Partly allowed

M/s. Sai Motors, a firm situated at Hyderabad Road, beside v. Katapalli Raja Reddy

Telangana HC7 Jun 2013AS/516/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against the trial Court's eviction decree. Rejecting the claim that an oral renewal extended the tenancy, the Court upheld eviction but granted nine months' time to vacate while directing payment of enhanced rent.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed. Appellant granted nine months to vacate premises, subject to payment of enhanced rent at Rs. 15,000 per month from July 2013.

M/s. Sai Motors, a firm situated at Hyderabad Road, beside Vs… — Partition | 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.516 of 2008

¶3

JUDGMENT: (Per LNR,J)

¶4

The defendant in O.S.No.87 of 1999 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad filed this appeal feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 21.02.2008.

¶5

The appellant is the lessee of the respondent in respect of the suit schedule premises. The lease commenced in the year 1993 and it was to be in force for 10 years. The respondent filed the suit for eviction of the appellant and for recovery of arrears of rent. The defence of the appellant was that there existed a clause for renewal of lease by another 10 years and though the respondent agreed for renewal orally, no formal deed was executed. Other grounds were also pleaded. The trial Court decreed the suit through its judgment, dated 21.02.2008 granting two months time to vacate the premises. The appellant was also directed to pay arrears of rent in the manner stipulated in the decree. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the initial lease was for 10 years, the document contained a clause for renewal thereof, and the trial Court did not however take the same into account. He submits that the rents were being paid regularly and there was absolutely no basis for the respondent to file the suit.

¶6

Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the lease was for ten years and despite the expiry thereof, the appellant did not vacate the premises. He further submits that there was default in payment of rents.

¶7

The relationship between the parties as lessee and lessor was not in dispute. On the basis of the pleadings before it, the trial Court framed the following issues and additional for its consideration:

¶8

Issues:

¶9

1. Whether the lease is oral or a written and registered one?

¶10

2. Whether the loan in favour of the defendant is for a period of 20 years ending by 1.2.2013 or if it is a lease from month to month?

¶11

3. What is the agreed rate of rent?

¶12

4. Whether the quit notice is proper and valid?

¶13

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of the suit premises from the defendant?

¶14

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to arrears of rent and damages as prayed for?

¶15

Additional Issues:

¶16

1. Whether the lease of the suit property commenced from 2.2.1993?

¶17

2. Whether the provisions of the Rent Control Act apply to the suit property?

¶18

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable?

¶19

On behalf of the respondent, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.31 were filed. On behalf of the appellant, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.B.1, the lease deed, dated 02.02.1993 was filed. The suit was decreed.

¶20

The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court suffers from any legal or factual infirmity.

¶21

Ex.B.1 is the lease deed between the parties and the period stipulated therein is 10 years. However, the finding of the trial Court is that the said document was obtained only for the purpose of income tax assessment and the lease between the parties was only oral in nature. If that be so, the appellant stands on a weaker footing. Once the lease is said to be oral, Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act gets attracted and the lessee will be under obligation to vacate the premises on being issued a notice by the lessor. The plea as to existence of renewal of lease also becomes redundant.

¶22

Be that as it may, the appellant continued as lessee for 20 years, though the initially agreed period of lease was 10 years. Learned counsel for the appellant is not able to point out as to on what basis his client is entitled to continue further in the premises. We do not find any legal or factual infirmity in the judgment rendered by the trial Court. The oral and documentary evidence was thoroughly examined and correct findings were recorded.

¶23

However, learned counsel for the appellant made a request for grant of adequate time to choose alternative premises. The said request was opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶24

Having regard to the fact that a motor cycle show room is said to have been established in the premises, we grant nine months time from today for the appellant

¶25

to vacate the premises, subject to payment of enhanced rent at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month with effect from July 2013.

¶26

Hence, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant is granted nine (9) months time from today to vacate the premises subject to payment of rent at the rate of Rs.15,0000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) per month. If he commits default in payment of rent as directed, the respondent shall be entitled to execute the decree.

¶27

The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶29

S.V.BHATT, J

¶30

Date: 07.06.2013 JSU

¶31

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

¶32

A.S.No.516 of 2008

¶33

Date: 07.06.2013

¶34

JSU

M/s. Sai Motors, a firm situated at Hyderabad Road, beside v. Katapalli Raja Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Sai Motors, a firm situated at Hyderabad Road, beside v. Katapalli Raja Reddy

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

Dr. Swarna Mandava Vs M/s. Vishnu Housing (P) Ltd.

P.Maheswar Vs P.Vinay Kumar

Lella Sadasiva Rao Vs Smt.Lella Usha Rani

G.Rajeswar.Secbad. Vs Smt.G.Laxmi Narasa.Secbad.

Mr.Madhu Kumar My Vs Smt.Hima Bindu

Rashtriya Pariyojana Nirman Nigam Ltd., Vs M/s. P.L.Raju Constructions Ltd.