Dismissed

Sri M. Khaja Pasha [since deceased] v. M/S Cheekoty Veeranna and Company

Telangana HC14 Aug 2012SA/346/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal regarding eviction, the High Court held that a termination notice was valid for vacant land leased without a written deed. The Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the eviction decree, and granted the appellants three months to vacate the premises.

What did the court decide?

Second Appeal dismissed; appellants granted three months for vacating the premises.

Sri M. Khaja Pasha [since deceased] Vs M/S Cheekoty… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

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

¶2

S.A.No.346 of 2008

¶3

J U D G M E N T:

¶4

The unsuccessful defendant (who died subsequent to the filing of the first appeal and represented by his L.Rs) in OS.No.1196 of 2000 on the file of the I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, are the appellants herein. The suit was one filed for eviction of the defendant and for recovery of damages. According to the claim of the plaintiff, the defendant has taken on lease an extent of 150 Square yards of vacant land on a monthly rent of Rs.175/- and thereafter started business in motor lining. Earlier a notice for eviction was given and a suit in O.S.No.1176 of 1995 was filed and the same was dismissed holding that the notice is not proper. Again a notice was given on 24.01.1999 terminating the tenancy by the end of July, 1999. The defendant has received the notice and sent a reply but did not deliver possession of the property. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for past mesne profits and future mesne profits.

¶5

2. The defendant has filed a written statement contending that the notice for termination of tenancy is not proper and the notice is not valid. Consequently, the plaintiff is not entitled for recovery of possession of the property.

¶6

3. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court has passed a decree for eviction and ordered enquiry into the past and future mesne profits on separate applications being filed by the plaintiff.

¶7

4. Aggrieved by that, the appellants herein filed the first appeal A.S.No.81 of 2003 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, and the same was dismissed.

¶8

5. Aggrieved by that, the present second appeal is filed and the second appeal was admitted in view of the substantial questions of law raised in the memorandum of grounds of appeal.

¶9

6. There is no dispute about the fact that the deceased-1^st appellant is the tenant of the premises shown in the suit schedule. Though an attempt is sought to be made that as the rent being paid is Rs.175/-, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction, the admission of the 1^st appellant herein as DW.1 clearly goes to show that he has taken on lease only vacant land. Therefore, it is quite clear that what was leased is only vacant land and not any structures and consequently the benefit of the Rent Control Act is not available.

¶10

7. So far as the notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act (for short ‘the Act’) is concerned, evidently, more than 6 months time was given for vacating the premises and when there is no written lease deed as contemplated under Section 107 of the Act, the insistence of the notice as per Section 106 of the Act is not tenable and in-fact, the Court below has considered this legal aspect. Furthermore, under Section 106 sub-clause 3 of the Act even any short fall of delay of the notice period for eviction, it will not invalidate the notice. In-fact, in this case, more than the required time has been mentioned. Consequently, it cannot be held that the termination notice is not valid.

¶11

8. The learned counsel for the appellants contend that in 1997 the Government has filed LGC against the plaintiff and the appellants herein and it was allowed holding that the Government is the owner and consequently the decree cannot be enforced. It is to be noted that though the present suit and earlier suit were pending, the appellants have not taken the plea about the pendency of the LGC. The defendant having admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant cannot go back and say that the real landlord is different. If at all the Government takes action, it can proceed against the plaintiff and recover the amounts. So far as the appellants are concerned, their obligation is to pay the amounts as due to the plaintiff since the deceased-1^st appellant was admittedly inducted into possession as a tenant. Therefore, for the above reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the decree of eviction granted by the Courts below.

¶12

9. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. The appellants are granted three months time for vacating the premises. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Second Appeal shall stand closed.

¶13

_________________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

¶14

14.08.2012 vjl

Sri M. Khaja Pasha [since deceased] v. M/S Cheekoty Veeranna and Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M. Khaja Pasha [since deceased] v. M/S Cheekoty Veeranna and Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Bale. Sattemma Vs Smt. Nepala Manikyam

Smt. Nepala Manikyam Vs Smt. Bale Sattemma

Rachuru Lakshmaiah Vs Karamsetty Veeranarasimha Rao [died]

Ch.Laxmi Vs K.Momin Bai

Medgan Venkat Reddy Vs Nenhey Sab and Another

Nagadesi Balaswamy Vs Vudiga Venkateswara Rao