1
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (F.T.C) ::
GUNTUR.
PRESENT: Smt. T. Leelavathi,
II Addl. Senior Civil Judge (F.T.C), Guntur.
Monday, this the 20 th day of November, 2023.
O.S.No.170/2014
Between:
1. Tulasi Rama Chandra Prabhu, S/o. Peraiah, Hindu, aged about 67 years, Business, R/o. Door No.03-28-124/1, 2nd Line, Rajendra Nagar, Guntur City.
2. Tirumalasetty Satyavathi, W/o. Dr Sankara Rao, Hindu, aged about 62 years, Housewife, R/o. Door No.03-28-18/101, 1st Line, Rajendra Nagar, Guntur City. (Died added as per orders in IA No.123/2023, dt.12.05.2023)
3. Tirumalasetty Sankara Rao, S/o. Venkata Subba Rao, Hindu, aged about 76 years, Retired Doctor, R/o. Door No.3-28-18/102, 1st Line, Rajendra Nagar, Guntur.
4. Tirumalasetty Bhanu Krishna, S/o. Sankara Rao, Hindu, aged about 41 years, R/o. Door No.3-28-18/102, 1st Line, Rajendra Nagar, Guntur.
5. Tirumalasetty Prasanthi, D/o. Sankara Rao, W/o. Amith Sarma, Hindu, aged about 36 years, Housewife, R/o. Door No.3-28-18/102, 1st Line, Rajendra Nagar, Guntur. (3 to 5 plaintiffs are added as per orders in IA No.123/2023, dt.12.05.2023).
. . . Plaintiffs
And
1. Managing Director, Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited, HPCL Registered Office at Petroleum House, 17, Jamshedjee Tata Road, Mumbai.
2. Senior Regional Manager, Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Vijayawada Retail Regional Office, Near Sai Baba Temple, Mangalagiri Road, Tadepalli, Guntur District. … Defendants
This suit has come up on 10.11.2023 for arguments before me in the presence of Sri G. Sai Krishna Srinivas, Learned Advocate for the Plaintiffs No.1 to 5 and Sri Y. Rama Seshaiah, Learned Advocate for defendants and having stood over to this day for consideration, this court made the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.The suit is filed for eviction of the defendants from plaint schedule property and for vacant possession of the same and for recovery of damages at
Rs.40,000/- per month for use and occupation from 01.12.2012 to 31.08.2013 and for suit costs from the defendants.
2
The brief averments of the plaint are as follows :
2.H.P.C.L represented by the defendants is the tenant of the plaintiffs property as per the lease deed entered between them for the period from 01.12.1997 to 30.11.2012. The same is reduced into writing and was duly registered as document No.2271/2003 with terms and conditions mentioned therein. As per the terms of the lease agreement, the lease period is for 15 years starting from 01.12.1997 to 30.11.1999 the agreed rent was Rs.6,000/- per month and from 01.12.1999 to 30.11.2002 the agreed rent was Rs.9,800/- per month and for the period from 01.12.2002 to 30.11.2004 the agreed rent was Rs.12,500/- per month and for the period from 01.12.2007 to 30.11.2012 agreed rent was
Rs.17,000/-. The lease was taken for the purpose of storing and selling petroleum products. As per the terms of the lease, the lease is expired on 30.11.2012 and as per clause-1 (f) it was agreed that the lessee should deliver the premises to the lessor after expiration of the lease period restoring premises to its condition. So, the defendants are liable to deliver the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs on 30.11.2012. Plaintiffs submits that they demanded the lessee to quit the premises by 30.11.2012 and hand over the premises as per the terms of the lease agreement dt.06.01.2003 duly registered as 2271/2003 and a legal notice was also served to that effect on 26.12.2011. After receiving the legal notice, the defendants issued a reply notice through counsel on 20.10.2012 and again issued a letter dt.17.01.2012 for renewal of the lease for which, plaintiff issued a reply notice dt.23.02.2012 denying to extend the lease, which is received by the defendants. Again the defendants issued a letter dt.21.03.2012, for which a reply was sent on 01.08.2012 and the plaintiff never accepted for renewal of the lease.
Even after 30.11.2012, the defendants did not choose to quit the premises and hand over the same to the plaintiff as per the terms of the lease and continued in the illegal possession as trespassers. Thus, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice 3 dt.08.04.2013 demanding damages of Rs.40,000/- per month for the use and occupation of the premises. The defendants received the notice, but kept quite and did not hand over the premises and committed default. Plaintiffs submit that defendants have no any manner of right to continue in the premises and they are trespassers as lease period was expired on 30.11.2012. Hence, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the present suit for eviction of the defendants from the schedule property and for recovery of possession and for damages at the rate of
Rs.40,000/- per month for illegal occupation of the schedule property.
ii) During pendency of the suit, 2nd plaintiff died on 02.10.2022, s such plaintiffs No.3 to 5 arrived as his legal representatives.
3.Defendants made their appearance through their counsel and filed written statement denying the material averments of the plaint and further submitted that as per the recitals of the registered lease agreement bearing document
No.2271/2003, dt.06.01.2003, the demised premises is under the possession of the defendants since 01.12.1967 by virtue of registered document No.3096/1968, dt.28.03.1968. Initially, the lease period commenced from 01.12.1967 to 30.11.1977 for a period of 10 years. Defendants started their business in the schedule premises being in possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights as tenants. Subsequently, the lease period was renewed from time to time periodically. Plaintiffs and defendants entered into lease agreement vide document No.7507/1991, dt.09.10.1991 for a period of 10 years commencing from 01.12.1987 to 30.11.1997. So, the attitude of plaintiffs clearly reveals that they used to enter into lease agreements as per their wish and will. The lease has to be renewed from time to time and defendants have been in continuous uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the schedule property as tenants even in the absence of lease agreement also. After expiry of lease agreement dt.09.10.1991, defendants have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 4 schedule premises as tenant. Thereafter, plaintiffs and defendants entered into lease agreement dt.06.01.2003 vide document No.2271/2003 by adopting the previous terms and conditions. As per the said lease agreement, the lease period was fixed for a period of 15 years commencing from 01.12.1997. The rental schedule is also recited in the lease agreement. Plaintiffs also agreed to enter into a fresh lease agreement after expiry of the existing lease agreement, it is also revealed in the condition (ii) (b) of the lease agreement. Defendants believed the promise of plaintiff and entered in the lease agreement dt.06.01.2003. Defendants submits that they invested lakhs of rupees for development of their business in the schedule premises to face the competition in the business. Plaintiffs have knowledge of the same, and if the plaintiffs succeed in their attempt to evict plaintiffs from the suit schedule property, the same will cause huge loss to the defendant corporation. Defendants made several negotiations with plaintiffs, but the plaintiffs are postponing the same on one pretext or the other for the best reasons known to them and trying to evict the defendants from the suit schedule property. Defendants submit that the plaintiffs suppressed the facts and issued legal notice dt.26.12.2011 with false and frivolous allegations and the defendants got issued reply notice dt.17.01.2012 and 20.10.2012 requesting the plaintiffs to renew the lease period. But the plaintiffs got filed the present suit with false allegations. Defendants submit that they are not in unauthorized illegal occupation of the suit premises. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for damages of
Rs.40,000/- per month.
ii) The defendants further submits that they are the successors to the rights, title and interest to the undertaking of ESSO Eastern Inc., under the provisions of ESSO (Acquisition o undertaking in India) Act, 1974 and the Lube
India Limited and ESSO Standard Refining Company of India Limited
Amalgamation Order, 1974 and other notifications etc., issued and relevant 5 thereof. As provided for under Section 3 & 7 (3) of the said Act 1974, the defendant corporation invoked its right to exercise the renewal of lease and accordingly renewed lease for further periods. Therefore, basing on the above, the defendant corporation once again confirms that the defendant corporation exercised its due right, vested in it by virtue of the provisions of the ESSO
Acquisition Act. Therefore, the lease stands renewed and therefore, the quit notice got issued by plaintiffs is not valid and not binding on the defendant corporation and also not enforceable accordingly law and prays to dismiss with costs.
4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction as prayed for ?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages as prayed for ?
3) To what relief ?
5.During the course of trial, plaintiffs examined 1st plaintiff himself as
P.W.1 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 and also examined P.W.2 on their behalf. On the other hand, defendants examined D.W.2 and D.W.3 and the chief affidavit of
D.W.1 is eschewed.
6.Heard the counsel for both sides.
EVIDENCE:
7.Plaintiffs to substantiate their case got examined 1st plaintiff as P.W.1. He reiterated the contents of the plaint in his examination in chief and got marked the registered lease deed bearing document No.2271/2003, dt.06.01.2003 as
Ex.A1, the legal notice issued by the plaintiffs to defendants along with postal receipts dt.26.12.2011 as Ex.A2, the postal acknowledgment of 1st defendant as
Ex.A3, the reply notice issued by the defendants, dt.20.10.2012 as Ex.A4, notice dt.17.01.2012 issued by the defendants for renewal of the lease as Ex.A5, reply notice dt.23.02.2012 issued by the plaintiffs as Ex.A6, postal acknowledgment as
Ex.A7, office copy of legal notice dt.08.04.2013 as Ex.A8, postal 6 acknowledgment as Ex.A9. P.W.1 in his cross examination stated that himself and his elder brothers leased out the suit property to ESSO Company. Later, the said company was taken over by Indian Government all over India. Then, they leased out vacant site to the company. At first, the property was leased out to the defendants in the year 1967 for a period of 10 years i.e., from 01.12.1967 to 30.11.1977 and the same was also reduced into writing. After expiry of lease period in 1977, the lease was extended for further period of 10 years with mutual understanding up to 1997 and a lease agreement dt.06.03.1991 was executed between them. There was no agreement between them from 01.12.1977 to 09.10.1991 there was oral understanding to continue tenancy for 10 years and should vacate the premises after expiry of lease period i.e., 30.11.1997. Again they entered into lease agreement with the defendants for 15 years commencing from 01.12.1997 to 30.11.2012. The defendants agreed to vacate the suit premises after expiry of lease period of 15 years i.e., 30.11.2012, but did not vacate the same. Thus, there is exchange of legal notices between plaintiffs and defendants under Ex.A2 to Ex.A8. P.W.1 admitted that schedule property is on the high way and there are plenty of vacant sites near and around the suit schedule property and that they need the suit schedule property for construction of their office as they are running their office in rented building. He denied that they are trying to vacate defendants corporation from the suit schedule property with a view to lease out the same for higher rate of rents, in lakhs of rupees.
8.P.W.2 Kondaveeti Naga Vara Prasad being the senior Legal Officer in
Tulasi Group of Companies belongs to 1st plaintiff filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief supporting the version of P.W.1 in all aspects and further stated that the defendants corporation did not vacate the suit premises even after the expiry of lease period and continuing in the schedule property as a trespasser highhandedly, as such the defendants shall pay damages at Rs.40,000/- 7 per month for their illegal use and occupation of the suit premises. P.W.2 in his cross examination stated that he is looking after the legal matters of the plaintiffs company and he is also looking after the present suit proceedings. He was present during the cross examination of P.W.1. He have no idea about the enhancement of the rent and term of lease period. Defendants are paying rent as per 2012 agreement even after expiry of that agreement and the 1st plaintiff withdrawing the rent amount deposited in the bank. As per the lease agreement under Ex.A1, the lease period expired on 30.11.2012. He also stated that 1st defendant asked plaintiffs for extension of the lease period, but the defendants did not agree for the same.
9.On the other hand, defendants got filed the chief affidavit of their regional manager as D.W.1, but subsequently, he was transferred and his chief affidavit is eschewed. Thereafter the chief affidavit of Aditya Anand, Chief Regional
Manager, Retail Regional Office, Vijayawada, HPCL, filed as D.W.2. He reiterated the contents of the written statement in his examination in chief. In his cross examination he stated that he joined HPCL in the year 2006, as such he have no personal knowledge about the agreements between plaintiffs and HPCL.
As per Ex.A1, lease period expires by 30.11.2012 and there is no extension of lease and there is no automatic renewal option for renewal of lease. After expiry of the lease period the premises have to be vacated by the defendants, but the same is not done. According to Ex.A1, 3 months prior notice shall be issued to revoke the lease agreement which is not done by them. He admitted that plaintiffs issued notice to the defendants to vacate the premises and defendants issued reply notice to extend the lease period, but the same is refused by the plaintiffs under Ex.A6. Plaintiffs also issued another notice under EX.A8 calling upon the defendants that they are continuing as trespassers and demanded to pay 8 damages. As per Ex.A8 plaintiffs are receiving the rent paid by defendants towards damages.
10.D.W.3 Karumanchi Ramachandra Rao, Proprietor M/s Bharat Service
Station, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited filed his chief affidavit supporting the version of D.W.2 in all aspects and in his cross examination stated that he did not file any documents to show that he is the proprietor of M/s Bharat
Service Station, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. He is not a party in the lease between HPCL and the plaintiffs. He do not know the clauses mentioned in the lease deed between plaintiffs and HPCL and payment of rents by HPCL to the plaintiffs. He admitted that plaintiffs never gave him permission to make constructions in the suit property and to fix machinery. He admitted that the lessee shall vacate the premises after expiry of lease period.
ISSUE NO.1:
11.As observed from the evidence available on record before the Court, it is an admitted fact that there was landlord and tenant relationship between plaintiffs and the defendants since 1967 onwards up to 30.11.2012. The lease period between the plaintiffs and defendants has been extended from time to time and there was registered lease agreements between them from time to time. The last lease agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants is dt.06.01.2003 vide document No.2271/2003 for a period of 15 years i.e., from 30.11.1997 to 30.11.2012. The plaintiffs with an intention to construct the office in the suit schedule property for their personal purpose demanded the defendants to vacate the suit schedule property after determination of lease period i.e., on 30.11.2012 and also issued a legal notice dt.26.12.2011 marked as Ex.A2, demanding the defendants to quit the premises on 30.11.2012. The defendants received the legal notice under Ex.A2 and issued a reply notice dt.20.10.2012 marked as Ex.A4 to extend the lease period and also issued a letter dt.17.01.2012 under Ex.A5 calling 9 upon the plaintiffs to come forward to discuss the matter for renewal of lease at mutual agreeable terms. The plaintiffs after receiving the letter under Ex.A5, issued a reply notice dt.23.02.2012 under Ex.A6 refusing to extend the lease and to vacate the premises as demanded in the earlier notice. Ex.A6 also served on the defendants under Ex.A7 postal acknowledgment but the defendants did not vacate the suit premises, as such the plaintiffs got issued legal notice dt.08.04.2013 under Ex.A8 demanding the defendants to vacate the premises as they are in the premises as illegal occupants and trespassers and shall pay damages at Rs.40,000/- per month, Ex.A8 is also received by the defendants under the postal acknowledgment Ex.A9. Inspite of receiving Ex.A8, the defendants did not vacate the premises, as such the plaintiffs filed the present suit for eviction of the defendants from the suit schedule property and for damages at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per month from 30.11.2012 to 30.08.2013. The plaintiffs examined 1st plaintiff as P.W.1 and their Senior Legal Advisor as P.W.2 who asserted their version claiming that the defendants did not vacate the suit premises even after expiry of the lease period, inspite of issuing quit notice and that the defendants are illegal occupants and trespassers of the suit schedule property and they shall pay damages at Rs.40,000/- per month from 30.11.2012 onwards. Though P.W.1 and P.W.2 are cross examined by the defendants counsel at length, nothing is elicited in favour of the defendants as against the plaintiffs. On the other hand, defendants examined D.W.2 and D.W.3 and they admitted that the lease agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants company expired on 30.11.2012 as per Ex.A1 and thereafter, the plaintiffs refused to extend lease period and inspite of that they are in possession of the plaint schedule property by paying the rents as per the lease agreement under
Ex.A1.
10
12.It is an admitted fact that there is hike in prices of daily commodities which includes petrol and diesel and the land values are abnormally increased as well as the rents. The defendants themselves admitted that the suit schedule property is situated in a very busy locality abutting to National Highway. When the lease period between the plaintiffs and defendants expired on 30.11.2012 and the plaintiffs refused to extend the lease period, even after the requests made by the defendants, the defendants are bound to vacate the suit premises after determination of the lease period as per the terms and conditions of Ex.A1. The counsel for the defendants argued that a proper quit notice is not issued by the plaintiffs, as such the suit is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs argued that as an abundant caution plaintiffs issued quit notice under
Ex.A2 on 26.12.2011 and further relied upon the following decisions reported in
1) (2006) 4 SCC 205 between Sarup Singh Gupta Vs Jagdish Singh and others wherein their lordships held that acceptance of rent by landlord after service of notice to quite and before initiation of eviction suit, if amounts to waiver, inference of such waiver, necessary condition is that there must be some act on the part of person giving notice which evinces an intention to treat the lease as subsisting, further, the express or implied consent of person to whom such notice is given must also be established. Whether such intention to waive the notice has been shown by the act concerned is essentially a question of fact, and Court must consider all relevant facts and circumstances, mere fact that rent has been tendered and accepted after service of such notice, cannot be determinative.
2) 2001 (2) ALT 388 (DB) between Bank of India represented by its
Zonal Manager, Hyderabad Vs V. Swaroop Reddy wherein their lordships held that once the tenancy for the fixed period expired which came to an end by efflux of time, no notice for terminating the tenancy under Section 106 of the T.
11
P. Act was required for the purpose of filing the suit after expiry of the lease.
Even if the notice was not a valid notice, it could be regarded as a notice indicating that the tenancy would not tie continued after the term of the tenancy comes to an end.
3) SA No.48/2001 between M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Limited, A Goverment of India Undertaking Having its Registered Office At
17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai, Represented by Chairman and others
Vs R. Subramonian, Veerabhadra Gardens, Pattom Palace P.O.,
Thiruvananthapuram and others.
4) Second Appeal No.698/2000 between Amiya Kumar Datta Vs
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Amar Petrol Pump
Manendragarh
5) WP No.22021/2014 between Anita P.C and others Vs Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Limited Represented by its Senior Manager Legal –
South 1, Ranganathan Garden, 11 th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Posta Bag
No.1212, Chennai and others Wherein their lordships held that Ex.A1 agreement for lease was executed on 24.07.1958 and it has now come out that the arrangement of the lease ended on 31.01.1987. The defendant company and predecessor in interest of the company have been enjoying the property on lease from 01.02.1957 onwards. It is hoped and expected that as a model public sector undertaking the appellant company would at least now voluntarily vacate the plaint schedule property in compliance with the impugned judgment without forcing the respondent landlord to initiate any execution proceedings. Their lordships further observed that a honourned person should vacate the property over which his lease or license has expired and hand over possession of the same on the date of expiry of the lease or license to the landlord/owner unless there is a fresh mutual agreement which permits him to continue in possession.
12
13.In the case on hand, there is a fixed term of lease between plaintiffs and defendants as per Ex.A1 for a period of 15 years from 30.11.1997 to 30.11.2012.
Thereafter, the lease period is determined/expired and the defendants shall vacate the suit premises and hand over the same to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also issued a quit notice to the defendants under Ex.A2, though it is not required when the lease period is fixed for specific period, as per the decision of Hon’ble High
Court in Bank of India case. The defendants inspite of receiving the notice from the plaintiffs issued reply notice under Ex.A4 and also issued a letter under
Ex.A5 for renewal of lease period which is denied by the plaintiffs by issuing a reply notice under Ex.A6. Further, the plaintiffs also issued a legal notice under
Ex.A8 informing the defendants that they are holding over the premises as a trespassers and the rents being paid by the defendants are being accepted only as damages, but not as rents and that the defendants have to hand over the vacant premises of the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiffs by their acts and deeds made the defendants know that they never waived the quit notice and the lease period is never extended and that the defendants shall vacate the suit premises.
The defendant claimed in the written statement that they are ESSO Company and the lease between them is a statutory lease and it shall be deemed extended. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that there is no statutory lease between the plaintiffs and the defendants and that the ESSO company was taken over by
Government of India and the defendant company is only a Public Limited
Company and it shall vacate the suit schedule property on expiry of the lease period i.e., on 30.11.2012. It is also clarified by their lordships in ‘Ram
Bharosety Lal Gupta’ case that “No automatic renewal of lease in favour of state of its instrumentalities as lessee of a private lessor, without compliance with mandate of Article 14 over and above and in addition to compliance with terms of lease deed. Therefore, in view of my above discussion and in the light of 13 above referred decisions which facts are applicable to the present case facts I hold that the plaintiffs are entitled for eviction of the defendants from the suit schedule property as per lease deed under Ex.A1. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiffs as against the defendants.
ISSUE NO.2:
14.In view of my above discussion and findings on issue No.1 wherein it is held that the defendants are not statutory tenants and they are liable to vacate suit property and hand over the same to the plaintiffs after expiry/determination of the lease period on 30.11.2012, but without vacating the premises, the defendants has been in possession of the suit premises as trespassers by paying nominal rents as fixed in the lease agreement/Ex.A1 which was executed in the year 2003 is exploitation and untenable. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon the following decisions in respect of claiming damages from the defendants as they have been in occupancy of the schedule property as trespassers.
1) (2013) 9 SCC 714 between Ram Bharosety Lal Gupta (Died) by
LRs and others Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and another
wherein their lordships held that lessess continued in possession only as trespasser after termination of initial period of lease upon its non renewal, and thus lessee was liable for mense profits as a trespasser in possession from the date of termination of lease.
2) AIR 1999 Cal 270 between Salil Kumar Roy Vs Smt Badu Devi
Bhansali and others wherein their lordships held that, an ex-lessee, is not an extenant. He is, as stated by the Supreme Court in Smt Shanti Devi Vs Amal
Kumar Baneree, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1550, a trespasser and a tenant at sufferance akin to the position of a trespasser as held by Supreme Court in R.V
Bhupal Prasad Vs State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1996 SC 140 A lessee, whose lease has come to an end, and by operation of law whose interest in 14 the property acquired under the lease stands reverted back to the guarantor, is neither a tenant, nor an extenant but a person in occupation without any authority to do so. The plaintiff is entitled to vacant and peaceful possession and in the event the substituted defendants fail to give vacant and peaceful possession of the property in question to the plaintiff in terms of this decree, they shall be liable to pay mesne profit to the plaintiff as fixed by the Court...
15.In the case on hand as per the lease agreement between plaintiffs and defendants under Ex.A1, the lease period between plaintiffs and defendants expired/determined by 30.11.2012 and the defendants are liable to vacate the suit premises and hand over the same to the plaintiffs on 30.11.2012 itself. But the defendants did not vacate the premises inspite of issuing quit notice by the plaintiffs and refusing to extend the lease period. Therefore, the defendants are liable to pay damages to the plaintiffs as observed by their lordships in the above referred cases. Further, D.W.2 and D.W.3 admitted in their cross examination that the suit property is located in a very busy locality abutting to National highway which fetches good rents in the locality. The defendants paying monthly rents as fixed in Ex.A1 for the years 01.02.2007 to 30.11.2012 at Rs.17,000/- per month even after expiry of lease period on 30.11.2012 is untenable and absurd.
As per Ex.A1, the rent has been enhanced at Rs.4,500/- for every 5 years, in such circumstances, the defendants ought to have paid the rents in such mode by enhancing the rents as fixed in Ex.A1/lease agreement which is not done by them. It is also a fact that, after declaration of suit property locality as a capital city of newly formed Andhra Pradesh State there is enhancement of land values and rents. Further, the life style and day today expenses including the prices of petrol/diesel has been increased heavily and further the suit is dragged on from 2014 to 2023 i.e., for a period of 9 years which caused severe loss to the plaintiff.
Therefore, in view of my discussion, I hold that the plaintiffs are entitled for 15 damages at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month from the defendants from 01.12.2012 to 30.08.2013 for their use and occupation of the suit property unauthorizedly as trespassers. Hence, this issue is also answered in favour of the plaintiffs as against the defendants.
ISSUE No.4:-
16. In view of my discussion and findings on issues No.1 and 2 wherein it is held that the plaintiffs are entitled for eviction of the defendants and vacant possession of the plaint schedule property, the plaintiffs are also entitled for damages from the defendant being in possession of the suit schedule property unauthorizedly as trespassers even after expiry of lease period and inspite of quit notice issued by the plaintiffs.
IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs: (a) directing the defendants to vacate the suit schedule premises and hand over the vacant possession of the same to the plaintiffs within 90 days from today (20.11.2023) i.e., by 17.02.2024, failing which the plaintiffs shall obtain the same through process of law; and that (b) the defendants shall pay damages for their unauthorized occupation of the suit property @ Rs.30,000/- per month from 01.12.2012 ** to 31.08.2013.
**NOTE: Amendment as per orders in IA No.634/2023, dt.27.11.2023.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court on this the 20 th day of November, 2023.
Sd/- T. Leelavathi,
II Addl. Senior Civil Judge (F.T.C), Guntur.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Plaintiffs : P.W.1 : Tulasi Rama Chandra Prabhu.
P.W.2 : Kondaveeti Naga Vara Prasad.
16
For Defendants: D.W.1 : Ravi Shankar Pammi. (Eschewed).
D.W.2 : Aditya Anand.
D.W.3 : Karumanchi Ramachandra Rao.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Plaintiff : For Defendant: NIL
Ex.A1 is the Registered Lease deed bearing document No.2271/2003, dt.06.01.2003.
Ex.A2 is the legal notice issued by the plaintiffs to defendants along with postal receipts, dt.26.12.2011.
Ex.A3 is the postal acknowledgment from 1st defendant, dt.02.01.2012.
Ex.A4 is the Reply got issued by the defendants, dt.20.10.2012.
Ex.A5 is the notice issued by the defendants for renewal of the lease, dt.17.01.2012.
Ex.A6 is the reply notice for the above sent by the plaintiffs, dt.23.02.2012.
Ex.A7 is the postal acknowledgment from 1st defendant, dt.27.02.2012.
Ex.A8 is the office copy of the legal notice, dt.08.04.2013.
Ex.A9 is the postal acknowledgment for the above from the counsel for the defendants, dt.10.04.2013.
Sd/- T. Leelavathi,
II Addl. Senior Civil Judge (F.T.C),
Guntur.