In the Second Appeal, the single judge directed the tenant/appellant to vacate the leased premises within two weeks and clear outstanding rent arrears, dismissing the appeal due to the tenant's failure to comply with prior directions to pay dues and vacate.
Appellant directed to vacate premises within 2 weeks and clear dues by 31.08.2023.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
S.A.No.96 of 2023
JUDGMENT :
This Second Appeal is filed by the Apellant herein as against the Decree and Judgment dated 06.07.2022 in A.S.No.280 of 2017 on the file of VII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in confirming the judgment dated 17.10.2017 in O.S.No.1592 of 2009 on the file of learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.
2
3. For convenience, the parties are herein after referred
to as arrayed before the first appellate Court in A.S.No.280 of 2017.
as a security deposit which has to be returned without any interest after deducting dues/damages. After expriy of lease in November, 2006, the plaintiff asked the defendant to vacate the cellar portion, but defendant agreed to vacate the premises after
getting a new premises, did not vacated the property and whenever the plaintiff asked for rents or to vacate the property, the defendant used to abuse the plaintiff and her family members. It is stated that the defendant has no separate electricity meter connection and he misleaded the electricity authorities obtained false reading bills by giving the plaintiff’s meter reading number. When the plaintiff asked about this
3
litigation, he demanded huge amount in the form of good will and as the defendant failed to vacate the schedule premises and filed O.S.No.153 of 2008 making false allegations against the plaintiff,
then the plaintiff filed the suit for eviction of defendant from the schedule premises and also seeking damages of Rs.85,000/- with subsequent interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit.
4
remaining five months. On 25.06.2008, the plaintiff along with her henchmen came to schedule premises, and made an high handed attempt to dispossess the defendant from the schedule premises. Hence, he filed O.S.No.153 of 2008 seeking injunction and he says prior to filing the suit, the plaintiff issued notice dated 31.03.2009, which is not in accordance of law.
following issues came to be framed:
P.W.1 was examined and Ex.A.1 to A.10 were marked. On behalf
of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 to B.15 were marked. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed A.S.No.280 of 2017 on the file of learned VII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. Now, the points for consideration before this Court are:
5
same, the present Second Appeal came to be filed.
6
out for the purpose of running poultry and the Lower Appellate Court without considering the documents filed by the appellant which are marked as exhibits B-1 to B-15, granted decree in favour of respondent. He further submits that the Lower Court ought to have held that Exhibit A-10 unregistered lease deed is insufficiently stamped and consequently the same is inadmissible in evidence. He also submits that the Lower Court ought to have held that the quit notice marked as exhibit A-1 is not valid and on that ground ought to have dismissed the suit. Further, the trial Court grossly erred in holding that the appellant is continuing in the premises as a lawful tenant without paying any rent to the respondent and since, the poultry comes under a manufacturing unit and the same is an Industry, six months notice is required as contemplated under law.
7
holding that the appellant has vacated the schedule property, therefore the earlier tenancy dated 03.03.2004 is ended and a fresh tenancy was created on 06.12.2005 between the parties. The Lower Court has miserably failed to appreciate that, subsequent to filing of the suit as per the orders of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam passed in I.A.No.464/2011, dated 28.01.2013, the appellant is regularly depositing the rents and the said amounts are lying in the civil Court deposit and the respondent have knowledge about the same. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly submits that the Lower Court after considering the aforesaid aspects ought to have dismissed the suit in O.S.No.1592/2009 with costs instead of decreeing the same on erroneous grounds. But, unfortunately on a mis-conceived notion with regard to legal and factual
aspects pertaining to the said Ex-A1, the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam has however partly decreed the suit in O.S.No.1592/2009 passing orders for eviction of the appellant directing him to vacate the premises within three months from the date of the decree, dated 17.10.2017.
docket proceedings dated 27.03.2023, the appellant agreed to
8
vacate the premises and he was granted time to vacate the premises on or before 27.07.2023. However, the appellant has not vacated the schedule property.
9
530040, which is in the limits of Chinagadili mandalam, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, within a period of two (02) weeks. Further, the appellant is directed to clear all the amounts
that are due to the respondent on or before 31.08.2023.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall
stand closed.
_____________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 09-08-2023
BMS
10
HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
S.A.No.96 of 2023
Date : 09-08-2023
BMS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the tenant is entitled to continue possession after failing to pay arrears and vacate within the stipulated time granted by the appellate court.
Defendant/Appellant
Plaintiff/Respondent
DR. K. MANMADHA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
