Partly allowed

M/s.Sai Sanjeevani Hospital v. Sri Pranav Ravi

Telangana HC21 Jun 2013AS/199/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a lease dispute appeal, the Court held that the lessor had the right to seek eviction post-lease expiry under Section 106 TPA. The Court reduced monthly damages from Rs.45,000 to Rs.40,000 if the tenant vacates by March 31, 2014, and disallowed future mesne profits in that scenario.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was partly allowed; the decree fixing damages at Rs.45,000/- was set aside in favor of Rs.40,000/- conditioned on vacating by March 31, 2014, with future mesne profits denied if the conditi

M/s.Sai Sanjeevani Hospital Vs Sri Pranav Ravi — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶2

A.S.No.199 of 2013

¶3

JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)

¶4

The appellant is the defendant in O.S.No.268 of 2008 on the file of the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Ranga Reddy District. The respondent filed the suit for eviction of the appellant from the suit schedule premises and for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits. The trial Court decreed the suit through judgment, dated 07.12.2012. Hence, this appeal.

¶5

The plea of the respondent was that he is the owner of the suit schedule premises comprising of cellar, ground, first and second floors at Dilsukhnagar Colony, Vikas Nagar, Kothapet Village, Ranga Reddy District and the premises have been leased to the appellant with effect from 15.11.2000. He stated that on an earlier occasion, he filed O.S.No.38 of 2004 in the Court of the V Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District for recovery of possession and damages and the appellant on the other, filed O.S.No.140 of 2006 in the same Court for injunction and that through a common judgment, the trial Court dismissed O.S.No.38 of 2004 on the ground that it was filed during the subsistence of lease and partly allowed O.S.No.140 of 2006. He stated that the period of lease expired and though a notice requiring the appellant to vacate the premises was issued, he did not accede to the request. He further pleaded that the appellant committed default in payment of rents and that a sum of Rs.12,40,000/- paid as advance stood adjusted towards rent up to April, 2004. He has also prayed for mesne profits.

¶6

The suit was opposed by the appellant. He admitted the existence of relationship of lessor and lessee. He, however, pleaded that he paid municipal tax of Rs.5,00,000/- and incurred huge expenditure for civil works. The further plea of the appellant was that the rent is divided into two components, namely the one for the premises and the other for equipment and since the equipment has become outdated or useless, they are not liable to pay the rent for that purpose. Issuance of notice by the respondent is admitted.

¶7

The trial Court decreed the suit, directing eviction of the appellant and fixing the damages for use and occupation of the premises at the rate of Rs.45,000/- per month, from the date of suit till the date of decree.

¶8

Sri D.V.Sitarama Murthy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, submits that the trial Court did not take into account, the proceedings that have ensued between the parties on earlier occasion, particulars of payment of rent and the change of circumstances vis-à-vis the hospital equipment. He submits that there was no justification for the trial Court in straightaway fixing the damages for use and occupation. It is also his case that the appellant has deposited a sum of Rs.19,35,000/-, whereas, the arrears of rent were claimed at only Rs.14,20,000/-. Other grounds are also urged.

¶9

Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that once the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short ‘the Act’) was issued, the appellant became liable to be evicted, when there was no dispute as to the relationship of lessor and lessee between the parties. He submits that though the appellant pleaded that a sum of Rs.19,35,000/- was deposited or that he incurred expenditure for civil works, none of them were established nor the civil works, if any were, with the permission of the respondent. He further submits that despite the fact that the respondent was entitled to claim the enhanced rent, the trial Court treated the rent, as originally agreed, as damages and no exception can be taken to it.

¶10

It is not in dispute that the respondent is the owner of the premises and the appellant is the lessee. The respondent made an earlier attempt to recover the possession of the property by filing O.S.No.38 of 2004. That suit, however, was dismissed on the ground that it was filed during the subsistence of lease. The present suit was filed after expiry of agreed period of lease. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration:

¶11

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.14,20,000/- from the defendant as alleged in the plaint?

¶12

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover physical possession of the suit schedule property from the defendant after evicting him there from?

¶13

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the award of future mesne profits at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit as prayed for?

¶14

4. Whether the Court fee paid is correct?

¶15

The respondent deposed as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A6 were filed. On behalf of the appellant, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B28 were filed. Most of them are in the form of receipts of rent. The suit was decreed as indicated above.

¶16

The points that arise for consideration before us are

¶17

(1) Whether the respondent made out a case for eviction of the

¶18

appellant?

¶19

(2) Whether the trial Court was justified in fixing the rent at the rate of Rs.45,000/- per month from the date of the suit?

¶20

Point No.1: The lease between the parties commenced in the year 2000 and it was for a period of five years. Though the relevant document is not placed before this Court, the relevant terms are evident from the record. Before expiry of that five years period, the respondent filed O.S.No.38 of 2004 and the suit was rightly dismissed, since it was filed during the subsistence of lease. There is no dispute that the present suit was filed after the agreed period of lease. An attempt was made by the appellant to plead that the finding in O.S.No.38 of 2004 would operate as res judicata. The contention needs to be recorded only for being rejected. The right of the lessor to seek eviction by issuing notice under Section 106 of the Act cannot be defeated on the ground that an earlier suit filed during the subsistence of lease was dismissed.

¶21

Though there is some controversy as to the exact amount deposited or the nature of payment of rents, that hardly becomes relevant, once a notice under Section 106 of the Act is issued by the lessor. A lessor has every right to seek eviction of a lessee, even if the latter was prompt and regular in payment of rents. As a matter of fact, a lessor does not have to plead any grounds such as default in payment of rent, bona fide requirement and damage to the premises. A lessor is conferred with right under the Act, to seek eviction by issuing notice under Section 106 of the Act. The appellant is not able to point out any defect in the notice, dated 22.01.2008, marked as Ex.A2. Therefore, point No.1 is answered against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.

¶22

Point No.2: Apart from claiming the relief of recovery of possession, the respondent prayed for a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs.14,20,000/- as arrears of rent. The trial Court took note of the deposit of the advance and payment of rents during the pendency of the suit; and declined the relief of recovery of Rs.14,20,000/-. The respondent did not file appeal, in relation thereto. The trial Court, however, directed that the appellants shall be under obligation to pay damages for use and occupation, at the rate of Rs.45,000/- per month, from the date of filing of the suit. It was also directed that the future mesne profits shall be determined under separate proceedings.

¶23

The exact terms between the parties in relation to the fixation of rent or the escalation thereof, are not placed before this Court. Broad agreement between the parties was that the rent for the premises would be Rs.30,000/-, and for equipment, it

¶24

would be Rs.15,000/-. The respondent does not dispute that the rent for the equipment was fixed at Rs.15,000/- in the year 2000. It is a matter of common knowledge that the equipment in a hospital becomes outdated, with each passing year and one cannot expect the equipment, which was made available in the year 2000, to be of same utility at this length of time.

¶25

We are, therefore, of the view that the rent from the date of the suit can be taken as Rs.40,000/- on average and in case, the appellant undertakes to vacate the premises by 31.03.2014, concession can be given to him in the form of denying the benefit of ascertainment of future mesne profits, to the respondent.

¶26

Hence, the appeal is partly allowed setting aside the decree passed by the trial Court in so far as it directed payment of rent at the rate of Rs.45,000/-. It is directed that in case the appellant vacates the premises and puts the respondent in vacant possession of the property on or before 31.03.2014, he shall be entitled to continue in possession of the premises on payment of Rs.40,000/- from July, 2013. In such an event, the respondent shall not be entitled to any future mesne profits. If the appellant fails to vacate the premises, as directed, the appeal shall stand dismissed in its entirety and the respondent shall be entitled to enforce the decree without any modification. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

The miscellaneous petitions filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.

¶28

______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY,J

¶29

______________________ S.V. BHATT,J

¶30

Dt:21.06.2013

¶31

kdl

M/s.Sai Sanjeevani Hospital v. Sri Pranav Ravi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Sai Sanjeevani Hospital v. Sri Pranav Ravi

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

V.Sita Ronfed Vs v.Ronfed

A.Srinivas Vs a.Rani Ratna Prabha , Rani

Namratha Ahuja Visakapatnam Vs Harish Jahuja Bhilai Durg M.P.State

Sanaboyina Pullaiah Setty Pedapudi E.G.D Vs Krishnarayudu Devasthanam K.Pedapudi

M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. v. Hemalatha

B. Vijaya Kumar Vs D.gopala Krishna Reddy