Dismissed

The Secty Edu.Dept.Govt.of a.P.and Anr. v. Nisar Ahmed Desai.and Anr.

Telangana HC5 Jul 2011AS/1018/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed an appeal filed by a landlord who sought recovery of damages for a leased building. The civil lower court had awarded Rs.60,000 as compensation based on an advocate commissioner's report. The court upheld the lower court's assessment, noting defects and poor maintenance contributed to the damages.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; each party to bear their own costs.

The Secty Edu.Dept.Govt.of a.P.and Anr. Vs Nisar Ahmed… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

¶2

APPEAL SUIT No.1018 OF 2001

¶3

Dated 5^th July, 2011

¶4

Between:

¶5

The Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of A.P., Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and another

¶6

.. APPELLANTS A N D

¶7

Nisar Ahmed Desai and another

¶8

.. RESPONDENTS

¶9

This Court made the following:

¶10

JUDGMENT:

¶11

The defendants in O.S.No.61 of 1994 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, are the appellants herein. The suit is filed for recovery of damages for the premises belonging to the plaintiff which was let out to the appellants and the claim for damages was for Rs.1,83,084/-. The allegations in the plaint goes to show that the building belonging to the plaintiff was given on a monthly rent of Rs.3,800/- for running A.P. Residential

¶12

School (Urdu Medium) and an agreement was entered by the defendants on 26-02-1992. As per the terms of the agreement the tenant shall keep the scheduled premises in good condition till it is vacated and deliver back in good condition. A new building was let out to the defendants. The defendants did not keep the premises in proper conditions and also did not enhance the monthly rent. The defendants gave a false reply and the claim for damages were made assessing the same after inspection by the Licensing Engineer. Hence, the suit.

¶13

2. The third defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by the others. According to the case of the defendants the alleged damages are not correct. On the other hand, as per the agreement every year the landlord has to undertake minor repairs of the building and the plaintiff never undertook any steps and due to the lack of indulgence of the plaintiff only some minor repairs were required. The suit was filed with a malafied intention. The damages claimed by plaintiff are excessive and un-real. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

¶14

3. On the basis of the above pleadings the following issues are framed for trial:

¶15

1. Whether the defendants have caused any mischief and damage to the plaint schedule house ?

¶16

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages as claimed by him for repairing the schedule building ?

¶17

3. To what relief ?

¶18

4. On behalf of the plaintiff PWs.1 to 3 are examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-13. On behalf of the defendants DWs.1 and 2 are examined and marked Exs.B-1 to B-8 and Exs.C-1 and C-2 report and plan of the Advocate Commissioner were marked.

¶19

5. After considering the evidence on record, the learned

¶20

Principal Senior Civil Judge, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.60,000/- and aggrieved by the said judgment the present appeal is filed.

¶21

6. The points that arises for consideration are:

¶22

1. Whether the building let out to the defendants was damaged and if so, what is the extent ?

¶23

2. Whether the judgment passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, is legal and sustainable ?

¶24

7. P O I N T Nos.1 and 2 :-

¶25

There is no dispute about the fact that in the year 1991 the property was leased out to the defendants for running a residential school for Urdu medium students initially for a period of 11 months and subsequently this school was vacated on 14-08-1999. According to the case of the plaintiff the building was not properly maintained and there was some damages which were estimated by PW-2 and also by the Advocate Commissioner PW-3 and the certificate Ex.A-1 is relied upon. The report of the Commissioner who is examined as PW-3 is marked as Exs.C-1 and C-2. The photos were also taken as Ex.A-9.

¶26

8. The main contention of the defendants to avoid the liability is that minor repairs have to be undertaken every year by the landlord and it is the duty of his maintenance and in this case the plaintiff is failed to repair the building and therefore, the defendants are not liable to pay the amount.

¶27

9. Before coming to the above contention of the appellants it is to be seen as to whether the damages noticed by PWs.2 and 3 can be accepted or not. PW-3 is the Advocate Commissioner was appointed during the course of trial and he gave a detailed report assessing the damages item wise and also the extent of damages.

¶28

Evidently, the defendants have not filed any objections and no work memo was also given. PW-2 was Engineer who has assessed with all his technical expertise and the report is marked as Ex.A-1.

¶29

10. In order to disprove these estimates the evidence of DWs.1 and 2 is to be taken into account. DW-1 only spoke about the rental agreement. DW-2 is said to be the Engineer and according to him he was periodically inspecting the suit schedule property and was giving advise to the Principal and the landowner about the maintenance of the building. According to him the repairs of the building are of minor in nature and Ex.B-7 notice was given to the effect that if the repairs are not effected the premises will be vacated. Though the defendants tried to disprove the correctness of the assessment made by PWs.2 and 3 they could not dispute about the photos. The defendants also did not take any steps for any assessment by different experience in Engineering or from the R & B.

¶30

11. The learned Judge found that Ex.B-7 notice dated 24-121998 does not show that there are lapses on the part of the plaintiff in maintaining the building. But however, Ex.B-3 is a letter addressed by the Principal about minor repairs to be undertaken and in fact the plaintiff agreed to undertake the same soon after the rents are paid. The defendants without paying the rents, demanding the landlord to undertake the repairs is not proper. It was also found by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge that the building was occupied by students more than the capacity.

¶31

12. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, undertook into consideration the evidence of DW-2 that a sum of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- would be sufficient to attend the repairs complained by the plaintiff. Evidently, keeping in view of the above evidence of

¶32

DW-2 and also the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, which cannot be doubted. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge granted a reasonable amount of Rs.60,000/- as compensation for damages to the plaintiff. Though the learned counsel for the appellants strongly pleaded that the building was taken on leased by the Government and the damages are higher side, I feel that as the rents were not properly paid in time and the defendants have also contributed for the increase in the damages and even after the damages or the repairs that were required the defendants continues to use the premises and thereby the damages have increased. In view of the above, I do not see any reason to interfere with the assessment made by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and accordingly I found no merits.

¶33

13. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case each party should bear their own costs.

¶34

___________________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

¶35

July 5, 2011 Pn

¶36

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

¶37

APPEAL SUIT No.1018 OF 2001

¶38

July 5, 2011

¶39

The Secty Edu.Dept.Govt.of a.P.and Anr. v. Nisar Ahmed Desai.and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Secty Edu.Dept.Govt.of a.P.and Anr. v. Nisar Ahmed Desai.and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gampala Srinivasulu Vs Bathala Ramaswaiah

Mohamed Tajuddin, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kadamanchi Peda Ranga Rao , Peda Rangaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dantuluri Sathiraju, Vs Ch. Suryanarayanaraju (died).

Thakur Surekhadeep Singh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.a.Rasheed, Vs a.Srikanth