Appeal dismissed. Court held that since no registered instrument exists, Section 106 TPA does not apply; 15-day notice terminating tenancy is valid. Suit decreed with eviction.
Suit decreed, appeal dismissed, granting two months time for vacating the premises.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO
APPEAL SUIT No. 2456 OF 2001
BETWEEN:
M/s. Vysya Ratna Printing Works, Represented by its Managing Partner
…APPELLANT
AND
Golla Bhaskar, represented by his GPA Holder.
…RESPONDENT
The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO
APPEAL SUIT No. 2456 OF 2001
JUDGMENT:
The defendant in O.S.No. 145 of 1998 on the file of III Additional
District Judge, Vijayawada, is the appellant herein.
2. The suit was originally instituted as O.S.No.49 of 1990 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, for recovery of the possession of the schedule property and also for mesne profits.
3. The allegations in the plaint go to show that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the ground floor of the building, which was leased out to the firm of the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.1,200/-. The plaintiff has been demanding the defendant to vacate the premises since more than two years. The defendant promised to vacate but did not do so. The tenancy is from month to month. A quit notice was given claiming damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month and the defendant gave a reply with false allegations. Therefore, the suit is filed for the above relief.
4. The defendant has filed a written statement admitting the tenancy but pleading that the monthly rent is not Rs.1,200/-. The defendant is a tenant since more than 50 years for non-residential purpose and the rent is only Rs.350/- per month and therefore, the defendant is entitled for the protection under the Rent Control Act. The notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy is not valid. There are no grounds to claim the eviction and the damages at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the trial court, for trial:
premises by the defendant?
6. On behalf of the plaintiff, PW.1 was examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.4. On behalf of the defendant, DW.1 was examined and no documents were marked.
7. After considering the evidence on record, the learned III Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, decreed the suit ordering the eviction but did not grant the damages at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed.
8. The points that arise for consideration are:
9. POINTS:
So far as the finding of the lower Court about the rent being Rs.1,200/- per month and thereby the provisions of the Rent Control Act being not applicable is concerned, there is not of much contest on the side of the appellant. According to the counsel for the appellant, the appellant was running printing press and it is for manufacturing purpose and therefore, it shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year and the notice of termination within 15 days is not valid. Before considering this aspect, it is to be noted that liberal interpretation is being given by the Courts for recognizing the tenancy as to whether it is for manufacturing purpose or not. Evidently, the appellant was running a printing press and it was said to be in the upstair portion.
The present suit is for the ground floor portion. The claim of the appellant is that the lower Court has wrongly relied upon the decision reported in Chilukoti Srinivasa Rao Vs. Adidam Mohan Rao[1] . But however as can be seen from the judgment in that case, the property premises was obtained on lease for running a printing press and notice was given only for 15 days. Furthermore, in the reply notice Ex.A.3 only the protection under Rent Control Act is pleaded that the notice is not valid. Evidently, there is no written agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding lease.
10. Under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, the lease of immovable property for manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be lease from year to year and terminable by six months notice. Under Section 107 of Transfer of Property Act, lease of immovable property from year to year or any period exceeding that can only be made by registered instrument. Merely because the tenant is continuing after the expiry of initial period of lease, the tenant does not enjoy all the benefits under the Transfer of Property Act. Even assuming to be true that the lease is for manufacturing purposes, but a valid lease can only be made by registered instrument and in this case, there is no such document. In this connection, it is useful to refer to a decision reported i n Samir Mukherjee Vs. Davinder K.Bajaj and others[2] , whereunder it was held that though the lease was for manufacturing purpose, when there was no registered written lease, Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act would not be applicable and six months notice is not necessary and 15 days notice terminating the tenancy is not bad in law. If the above decision is applied then naturally the contention of the appellant cannot be sustained and 15 days notice terminating tenancy is valid. The lower Court also relied upon a decision 1st cited supra, touching on this aspect similarly.
11. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the judgment and decree passed by the learned III Additional District Judge,
Vijayawada, does not suffer from any infirmity and the suit was instituted on 25.10.1989 long after the notice of termination. Accordingly points are answered.
12. In the result, appeal is dismissed with costs, granting two months time for vacating.
N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 27-04-2011.
INL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the notice of termination of tenancy is legal?
Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned III Additional District Judge is legal and sustainable?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chilukoti Srinivasa Rao Vs. Adidam Mohan RaoDistinguished¶37
2001(1) ALD 128
Samir Mukherjee Vs. Davinder K.Bajaj and othersApplied¶38
2001 AIR SCW 1740 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Vysya Ratna Printing Works
Golla Bhaskar
N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
