N D

Sri Sai Krishna Education Society, rep. by its Secretary/Correspondent

Pamarthy Veera Nageswara Rao .... Defendant

This suit is coming on 29.03.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence

of Sri S.V.Panduranga Rao., Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri V.Siva Prasad and Sri D.Satyanarayana., Advocates for defendant and upon perusing the material on record

and after hearing both sides, this court delivered the following:

//J U D G M E N T//

This suit is filed to evict the defendant from the plaint schedule property and to deliver vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff and in case of default, to enable the plaintiff to execute the decree through the Court of law for taking delivery of vacant possession of the sameand also to grant a decree for Rs.1,15,50,000/- towards arrears of rent for the period commencing from 1.6.2015 to 28.02.2018 at the rate of Rs.3,50,000/- p.m. and to grant future interest @ 24% p.a. on the said amount of Rs.1,15,50,000/- from the date of the suit, till the date of realisation and also to grant future damages for use and occupation at Rs.7,00,000/- p.m., from 1.3.2018 till the date of delivery of possession and for costs of the suit.

2) The brief facts of the plaintiff case are that :

(i) Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and the defendant has taken the plaint schedule property on lease for a period of five years commencing from 1.6.2015 to 31.5.2020 and to that effect, a Registered Lease Agreement 2 was executed on 29.04.2015 under document No.2059 by incorporating the terms of lease. As per the terms of lease agreement, the defendant agreed to pay a sum of

Rs.3,50,000/- per month towards rent commencing from 1.6.2015 and the same is payable on or before 5th of every calendar month by obtaining acknowledgement.

ii) As per the terms of the lease agreement, the defendant has to pay a sum of

Rs.21,00,000/- to the plaintiff towards advance of rent for a period of six months, on or

before 1.6.2015, but the defendant did not pay a single pie to the plaintiff towards

advance. The plaintiff delivered the plaint schedule property to defendant on 1.6.2015 and since then, the defendant is in possession of the same as a tenant. As per the terms of lease agreement, the rent has to be enhanced @ 10% for every two years. Since the date of inception of lease period, the defendant did not pay any single pie to the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property and defendant committed default in payment of rents willfully. The defendant deliberately violated the term No.20 of lease agreement and did not pay any amount to the plaintiff.

iii) Later, on 29.01.2018 the plaintiff got issued a registered notice to the defendant to his two addresses i.e.,plaint schedule property and to his residential address and both the notices were returned for the reason that the defendant refused to receive the same.

The plaintiff terminated the lease by the end of 28.02.2018 in respect of plaint schedule property, so the defendant has no right to continue in the plaint schedule property from 1.3.2018 as a lessee. Hence the plaintiff filed the suit for eviction of the defendant from the plaint schedule property and also for recovery of arrears of rent from 1.6.2015 to 28.02.2018 @ Rs.3,50,000/- per month and for damages for use and occupation of the same from 1.3.2018 till the date of delivery of the possession of plaint schedule property to the plaintiff @ Rs.7,00,000/- per month and for other reliefs and for costs of the suit.

3) Defendant represented by its Secretary/Correspondent, filed written statement denying the plaint averments. He contended that the lease period is for 10 years commencing from 1.6.2015 to 31.5.2025 for monthly rent of Rs.3,50,000/-, he agreed to pay six months rent in advance i.e. Rs.21,00,000/- and paid an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.14,00,000/- is to be paid at the time of taking possession 3 of the building by the defendant. Subsequently on 29.04.2015 at the time of execution of rent agreement, the plaintiff received balance amount of Rs.14,00,000/- from the defendant and the said rent agreement is registered in the office of S.R.O. Vuyyuru under

Doc.No.2059/2015. At that time, plaintiff and father-in-law of plaintiff requested him not to mention the payment of amount in the registered rent agreement to avoid income tax problems. Believing the version of plaintiff and his father-in-law, he did not mention the same in the said rent agreement. Accordingly he fulfilled the 5th condition of registered rent agreement by paying full amount of Rs.21,00,000/-.

ii) The defendant further contended that at the time of execution of registered rent agreement, the father-in-law of plaintiff also offered his property for lease to the defendant and after negotiations, the defendant also entered into another registered rent agreement with the father-in-law of plaintiff vide document No.2060/2015 on the file of

S.R.O.Vuyyuru. Later he requested the father-in-law of plaintiff to revoke the said registered rent agreement vide document No.2060/2015, as the defendant is not having sufficient strength for running the junior college and convent, for which the father-in-law of defendant agreed for the same and the defendant immediately handed over the premises to the father-in-law of plaintiff.

iii) The defendant further contended that as the plaintiff is residing at Guntur, he requested the defendant to pay monthly rents to his father-in-law and believing the words of plaintiff he has been paying monthly rents to the father-in-law of plaintiff regularly till

February 2018 and there is no need to the defendant to pay any amount towards arrears of rent. He reliably came to know that some software company approached the father-in- law of plaintiff and offered higher rent than the present rent for the plaint schedule property along with other properties. Hence the plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant with false allegations. Hence, the defendant is not liable to pay arrears of rent, interest and future damages and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4) On the strength of above pleadings, the following issues are settled.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of the defendant from the plaint schedule property as prayed for ?

4

2. Whether the defendant committed default in payment of the arrears of rent as pleaded by the plaintiff is true and correct ?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for delivery of vacant possession of the plaint schedule property as prayed for ?

4. Whether the plea of the defendant that he paid advance amount of Rs.21,00,000/- at the time of entering into lease agreement with the plaintiff is true and correct ?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled a decree for a sum of Rs.1,15,50,000/- towards arrears of rent from 1.6.2015 to 28.02.2018 @ Rs.3,50,000/- per month as prayed for?

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled future damages at Rs.7,00,000/- per month for use and occupation of the schedule property from 1.3.2018 till the date of delivery of possession as prayed for ?

7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled future interest at 24% p.a. from the amount of Rs.1,15,50,000/- from the date of the suit till the date of realisation ?

8. Whether the suit property valued for the purpose of Court fee ?

9. Whether there is no cause of action to file the suit ?

10. To what relief?

5) At this juncture, it is relevant to state that after the defendant filed written statement, the plaintiff filed I.A.406/2018 under Order XV-A of Civil Procedure Cod, to direct the defendant to deposit an amount of Rs.1,15,50,000/- towards arrears of rent commencing from 1.6.2015 to 28.02.2018 and continue to deposit the undisputed amount from the date of suit till its disposal. The defendant filed counter in that petition that there are no such arrears up to 28.02.2018 as the defendant paid the same to father-in- law, who is Managing Director of the plaintiff firm.

6) After hearing both sides the then Presiding Officer of this Court allowed the said application, directing the defendant educational society to deposit admitted arrears of rent into the court @ Rs.3,50,000/- per month in respect of plaint schedule property from 1.3.2018 up to 31.10.2018 within one month from the date of order and shall continue to deposit monthly rent of Rs.3,50,000/- on or before every succeeding month from 1.3.2018 till the disposal of suit, failing which the defence of the defendant shall be struck off.

7) Thereafter the defendant did not comply the said direction and did not deposit any amount, as such plaintiff filed another petition in I.A.No.2286/2018 to strike off the defence of the defendant. The said application was also allowed on merits on 22.02.2019. Thus, by virtue of orders of this Court in I.A.No.406/2018 dated 29.10.2018 5 and I.A.No.2286/2018 dt.22.02.2019, the defence of the defendant was struck off. The said orders were not challenged.

8) Hence to prove the case of plaintiff, on behalf of the plaintiff firm its managing partner was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. On behalf of the defendant no oral or documentary evidence is adduced.

9) Heard arguments advanced by the counsel for plaintiff.

Issues No.1 to 10:

10) The defence of defendant was struck down as per the orders in I.A.2286/2018

dated 22.2.2019, when the defendant did not comply the direction to deposit arrears of

rent as ordered by this Court on 29.10.2018 in I.A.No.406/2018. Hence there is no defence, consequently there is no necessity to evaluate the pleadings of defendant.

11) In a suit for eviction, the plaintiff has to establish that the suit schedule property is leased out to the defendant and the defendant is in use and occupation of the plaint schedule property as a tenant. The plaintiff has to establish that the defendant committed default in payment of arrears of rent. Then only the plaintiff will acquire right to file suit even before termination of lease period, in view of the same.

12) Before going to discuss oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff, it is necessary to make a note of admitted facts to find out the crux of the matter to be decided.

i) It is an admitted fact that the defendant educational society took the premises of the plaintiff on lease for five years commencing from 1.6.2015 to 31.05.2020 and both of them entered into a registered lease agreement on 29.04.2015 vide document

No.2059/2015.

ii) It is also an admitted fact that at the time of lease agreement the defendant agreed to pay Rs.3,50,000/- per month towards rent commencing from 1.6.2015 which is payable on or before 5th of every calendar month and obtain a receipt from the plaintiff.

iii) At the time of lease agreement, the defendant agreed to pay Rs.21,00,000/- towards advance i.e. towards six months rent on or before 1.6.2015.

6 iv) The defendant also agreed to enhance rent @ 10% for every two years as per the terms of lease agreement.

v) It is an admitted fact that as per the term No.20 of lease agreement, if the defendant commits default in payment of rent for three consecutive months during the lease period, the lease agreement stands cancelled without any notice and the plaintiff acquires right to initiate legal proceedings to evict the defendant from the schedule property.

13) Now the contention of plaintiff is that, the defendant though entered into lease agreement with the plaintiff agreeing the above said terms and conditions, but did not pay advance amount of Rs.21,00,000/- i.e. rent for a period of six months and failed to pay any rent as agreed after taking possession of schedule property as a tenant. The defendant is in possession of the schedule property as a tenant from 1.6.2015, so far the defendant did not pay any amount and committed default continuously since from the date of inducting the defendant in the schedule premises as a tenant. As the defendant committed default, the plaintiff terminated the lease by the end of 28.02.2018 by issuing a registered notice to the defendant. Hence, the defendant has no right to continue in the schedule property from 1.3.2018 as a lessee and. Hence the plaintiff is entitled for damages of Rs.7,00,000/- per month for use and occupation of schedule premises from 1.3.2018, till the date of delivery of possession, apart from the rent @ Rs.3,50,000/- per month from 1.6.2015 to 28.02.2018.

14) On the other hand, the defendant contends in the written statement that he did not commit any such default in payment of rent or advance amount and he has been paying monthly rents to the father-in-law of plaintiff regularly without fail and paid the same till February 2018. Hence, now the crux of the matter to be decided is, whether the defendant committed any such default in payment of rent as contended by the plaintiff and whether the defendant paid rent regularly to the father-in-law of plaintiff without any default till 28.02.2018. Unless the default is established, the plaintiff will not be entitled to the relief sought in the suit basing on the registered lease agreement which is valid till 31.05.2020 from 1.6.2015.

7

15) As already stated earlier, to prove the case of plaintiff firm, the plaintiff firm relied upon the evidence of PW.1 who is the managing partner of plaintiff firm whose affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination is nothing but repetition of all the plaint averments. He was not cross examined. The plaintiff also relied upon Exs.A1 to A4.

Ex.A1 is original registered lease agreement dated 29.04.2015 executed in between the plaintiff and the defendant for a period of five years from 1.6.2015 to 31.05.2020. Ex.A1 is not in dispute.

ii) Ex.A2 is office copy of legal notice dated 29.01.2018 got issued by the plaintiff firm to the defendant terminating the lease in respect of schedule premises by 28.02.2018 on the ground of willful default and calling upon the defendant to vacate the notice schedule property on or before 28.02.2018 and deliver vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff and to pay Rs.7,00,000/- towards damages for use and occupation of premises from 1.23.2018 till the date of delivery of vacant possession of the same. The defendant is also called upon to pay entire arrears of rent from 1.6.2015 till 28.02.2018 as per the lease agreement.

iii) Ex.A3 is returned un-served postal cover sent to the defendant educational society which was returned with postal endorsement as “refused” Ex.A4 is another returned unserved postal cover sent to the residential address of defendant’s

Secretary/Correspondent, which was returned as “no such addressee”.

16) Though the defendant contended in his written statement that the defendant did not commit any default and defendant paid entire rent to the father-in-law of P.W.1 as per the instructions of P.W.1, apart from payment of advance amount of Rs.21,00,000/- at the time of entering into lease agreement, but he has not placed any proof before the

Court to prove the said payment of rent. When he has taken a plea that he used to pay rents regularly to the father-in-law of P.W.1, there was no explanation from the defendant as to why he did not obtain receipts/acknowledgmentsfrom him.

17) As per condition No.5 advance amount of Rs.21,00,000/- towards six months rent shall be payable by the date of delivery of possession of property and as per condition No.6 the defendant shall pay agreed rate of rent of Rs.3,50,000/- per month on 8 or before 5th of English calendar to 1st party and obtain a regular receipt from the 1st party. But, no such receipts or acknowledgments are filed before the court. Thus, in the absence of any such receipts, the contention of the defendant firm cannot be accepted.

18) Even according to the defendant as per their written statement they paid rent till

February 2018 to the father-in-law of plaintiff. Admittedly Ex.A2 notice was issued terminating the tenancy by 28.02.2018. No proof is placed before the court that the defendant made payment of rent even after that date either to the plaintiff or to father-in- law of P.W.1. As the defence of the defence was struck off as contended under Order

XV-A of C.P.C. as per the order of this Court dated 29.10.2018 and dated 22.02.2019 in

I.A.406/2018 and I.A.2286/2018. Hence the unchallenged testimony of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A4 clearly establishes that the defendant committed default in payment of rent from 1.6.2015 till this day. As such, the plaintiff is entitled to terminate the tenancy of defendant’s firm and is entitled to evict the defendant from the schedule premises, when the defendant failed to deposit arrears of rent as per the directions of this Court under Order XV-A of C.P.C.

19) So also, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of entire arrears of rent of

Rs.1,15,50,000/- from 1.6.2015 to 28.02.2018 i.e. @ Rs.3,50,000/- per month with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realisation.

20) Admittedly the defendant educational society is in occupation of the premises without paying any rent from 1.3.2018 even though a direction was given by this Court.

As per the lease agreement, the defendant firm agreed to enhance rent at the rate of 10% per two years. Hence for use and occupation of the premises after terminating the tenancy, the defendant is liable to pay Rs.5,00,000/- per month towards damages from 1.3.2018 till the date of delivery of possession of the suit schedule property. Hence issues 1 to 10 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

21) In the result, the suit is decreed with costs and that the plaintiff is entitled to evict the defendant from the schedule premises and the defendant is directed to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of plaint schedule property within one month from this 9 day. In case of default, the plaintiff is at liberty to take delivery of vacant possession of plaint schedule property through court of law.

ii) The plaintiff is also entitled for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,15,50,000/- towards arrears of rent for the period commencing from 1.6.2015 to 28.02.2018 @ Rs.3,50,000/- per month; and with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e.

19.03.2018 to till the date of realisation.

iii) The plaintiff is also entitled for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- per month towards damages from the defendant for use and occupation of plaint schedule property from the period commencing from 1.3.2018 till the date of delivery of possession.

Typed to dictation to the Stenographer by me on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 9th day of April, 2019.

X-Addl. District & Spl. Sessions Judge,

Krishna, Machilipatnam

FAC XI-Addl.District Judge, Gudivada.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for plaintiff

P.W.1: Karpurapu Ramakrishna Murthy

Documents marked for plaintiff

Ex.A1: Original registered lease agreement dt.29.4.2015

Ex.A2 Office copy of legal notice dt.29.1.2018

Ex.A3 unserved registered notice of the defendant

Ex.A4 unserved registered notice of the defendant.

Witnesses examined for defendants

None

Documents marked for defendants

nil

X-Addl. District & Spl. Sessions Judge,

Krishna, Machilipatnam

FAC XI-Addl.District Judge, Gudivada.

10

IN THE COURT OF THE XI-ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

KRISHNA AT GUDIVADA.

Present: Dr. Smt. Sattaru Rajani.,

X-Addl. District Judge-Cum-Special Sessions Judge,

Krishna, Machilipatnam

FAC XI Addl.District Judge, Gudivada.

Tuesday, this the 9th day of April, 2019

ORIGINAL SUIT No.23/2018

Between:

M/s.K.R.K.Build Well Developers, Guntur, rep. by its Managing Partner Karpurapu

Ramakrishna Murthy. .... Plaintiff

A N D

Sri Sai Krishna Education Society, rep. by its Secretary/Correspondent

Pamarthy Veera Nageswara Rao .... Defendant

This suit is filed to evict the defendant from the plaint schedule property and to deliver vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff and in case of default, to enable the plaintiff to execute the decree through the Court of law for taking delivery of vacant possession of the sameand also to grant a decree for Rs.1,15,50,000/- towards arrears of rent for the period commencing from 1.6.2015 to 28.02.2018 at the rate of Rs.3,50,000/- p.m. and to grant future interest @ 24% p.a. on the said amount of Rs.1,15,50,000/- from the date of the suit, till the date of realisation and also to grant future damages for use and occupation at Rs.7,00,000/- p.m., from 1.3.2018 till the date of delivery of possession and for costs of the suit.

Suit presented on :19-03-2016.

Value of the suit for relief of recovery of possession of Rs.42,00,000/- and arrears of rent from 1-6-15 to 28-2-18 of Rs.1,15,50,000/- = total of Rs.1,57,50,000/- under section 50(i) of A.P.C.F. and S.V Act on which a court fee of Rs.1,60,426/-is paid here with under section 6 of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose4 on 29-04-2015 when the plaintiff and the defendant together entered into lease agreement in respect of the plaint schedule property and subsequently on the same day when the plaintiff and the defendant executed a registered lease agreement in respect of the plaint schedule property incorporating the terms of lease and subsequently on 1-6-2015 when the plaintiff delivered possession of the plaint schedule property to the defendant and subsequently when the defendant did nt pay the rents payable to the plaintiff according to the terms of the lease and subsequently when the defendant committed willful default in payment of rents violating the agreed terms of lease an subsequently when the defendant did not pay any amount to the plaintiff towards advance according to the terms of the lease and subsequently on 29-1-2018 when the plaintiff got issued a registered notice to the defendant terminating the lease in respect of the plaint schedule property and subsequently when the defendant refused to receive the said notice and subsequently when there is no relationship of lessor an lessee in between the plaintiff and the defendant from 1-3-2018 in view of the termination of the lease by 28-2-2018 issuing registered notice, in Vuyyuru village where the plaint schedule property is situated.

11

This suit is coming on 29.03.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence

of Sri S.V.Panduranga Rao., Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri V.Siva Prasad and Sri D.Satyanarayana., Advocates for defendant and upon perusing the material on record

and after hearing both sides, this court doth order and decree…

i.

that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed; ii.that the plaintiff is entitled to evict the defendant from the schedule premises and the defendant is directed to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of plaint schedule property within one month from this day;

iii.

that in case of default, the plaintiff is at liberty to take delivery of vacant possession of plaint schedule property through court of law;

iv.

that the plaintiff is also entitled for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,15,50,000/- towards arrears of rent for the period commencing from 1-6-2015 to 28-2-2018 @ Rs.3,50,000/- per month and with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of filing of the suit i.e., 19-3-2018 to till the date of realisation.

v.that the plaintiff is also entitled for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- per month towards damages from the defendant for use and occupation of plaint schedule property from the period commencing from 1-3-2018 till the date of delivery of possession; vi.That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,60,748/- towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 9th day of April, 2019.

X ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

MACHILIPATNAM.

FAC/XI ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

GUDIVADA.

Memorandum of costs.

Sl.No. Description Plaintiff Defendant

1 Stamp on power 2-00 --

2. Stamp on plaint 1,60,426-00 --

3. Process fee 120-00 --

4. Stamp on -- -- petitions

5. Advocate fee 1,00,000-00 --

6. Typing charges. 100-00 -- 7 Writing charges 100-00 -- Total 2,60,748-00 --

S C H E D U L E

Property situated in Vuyyuru Village, Vuyyuru Panchayat and Mandal,

Vuyyuru Sub Registry, Krishna District.

12 House site of an extent of1341.4 sq.Yards together with terraced building therein bearing D.No.8/305-1,2 consisting of 5 floors and the same is situated within the following boundaries.

East & South : Panchayat Bazar.

West : joint bazaar.

North : property of Nukala Venkata Seshagiri Rao and Nukala Venkata Sambasiva Rao.

X ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

MACHILIPATNAM.

FAC/XI ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

GUDIVADA.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XI-ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

KRISHNA AT GUDIVADA.

Present: Dr. Smt. Sattaru Rajani.,

X-Addl. District Judge-Cum-Special Sessions Judge,

Krishna, Machilipatnam

FAC XI Addl.District Judge, Gudivada.

Tuesday, this the 9th day of April, 2019

ORIGINAL SUIT No.24/2018

Between:

M/s.K.R.K.Build Well Developers, Guntur, rep. by its Managing Partner Karpurapu Ramakrishna Murthy.

.... Plaintiff

A N D

Sri Sai Krishna Education Society, rep. by its Secretary/Correspondent

Pamarthy Veera Nageswara Rao.... Defendant

This suit is coming on 29.03.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.V.Panduranga Rao., Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri V.Siva Prasad and Sri D.Satyanarayana., Advocates for defendant and upon perusing the material on record and after hearing both sides, this court delivered the following:

//J U D G M E N T//

This suit is filed to evict the defendant from the plaint schedule property within the reasonable time fixed by the Court and to deliver vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff and in case of default, to enable the plaintiff to execute the decree through the

Court taking delivery of vacant possession of the sameand to grant a decree for

Rs.66,00,000/- towards arrears of rent for the period commencing from 1.6.2015 to 28.02.2018 @ Rs.2,00,000/- p.m. and to grant future interest @ 24% p.a. on the amount of Rs.66,00,000/- from the date of the suit till the date of realisation and aslo to grant future damages for use and occupation at Rs.3,00,000/- p.m., from 1.3.2018 till the date of delivery of possession and for costs of the suit.

2) The brief facts of the plaintiff’s case are that :

(i) Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property consisting of five floors including pent house and the defendant has taken the ground floor and 1st floor on lease from the plaintiff for a period of five years commencing from 1.6.2015 under a

Registered Agreement on 29.04.2015. After execution of registered lease agreement, the 2 defendant requested to lease out the remaining floors of the said building to him, as the ground floor and 1st floor are not sufficient for accommodation for his educational institution. Believing the same, the plaintiff agreed to lease out the remaining floors on a condition to pay Rs.2,00,000/- per month to the plaintiff towards lease and the defendant had agreed to that the lease period is five years commencing from 1.6.2015 just like the lease for ground and 1st floor of the same building and further agreed to pay rent every month to the plaintiff without committing default and if the defendant commits default in payment of monthly rents, the defendant is liable to pay interest at 24% p.a. from the due date of rent payable to the plaintiff and in respect of the remaining floors of the building excluding ground and 1st floors of the building, under oral lease agreement between the plaintiff and defendant in the 1st week of May 2015. The plaintiff delivered the plaint schedule property to defendant on 1.6.2015 and since then the defendant is in possession of the same.

ii) It is further averred in the plaint that since from the date of taking possession of plaint schedule property, the defendant did not pay even a single pie towards rent from 1.6.2015 till today, in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff. As per their oral lease agreement, if the defendant commits default in payment of rents for a period of three consecutive months, the oral lease agreement will be cancelled and the defendant has no right to continue in possession of plaint schedule properties as lessee. The plaintiff terminating the lease in respect of plaint schedule property by 28.02.2018, issued a registered notice to the defendant on 10.02.2018 u/s.106 of Transfer of Property Act and the said notice was returned that the defendant refused to receive the same. The occupation of defendant in respect of plaint schedule property became as trespasser from 1.3.2018 and the defendant is liable to pay damages for use and occupation of the property, at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- per month from 1.3.2018 till the date of delivery of vacant possession of the plaint schedule property. Hence, the suit.

3) Defendant filed written statement denying the plaint averments. He contended that he and plaintiff jointly executed Registered rent agreement on 29.4.2015 for ground and 1st floors of plaint schedule property bearing document No.2059/2015 on the file of 3

S.R.O., Vuyyuru and on the same day the defendant executed another rent agreement along with the father-in-law of plaintiff bearing document No.2060/2015 on the file of

S.R.O., Vuyyuru. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.23/2018 against him for the property covered under rent agreement bearing document No.2059/2015 with false allegations. The defendant further contended that after execution of Registered rent agreement with the father-in-law of plaintiff and after completion of admissions for the academic year 2015- 2016, the defendant approached the father-in-law of plaintiff and requested him to revoke the Registered rent agreement for the property covered under document No.2060/2015 on the file of S.R.O., Vuyyuru, as he did not have sufficient strength for running junior college and convent. The father-in-law of plaintiff agreed for the same and he handed over the plaint schedule property to the father-in-law of plaintiff and immediately the said property was leased out to another lessee namely Deen Dayal Upadhyaaya Grameen Kaushalya

Yojana).

ii) The defendant further contended that he executed two different registered lease agreements in favour of plaintiff and father-in-law of plaintiff vide documents

Nos.2059/2015 and 2060/2015 respectively. So the question of occupation of other three floors by the defendant, does not arise. The plaintiff has no documentary proof to show that the occupation of another three floors by the defendant. Hence the defendant need not pay any amount towards arrears of rent, interest on the said amount and advance amount.

iii) It is further averred in the written statement of defendant that having future thought to give the plaint schedule property to a software company the plaintiff and father-in-law of plaintiff hatched a plan to vacate the defendant from the plaint schedule property and filed the present suit and another suit in O.S.23/2018 with false allegations.

Hence he prays the Court to dismiss the suit with costs.

4) On the strength of above pleadings, the following issues are settled.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of the defendant from the plaint schedule property as prayed for ?

2. Whether the defendant committed default in payment of the arrears of rent as pleaded by the plaintiff is true and correct ?

4

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for delivery of vacant possession of the plaint schedule property as prayed for ?

4. Whether the plea of the defendant that he handed over the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff is true and correct ?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled a decree for a sum of Rs.66,00,000/- towards arrears of rent from 1.6.2015 to 28.02.2018 @ Rs.2,00,000/- per month as prayed for?

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled future damages at Rs.3,00,000/- per month for use and occupation of the schedule property from 1.3.2018 till the date of delivery of possession as prayed for ?

7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled future interest at 24% p.a. on the amount of Rs.66,00,000/- from the date of the suit till the date of realization as prayed for ?

8. Whether there is no cause of action to file the suit ?

9. To what relief?

5) At this juncture, it is relevant to state that after the defendant filed written statement, the plaintiff filed I.A.415/2018 under Order XV-A of Civil Procedure Code, to direct the defendant to deposit an amount of Rs.66,00,000/- towards arrears of rent commencing from 1.6.2015 to 28.02.2018 and continue to deposit the undisputed amount from the date of suit till its disposal. The defendant filed counter in that petition that there are no such arrears up to 28.02.2018 as the defendant paid the same to father-in- law, who is Managing Director of the plaintiff firm.

6) The then Presiding Officer of this Court allowed the said application, directing the defendant educational society to deposit admitted arrears of rent into the court @

Rs.2,00,000/- per month in respect of plaint schedule property from 1.3.2018 up to 31.10.2018 within one month from the date of order and shall continue to deposit monthly rent of Rs.2,00,000/- on or before every succeeding month from 1.3.2018 till the disposal of suit, failing which the defence of the defendant shall be struck off.

7) Thereafter the defendant did not comply the said direction and did not deposit any amount, as such plaintiff filed another petition in I.A.No.2288/2018 to strike off the defence of the defendant. The said application was also allowed on merits on 22.02.2019. Thus, by virtue of orders of this Court in I.A.No.415/2018 dated 29.10.2018 5 and I.A.No.2288/2018 dt.22.02.2019, the defence of the defendant was struck off. The said orders were not challenged.

8) During trial, on behalf of the plaintiff’s firm, its Managing Partner was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 and A.2 were marked. On behalf of the defendant no oral and documentary evidence is adduced.

9) Heard arguments advanced by the counsel for plaintiff.

Issues No.1 to 9:

The record goes to show that the defence of defendant was struck down as per the orders in I.A.2288/2018 dated 22.2.2019, when the defendant did not comply the direction to deposit arrears of rent as ordered by this Court on 29.10.2018 in

I.A.No.415/2018. Hence there is no defence, consequently there is no necessity to evaluate the pleadings of defendant.

10) In a suit for eviction, the plaintiff has to establish that the suit schedule property is leased out to the defendant and the defendant is in use and occupation of the plaint schedule property as a tenant. The plaintiff has to establish that the defendant committed default in payment of arrears of rent. Then only the plaintiff will acquire right to file suit even before termination of lease period, in view of the same.

11) To prove the case of plaintiff’s firm its Managing Director was examined as

P.W.1 whose affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination is nothing but repetition of all the plaint averments. The plaintiff’s firm also relied upon Exs.A1 and A2. Ex.A1 is office copy of legal notice dt.10.2.2018 and Ex.A2 is returned registered notice of the defendant, which was returned as “refused”.

12) Now the evidence of PW.1 goes to show that the defendant took ground and 1st floor of plaint schedule property on lease by entering into lease agreement, which is the subject matter in O.S.23/2018 and apart from the same, the defendant took other three floors of plaint schedule property on oral lease and possession of the same was delivered to the defendant on 1.6.2015 along with ground and 1st floor of plaint schedule property and that the defendant agreed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- per month towards rent for the suit schedule property commencing from 1.6.2015, but the defendant did not pay any 6 rent to the plaintiff and committed default, as such the plaintiff is entitled to evict the defendant from the schedule premises and also entitled to recover the arrears of rent of

Rs.66,00,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realisation and future damages of Rs.3,00,000/- per month for use and occupation of schedule premises from 1.3.2018 i.e. termination of tenancy till the date of delivery of vacant possession of the same.

13). As seen from the contention of the defendant in his written statement, there was no such landlord and tenant relationship in respect of suit schedule property of three floors, though the defendant has taken lease of ground and 1st floor from the plaintiff by executing a written lease deed as such, he agreed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- per month towards rent to the schedule property and committed default are all not correct and that he is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as a tenant.

14) As already stated earlier, the defence of the defendant was struck down as he failed to comply the order passed by this Court in I.A.No.415/18 consequently the defence was struck down as per the orders in I.A.2218/18 dated 22.2.2019 and the said orders reached finality, as they were not challenged and this Court was not received any information that the defendant challenged those orders. Though the defendant contends that there is no lessor and lessee relationship in respect of suit schedule property and he has not taken the same on oral lease as contended by the petitioner but as his defence was struck down, he did not cross examine P.W.1 and no evidence is placed to prove his contention, and admittedly no amount is paid to the plaintiff’s firm even after passing orders by this court to that effect.

15) As the defence of the defendant was struck off as contemplated under Order

XV-A of C.P.C. as per the order of this Court dated 29.10.2018 and dated 22.02.2019 in

I.A.415/2018 and I.A.2288/2018. When the defendant failed to deposit arrears of rent, as per the directions of this Court under Order XV-A of C.P.C, hence the unchallenged testimony of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A1 and A2 clearly establishes that the defendant took the suit schedule proepty on oral lease and there is land lord and tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and the defendant committed default in payment 7 of rent from 1.6.2015 till this day. As such, the plaintiff is entitled to terminate the tenancy of defendant’s firm and is entitled to evict the defendant from the schedule premises,

16) So also, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of entire arrears of rent of

Rs.66,00,000/- from 1.6.2015 to 28.02.2018 i.e. @ Rs.2,00,000/- per month with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realisation.

17) Admittedly the defendant educational society is in occupation of the premises without paying any rent from 1.3.2018 even though a direction was given by this Court.

As per the lease agreement, the defendant firm agreed to enhance rent at the rate of 10% per two years. Hence for use and occupation of the premises after terminating the tenancy, the defendant is liable to pay Rs.2,50,000/- per month towards damages from 1.3.2018 till the date of delivery of possession of the suit schedule property. Hence issues 1 to 9 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

20) In the result, the suit is decreed with costs and that the plaintiff is entitled to evict the defendant from the schedule premises and the defendant is directed to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of plaint schedule property within one month from this day. In case of default, the plaintiff is at liberty to take delivery of vacant possession of plaint schedule property through court of law.

ii) The plaintiff is also entitled for recovery of a sum of Rs.66,00,000/- towards arrears of rent for the period commencing from 1.6.2015 to 28.02.2018 @ Rs.2,00,000/- per month; and with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e.

19.03.2018 to till the date of realisation.

iii) The plaintiff is also entitled for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- per month towards damages from the defendant for use and occupation of plaint schedule property from the period commencing from 1.3.2018 till the date of delivery of possession.

Typed to dictation to the Stenographer by me on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 9th day of April, 2019.

X-Addl. District & Spl. Sessions Judge,

Krishna, Machilipatnam

FAC XI-Addl.Dist.Judge, Gudivada.

8

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for plaintiff

P.W.1: Karpurapu Ramakrishna Murthy

Documents marked for plaintiff

Ex.A1: Office copy of legal notice dt.10.2.2018

Ex.A2: Returned registered notice of the defendant

Witnesses examined for defendants

None

Documents marked for defendants

nil

X-Addl. District & Spl. Sessions Judge,

Krishna, Machilipatnam

FAC XI-Addl.District Judge, Gudivada.

9

IN THE COURT OF THE XI-ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

KRISHNA AT GUDIVADA.

Present: Dr. Smt. Sattaru Rajani.,

X-Addl. District Judge-Cum-Special Sessions Judge,

Krishna, Machilipatnam

FAC XI Addl.District Judge, Gudivada.

Tuesday, this the 9th day of April, 2019

ORIGINAL SUIT No.24/2018

Between:

M/s.K.R.K.Build Well Developers, Guntur, rep. by its Managing Partner

Karpurapu Ramakrishna Murthy. .... Plaintiff

A N D

Sri Sai Krishna Education Society, rep. by its Secretary/Correspondent

Pamarthy Veera Nageswara Rao .... Defendant

This suit is filed to evict the defendant from the plaint schedule property within the reasonable time fixed by the Court and to deliver vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff and in case of default, to enable the plaintiff to execute the decree through the Court taking delivery of vacant possession of the sameand to grant a decree for Rs.66,00,000/- towards arrears of rent for the period commencing from 1.6.2015 to 28.02.2018 @ Rs.2,00,000/- p.m. and to grant future interest @ 24% p.a. on the amount of Rs.66,00,000/- from the date of the suit till the date of realisation and aslo to grant future damages for use and occupation at Rs.3,00,000/- p.m., from 1.3.2018 till the date of delivery of possession and for costs of the suit.

Suit presented on :19-03-2016.

Value of the suit for relief of recovery of possession of Rs.24,00,000/- + and arrears of rent from 1-6-15 to 28-2-18 of Rs.66,00,000/- = total of Rs.90,00,000/- under section 50(i) of A.P.C.F. and S.V Act on which a court fee of Rs.92,426/-is paid here with under section 40 and U/s.6 of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose in the 1st week of May, 2015 when the plaintiff leased out the plaint schedule property to the defendant orally on the condition to pay Rs.2,00,000/- per month towards rent and subsequently on 1-6-2015 when the plaintiff delivered possession of the plaint schedule property to the defendant for the purpose of running his educational institution and subsequently when the defendant did not pay any amount to the plaintiff towards rent according to terms of the lease and subsequently when the defendant committed willful default in payment of rent violating the terms of the lease and subsequently on 10-2-2018 when the plaintiff got issued a registered notice to the defendant terminating the lease in respect of the plaint schedule property and subsequently when the defendant refused to receive the same, in Vuyyuru village where the plaint schedule property is situated.

This suit is coming on 29.03.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.V.Panduranga Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri V.Siva Prasad and Sri D.Satyanarayana, Advocates for defendant and upon perusing the material on record and after hearing both sides, this court doth order and decree… 10

i.

that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed;

ii.

that the plaintiff is entitled to evict the defendant from the schedule premises and the defendant is directed to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of plaint schedule property within one month from this day; iii.that in case of default, the plaintiff is at liberty to take delivery of vacant possession of plaint schedule property through court of law;

iv.

that the plaintiff is also entitled for recovery of a sum of Rs.66,00,000/- towards arrears of rent for the period commencing from 1-6-2015 to 28- 2-2018 @ Rs.2,00,000/- per month and with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of filing of the suit i.e., 19-3-2018 to till the date of realisation.

v.

that the plaintiff is also entitled for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- per month towards damages from the defendant for use and occupation of plaint schedule property from the period commencing from 1-3-2018 till the date of delivery of possession;

vi.

That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,92,748/- towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 9th day of April, 2019.

X ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

MACHILIPATNAM.

FAC/XI ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

GUDIVADA.

Memorandum of costs.

Sl.No. Description Plaintiff Defendant

1 Stamp on power 2-00 --

2. Stamp on plaint 92,426-00 --

3. Process fee 120-00 --

4. Stamp on -- -- petitions

5. Advocate fee 1,00,000-00 --

6. Typing charges. 100-00 -- 7 Writing charges 100-00 -- Total 1,92,748-00 --

S C H E D U L E

Property situated in Vuyyuru Village, Vuyyuru Panchayat and Mandal,

Vuyyuru Sub Registry, Krishna District.

House site of an extent of1341.4 sq.Yards together with terraced building therein bearing D.No.8/305-1,2 consisting of 5 floors and the same is situated within the following boundaries.

11

East & South : Panchayat Bazar.

West : joint bazaar.

North : property of Nukala Venkata Seshagiri Rao and Nukala Venkata Sambasiva Rao.

X ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

MACHILIPATNAM.

FAC/XI ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

GUDIVADA.

IN THE COURT OF XI ADDI. nISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE:

KRISHNA GUDIVADA.

PRESENT: SMT.S.RAJANI XADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SrssIONSJUDGE. MACHILIPATNAM FAC/XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICR SESSIONS JUDGE, GUDIVADA

TUESDAY, THIS THE 2NI) DAY OF APRIL, 2019.

DOI.31/2018

Between: Mogadati Balaji. S/o.Kasulu, (hristian, Aged 29 years, Resident of Sivapuram village, H/o.Ventraragada Panchayat, Pedaparupudi Mandal, Krishna District, Gudivada.

...PETITIONER.

AN D Mogadati Hymavathi, W/o.Ealaii, D/o.Dagani Koteswara Rao.

Christian. Aged abcut 28 yers, Resident of Sivapuram Village.

H/o.Ventrapragada Panchaya, Pedaparupudi Mandal, Krishna District.

.RESPONDENT

This petition is corming on 29,.03.19 before me for final hearing in

the presence of Sri N.V.Subrahmanyeswara Rao Advocate for Petitioner and the responde::t is remained exparte and upon perusing the material on record and the matter having been stood over for consideration till his day, this Court delivered the following: DRDER

1 This Petition is filed ty M.Balaji who is the husband of the

respondent M.Hyrnavathi to grant a decree of divorce by dissolving the

marriage performed on 9.5.2015 between the petitioner and the respondent on the ground of deserion.

The brief facts of the peutioner are that: 2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was performed on 9.5.2016 at Sivapuram Village, H/o.Venktrapragada

Panchayat, Pedaparupudi Mande! of Krishna District as per Christian

Rights and Customs in the Salvution Army Church in the presence of relatives, village elders, iriends aid well wishes of both sides. Later the

respondent joined with the petitioner to lead conjugal life at his house

situated at Sivapuram Village and eir marriage was consummated.

They lived amicably Ior a period of three ;months and

subsequently disputes arose between them.

Out of their lawful

wedlock, they were not blessed with children.

(ii) The respondent used lo quarrel with the petitioner for unnecessary reasons and used to harass him and there by caused

mental agony to the petitioner.

On 10.08.2016, she quarreled with the petitioner and left the conjugal honme without any sufficient reason. The

petitioner inade several negotiation

with the mediators, but they were

proved futile. The respondent treatei the petitioner with cruelty without

any justifiable and reasonable caus( she left the matrimonial home.

(iii) The respondent gave a false report against the petitioner

before Pedaparupudi Police Station who registered the FIR and filed

charge sheet in C.C,170/2018 on tle file of Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I

Class, Gudivada U/s.498(S) of IPC and the said C.C is pending before

AJFCM, Gudivada. It disclosed tha the respondent has no interest to

continue the conjugal life with the petitioner. Hence the petitioner filed the present petition for granting clecree of divorce on the ground of desertion. Notice sent to the respondent through Court and RP served 3 personally. But the respondent has not chosen to appear before the

COurt and the service of notice of renondent was held sufficient and the respondent was set exparte on 30012019. Thereafter tO prove his case the petitioner got himself examinedoe Pwl by filing his affidavit in lieu of chief examination. The petitioner got marked Ex.'s A1 to A3.

4. Heard the counsel for tlie petitioner.

5. Now the point for consiration...

Whether the petitione, ie entitled for grant of decree of divorce by dissolving the rariage between him and the

respondent on the ground of destion?.

6 To prOve his case the vetitioner sot himself examined as

Pwl. He got marked Ex's Al to A3 ny Al is the mnarriage photo of the

petitioner and the respondent alon; ith the CD. Ex.A2 is the certified

copy of the charge sheet in C.C171/2018 on the file of AJFCM.

Gudivada.Ex.A3 is the certified copv of judgment 1n

C.C.171/2018

dt. 10.12.2018.

7. The affidavit of Pwl led lieu of chief examination. is

nothing but repetition of all the p(ition averments. As already stated

earlier the resporndent renained exarte and did not choose to contends

the petitioner though she received i.otice personally.

8 The evidence of Pwl capled with Ex.'s Al to A3 clearly go

to show that the marriage between Pwl and the respondent took place

on 09.05.2016, as per Christiarn Rites and Customs in the Salvation

Army Church and there is no conter evidence from the respondent

who remained exparte.

9. The evidence of Pwl goes to show that on 10.8.2016 the

respondent quarreled with hin and left the conjugal home without any

sufficient reason, inspite of mediation through elders, she did not join

with him. Hence on the ground o desertion, he filed this petition on

15.11.2018 i.e 2 years after the respondent left the matrimonial noie

The respondent has not denied the said allesation. Ex.A3 goes to

that the respondent is living separately from the petitioner. Hence the

un changed testimony of PW1, coupled with Ex.A3 clearly established that the respondent has been residing at her parents home and as per the evidence of Pwl she lelt the mrimonial home on 10.08.2016 and

did not join with him. Hence the Piioner proved that the respondent

deserted him since 10.08.2016 ani is entitled for decree of divorce on

the ground of desertion. Hence the hoint is answered accordingly.

In the result, the petulon is allowed by granting decree of 10. marT1ag performed on 09.05.2016 betwecn divorce by dissolving the the petitioner and the respondent.

Dictated to Outsourcing Steilographer, transcribed and typed by

her, corected and pronounced by re, in the open Court, this the 2nd day of April, 2019.

ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

FAC/ XIADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

GUDIVADA.

APPENENX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESES EXAMINED:

FOR DEFENDANT:

FOR PETITIONER:

NIL PW1- Mlogadati Balaji.

EXHIFITS MARKED:

FOR PLAINTIFFS: Ex.Al: Marriage photos along with C.D. Ex.A2: Certified copy of charge stret in C.C.171/2018 on the file o!

AJFCM, Gudivada. Ex.A3:. Certified copy of Judgmeni in C.C.171/2018, dt. 10. 12.2015

FOR DEFENDANT:

NIL

XAD), MTM.

FAC/XTADJ, GDV.

unGE, KRISHNA :: GUDIVADA

IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL DISIRICI

Present: Sml Dr. S.Rajani, X Addl. District Julge, Machilipatnam, FAC/XI Addl. Distnct Jucdge, Gudivada. Krishna, Friday, this the 2g" day of March, 20 19.

D.0.P.No.57/2018

Between: Mugada Venkata Kishore. Bathula Sneha, W/o. Bathula Kiran Babu, D/0 Christian, 27 yearS, House wife, R/o, D.No.19-) 105, Ratna Gari colony, Near Water Tank, P.M Palem, Visakhapatnam. Petitioner

AN D

Bathula Kiran Babu, S/0. Suvarna Bai Christian, 30 years, Properties, R/o. Koduru Village, Mudinepalli Mandal.

Respondent.

... This petition is TIled by the petitioner by name S.Bathula Sneha. against the respondent by name Bathula Kiran Babu under Section 10(1)and (X) of Indian Divorce Act seeking ldecree of divorce by dissolving the

marriage between the petitioner and respondent on the ground of cruelty

and for such other reliefs and for costs of the petition.

Petition presented on : 12-10-2018.

A fixed court fee of Rs.30/- is paid Under Schedule 2 Article 1(iii) of APCF and SV Act.

This petition is coming for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Rajesh, Advocate for petitioner and the respondent is remained set exparte and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, upon consideration court doth order arnd decree order...

i. that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent held on 16-6-2016 be and the same is hereby dissolved; i. that the respondent is be and the same is hereby directed to the petitioner a sum of Rs.NIL bearing his own costs of Rs.NIL (As no bill of costs filed on either side).

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 29th day of

Match, 2019.

aAC/ XI ADDL, DISTXICT JUDGE, iGUDIVÁDA. Memorandum of costs. -NIL XI ADDL. DIsTRICT JUDGE,

GUDIVADA.

IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT,

KRISHNA AT GUDIVADA

Case No. :MVOP/0000089/2015

Munaga Vijaya Lakshmi Vs Bhukya Babu

Date  : 12-04-2019

Business : Notice is given. order pronounced inopen court(VSO). In the result, the petition is partly allowed with proproniate costs by awarding compensation of Rs.49,01,688/- to the petitioner under all the heads with interest at 7.5 percent p.a from the date of petition till the date of realization. 1) The respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 2) Out of total compensation of Rs.49,01,688/- 1st petitioner-wife of the deceased is entitled to Rs.19,01,688/-. She is permitted to withdraw Rs.10,00,000/- together with accured interest and costs and remaining amount of Rs.9,01,688/- shall be kept in FDR in any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years. 3) The 2nd and 3rd petitioner i.e minor daughter of the deceased 1st pettiioner are entitled for sum of Rs.15,00,000/- each including interst and the said amount shall be kept in FDR in any nationalized bank till the petitioners attain the age of majority. 4) Rest of the claim of the petitioners dismissed.

5) The advocate fee is fixed at Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand On ly) Nature of Disposal: ALLOWED IN PART Disposal Date : 12-04-2019

XI Addl.District Judge Gudivada