Dismissed

S.P.Mallaiah (died per LRs.) v. Dr.S.Manmohan Rao (died)

Telangana HC14 Mar 2022SA/314/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeals by the legal representatives of a tenant against concurrent decrees dismissing a suit for specific performance of an agreement to allot a new shop in a proposed commercial complex and decreeing eviction from the tenanted premises on a quit notice. Finding no substantial question of law, the High Court refused to interfere and dismissed both appeals, confirming the courts below.

What the court decided

AI extract

S.P.Mallaiah (died per LRs.) Vs Dr.S.Manmohan Rao… — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

IVONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH^{DAY OF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT.^{JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA}

¶5

SECOND APPEAL NOS, 314 AND^{318oF 20'10}

¶6

S.A.No .314 of 2010

¶7

Appeal Under Section^{100of CPC against the Judgment and Decree madein} A.S.No.332 0f 2008 dated^{05.02.2010 0n the file of the courtof the lll Additional} Chief Judge, City Civil^{Court,Hyderabad. Preferredagainstthe Decreein} o.S.No.5851 0t 2OO4 dated^{29.08.2008 0n the file of the court of the Xll Juniorcivil} Judge, City Civil Court,^HYderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

--1.-5.p.rr.luttaiah (died per LRs.), S/o.Chanchaia!,qgq{As-Vgg.rs,Proprietor, I'4ls' St"am Electr)c Dry Cleanijrs,^{ShopNo.5-8-326/9,Public GardensRoad,} Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶10

1. S-tV.Vijai Kumar, S/o.^{LateS.P.lVallaiah,aged48 years,Occ: Business,} Ryo. 5-8-326/7, Nampally,^{Hyderabad.- 38.}

¶11

1. S.lr,4.Krishna, S/o. Lat-e^{S.P.lVallaiah,aged 46 years, Occ: Business} R/o.5-8-326/7, Nampally,^{Hyderabad.- 38.}

¶12

+. S. tr,4.Shankar,' S/o.^'Lat6 S.P.Mattaiah,^{aged 42 years, Occ:BusinessRJo.} 5-8-32617, Nampally, Hyderabad.^{- 38}

¶13

S.M-Pradeep Klmeir,^{Sio. Late S.P.I/allaiah, aged 39 years, Occ: Business} No. 5-8-32617. Nampally,^{Hyderabad. - 38.}

¶14

O. S.U.Sulatfra, b/o. Late'S.P.lr/allaiah,^{aged48 years,Occ: Business R/o'} 5-B'326t7' Nampallv'

¶15

"ou'"0'1..i8?ELLANTs/AppELLANTS/'LATNTFFS

¶16

AND

¶17

1 Dr.S.Manmohan Rao, S/o.Yellaiah,^{aged 67 years' R/o.5-8-326/7,Flat} No.406, Ashok Chandra^{Apartments,Lakdikapurl, Hyderabad. (Died)}

¶18

2 P.Ravikanth Reddy, S/o.^{P.Padma Reddy, Occ: Real Estate.Businesscum} Developer Rio. 6-5-596/43,^{VenkataramanaColony' Road No. 1, Banjara} Hills, Hvderabad.

¶19

3 S.H.luftia Rao, W/o. Late S.Manmohan^{Rao,aged 66 years, Occ: Household} R/o. H.No 5-8-326t7.^{Nampally,Hyderabad.} S.AUniif'"f Rao. S/o. Late^{S.N,4anmohan Rao,aged 33 years, Occ: Employee} R/o. H.No. 5-8-32617,^{Nampally,Hyderabad.}

¶20

5 S.Sangeetha Rao, Dlo.^{Late S.N/anmohanRao' aged 42 years, Occ:} Houseiold R/o. H.No. 5-8-32617.^{Nampally,Hyderabad.} ...RESPONDENiS/RESPONDENTSiDEFENDANTS

¶21

Counsel for the Appellants:^{SRI BATHULA RAJ KIRAN}

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents:^{SRI VIVEK JAIN}

¶23

¶24

SECOND APPE^{AL NO: 318 OF 2010}

¶25

Appea|Undersectionl00ofCPCagainsttheJudgmentandDecreemadein A.S.No.333 0f 2008^{dated05.02.20',10 0n the file of the courtof the lll Additional} Chief Judge, City^{CivilCourt,Hyderabad,Preferred againstthe Decreein} o.S.No.5833 0f 2003^{dated 29.08.2008 0n the file of the court of the Xll Juniorcivil} Judge, City Civil Court,^HYderabad.

¶26

Between:

¶27

'1 . S.P.lr/iallaiah (died per LRs.), S/o.Chanchaiah, qge{ B3-years Proprietol^lt'4/s Si"im Electric Dry^{Cleaners, ShopNo 5-8-326/9' Public GardensRoad,} Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶28

S.M.Viiav Kumar, S/o.^{Late S.P.Mallaiah,aged 48 years, Occ: Business'} R/o. 5-'8-326/7, Nampally,^{Hyderabad- 38.}

¶29

S.tvl.Krishna, S/o. Late^{S.P Nllallaiah,aged 46 years, Occ: Business} R/o.5-8-326/7, Nampally,^{Hyderabad. - 38.}

¶30

S.lr/.Shankar, S/o.^{Late S.P.tr/allaiah, aged 42 years, occ:Business R/o'} 5-8-32617 , Nampally,^{Hyderabad. - 38}

¶31

S.tvl.Pradeeo Kumar, S/o.^{LateS.P.lMallaiah,aged 39 years, Occ: Business} Ryo. 5-8-326/7, Nampally,^{Hyderabad- 38.}

¶32

S.M.Suiatha, D/o.^{LateS.P.tvlallaiah,aged 48 years,Occ: Business Rl/o'} 5-8326t7, Nampally,^{Hyderabad.- 38.}

¶33

...APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS

¶34

AND

¶35

Dr. S.lrrlanmohan Rao, S/o.^{S.Narsing Rao, aged 67 years, R/o.5-8-326/7Flat} No. 406, Ashok Chandra^{Apartments, Lakdikapul,}

¶36

2 S.Muktha Rao, W/o.^{Late S.lt/anmohan Rao, aged 66 years, Occ:Household,} Fl/o. H.No. 5-8-32617,^{Nampally, Hyderabad.}

¶37

3 S.Abhishek rao, S/o. Late^{Manmohanrao, aged 33 years' Occ: Employee'} R/o. H.No. 5-8-32617,^{Nampally, Hyderabad.}

¶38

4 S.sangeeta Rao, D/o.^{Late S. lVlanmohan Rao, aged 42 years,Occ:} House-hold, R/o. H.No.^5-8-32617 ,^{Nampally, Hyderabad}

¶39

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS

¶40

Counsel for the Appellants:^{SRI BATHULA RAJ KIRAN}

¶41

Counsel for the Respondents:^{SRI VIVEK JAIN}

¶42

The Court delivered^{the following:COMMON JUDGMENT}

¶43

lt=

¶44

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶45

SECO ND APPEAL Nos.314 AND 318 of 2O1O

¶46

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶47

1 Scco:rcl Appcal No..l l4 ol 20 1O arises out of the^judgmcnt citrLcd 05.0,2,20 1O passecl by the iearned III^{AdditionalChief Judge,} Citv Civil Ciourt. H1'derabad, in A.S.No.332 ol^{2008 confirming the} 1r-rdgmer-rt^{zrncldccrce datcd 29.08.2008passed by the learned XII} ,Junior Civri ,Jr-rdge, Cit1, Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.S.No.585 I of 2004. l'hc s:rid suit s'as filecl by the plaintiffs^{thereinseeking} spccific pc rlbrrnat'ice o[ an agreement dated^{13.10.2003and} L.t: ;rnting il l)crnri,urcnt 1r'rrsc ibr suit n-rulgi in tcrms of^{the abovc} [,|^('cn]('nl llr LhL:^juciqrnt'rlL datccl 29.08.2008, the tnai^Coltrt rlisnrissccl llr(' sLliL.

¶48

..'. St r:oncl Apr;rr,-irl \o..3 1t of 2U I O ttrises out ol^{thc judgment} rletcd 05.02.2010 passed bv the learned III Additional Chief^Judge, Citr" Civil Cor-trt, H),dcrabad,^ir-r A.S.No,333 ol^{2008 confirming thc} jr,rclsment;rnd decree dated 29.08.2008 passed b1, the learned XII ,lLinior Llivil .Jr-rdgr:, Citl' Cii'i1 Court, HS,derabad, in O.S.No^{5833 of} 2()O-l .^'l'hc srricl suit u:rs f ilt:cl bv thc rcspondents^{hereinseeking} rlr:crcc lbr ci iclior-r ol tlrc dcfendants thcrein from^{'A' schedule} I)ropcrt'.^{rtt sncprof its itt tl-rc ratc ol Rs. 10,000/- pcr monthfor}

¶49

wrongful use and occupattion of thc stLbjr:ct Ili ()l)r.r.l\ . Br tlt,, judgment dated 29.08.20O8, thc lnzli CoLlrt clct.r.Lrt'rl rltt' sLtit partly.

¶50

In Second Appeal No.318 oi -20 l() ir.rrntcrl r.ir-inscl litr. rlrr appellants r,'ould conLcr-rd tttat rhc (lurl r)oticc clrrtr.rl 17.()9..2OO.1 issued under Section 106 of^'lransfcr ol I)ropcr.ir i\cr is r.rot laiirl and that the suit is barred b1,time. Ilc uould lurrltcr ilsser.t^.rlt.r1 there is no proper termination ol leasc as there is:r contracl lil. delivery ol a built-up arca of 192 squarc fcct ancl tl-rLrs rhc e,,.icrion notice is void and infructuolls. He ri,ould also erssert that rhc tr.i;il Court failed to appreciate the tcrms and conclitirrns O1' l,)x....1 agreement exccuted bct$ccn the partlcs ancl \.;onqh lrclci jt rs uncnforceablc and framcd the lollou,inq sLrbstantilrl (lLLcstions ol

¶51

lau,.

¶52

a) Whether the Lor.r,er Appellertc Collrt contntitrccl substantial errors of substantial qucstjol.rs r>f Iari u.r conlirming the judgment and decrec o1 Lhc 'ft.ial Court?

¶53

b) Whether the notice dated 17.09.2004 issued undcr Section 1O6 of Transfer of Propertv-Act is valid?

¶54

c) Whether the suit is barred bv time?

¶55

d) Whether the judgment and decrce of the Lou.er Appellate Court is in violation of Order 41, Rulc 3l C.P.C.?

¶56

,l Whether the re sponden ts / plain tiifs are entitled lor perpctual in.jur-rction against the appellants in respect ol U-Sche ch-rlc propertv?

¶57

1l \' ll,. t irL'r tirl responde n ts / piain tiil's are entitled for nrcsnc prol-il s ?

¶58

g) Whctl-rer thc responden ts/ plain tifls are entitled for cviction of appellants / defendan ts from A-Schedule Property?

¶59

h) Whcther the Lou,er Appellate Court being the fact finciir-rg court is justilicd in confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court without considering the docnments, evidence, and submissions made by the zrppcilants ir-r its perspective, independently, except saving that the lorver court after elaborate discussions both oral and documentary evidence, came to a right concllrsion holding that the re spondents / plain tiffs are cnlitlcd 1br pcrmanent injunction in respect of B- Scheclr-rle Propertv and rightl.v passed eviction decree in rr:spect of plaint A-Schedule Property and there is a valid quit nolice and the suit is not barred by time and findings cannot be disturbed.?

¶60

.+. ln Sccontl Appei,rl No,314 oi 2010 learned counsel lor the appt'llanls u'oulcl conLerrcl thert both the Courts beiorv rvrongly held th:rL thc LlqreL nrcnt of siilc rs oppr,,scd ro the public policy as per Scclion 23 ol thc Conlract Act and tl're trial Court u,ithor-tt framing iln rssr.lL in r.t sl)(t!'i ol tltt ie.qi,riitr of Ex.A I agreemcnt dated 1:1. lL).2003 crroncousll clccided it is onc sided, no valid

¶61

considcration ar-rd Ex.A I is not cnlorceable, and thus, the reersoning ancl lindings are unsustainable apart from framing the lol)ori ing slrbstantial questions of la$':

¶62

a) Whctltcr thc appcllanrs itrc r.nrillr.il ktr sltuL:i1-rr pcrfornlance ol agrcemcnl rlalccl l3 10.1003?

¶63

b) Whether the appellar-rts .lre clttitlcd for pt'r1;ctua1 injunction against the re s 1:o n den ts?

¶64

c) Whether the Lower Appellate Court cornmiftecl errors of substantial questions of la\ / in confirming thc judgment and decree of the trial Court?

¶65

d) Whether the judgment and dccrcc of the l-ower Appellate Court is in violation of Order 41, Rr,ilc 31 of C.P,C,?

¶66

e) Whether the Lower Appellate Court berng rhe lacr finding court is justified in conlirming the J r-rclgrr-rent and Decree of the trial court srithout r-onsidcrir.rg thc documents, evidence and submissions m:rdc lrv r ht: Appellants rn its perspecrire, indcpcrrclcrrrlr?

¶67

0 Whethcr the agrecmcnt ol salc is opposc<l 1o llte public policy as postulated under scction 23 of thc Contract Act?

¶68

c) Whether the Judgment and Decree ol the courts bclou. is in violation of the settled principics of lari-?

¶69

The facts belore the trietl Court, in brrel. arr: as follorls: O.S.No.5833 of 2004^,,vas lilt d ior e'r ii:iior-r. l'ht' li's:,1 rcprescnlativcs oi'the hrst plarintifl'Itrought ort rcc.orrl ars lrlirir-rtifls 2 to 4. Originall_v thc firsr plaintill Dr. S. Nlohan liao lilecl rhrs suiL against the first de fendant-S. P. Nlallaia h. rrho cliccl ancl his lcgarl representatives were brought on record as Delcrrdants 2 ro 6. In fact Dr.S.Mohan Rao-first plaintiff $'as the ou,ner and lessor o[ rhe premises bearing house No.5-8 -326 1 9, Nampalh.. II1.dcral;1r1, :rnc1

¶70

¶71

irc le[ ont tl-rc u-rr-rlgi to the iirst defendant- S. P. Mallaiah, and the rcnt;,rl :lqrccnt!'nt rl:lrcd 06.()7.1989 uas e ntcrcd originallv lor lL(''( rr (1 1) ntonths rurd trlti:r txpir.,, ol the pcriod he rvas continued nr tirc mlrlqi on rrt oral 1casc. l'hc inrtial rcnt lor the premises u,as lls.50(),/- ]l('r' nlonrlt and l:1tcr it s'as cnhanr:ccl from time to time ,rs on [ha t c]arIt: aLnd \:as paling Rs. 1,200/ - pr: r month, In the I)llint^{rhc pLrintill spccilicalh,stated} that^tl-te Lenancy is an oral t('n:lnc':rncl it commences irom month to month and expires on thc last datc ol thc rnonth.'I'hc rents sha1l bc payable on or belore lor^, o1' c,,'c11, srrccccding troltth. As the first plaintiff intended to ( onstrl.lcI multi storcved br-rilding in the premises, he along with thc developer approached the first defenclant and entered into an irsrcement datcd 13.10.2003 and promised to allot a new shop rrolr.: in an exLent ol 192 square leet in the said new construction. 'I'hc plaintiff ,,r,ould aver rhat the first delendant was creating rruis:rnce^jn thc constructior-r ol the buildir-rg and also inlerlering u illr thc consLrLlction acrivitics. arncl as such, he tvas compelled to ii('('i) ::lr1 ar-r'-:L Ol 50 squ;,rrc l ards open placc $,here tire shop p|oposed ro l;c allotLecl to t he lirst clcl'endant $ras to be const;-Lictccl. I)r,rt' ro thc intcrl'erence of thc lirst delendant, the plirintill sustaincci monitorl, loss and in vie,"r' ol the breach of the conciitlons o1' tht, zrgreerncnt slood lrustrated, he issued a quit

¶72

¶73

notic€ under Section 106 oi the^'l'ransfer of^Prol)c1 f<sup>,,\ct.1E,9.2on 17.O9.2OO4, $'hich \'as receivcd bv lhe I'irst dclcnclani^orr 24.O9.2OO4 and he ga/e reply nolice on²⁷ .O9.'2AO4.^Hc etlso^stirtt:<l that the defendants were illegallj/ demanding lor^sale of lltc^r)c\'h constructed shop or otheru,ise threalened to c.luso^{phl'sicalharrtl} to the plaintiff and his men. As the first defendernt has^r-ro riglrt. claim or interest over the suit sch<"du1c^prop('t't', ltc hlccl lhc^sttil seeking eviction.

¶74

The lirst delendant filed his^,.r'rittcn stiLt-('rr').'r)t st.ltirrq illiri hc' u'as a tenant sir-ice 1963 u'ith ei rcnt oi Rs.50,'- i-rer nlonllr^iril(l it u'as gradualll' enhanced to Rs.1,200/- per monLh ancl th;rl lrc was a permancnl tenant, and as such, botl'r 1;arties er.itcrr:cl irtto an agreement on 13.10.2003 and it u'as also clearll mcutionccl in the second pagc of the said agrccmcnt. and hcnr:c. thc qucslion^o1' tenancy from month to month is clcnied. Lle u or,rld lurthcr sliitc that even today hs is intending to abide b-,- thr: tcrms of agrecrncnt and ready- to $'ithdra\r' the suit O.S.No.5851 ol 2004 filecl i>r' thi' defendant if the plaintiff gives an undertaking to comph. u'it h t.l.rc terms and conditions of agrecment dalcd 13.10.2003. l-le requested to read the contents ol the plarnt ir-r O.S.No.585I ol' 2004 filed by him for specific perlormance of asreerment ils I)i)r[ and parcel oi this u'ritten statcmcnL. He u oulcl :,rlso submit llirrt hr:

¶75

is age d abor-rt 81 -vears and no other^{sourceof incomeexcept the} l)rcsent^{buLsii'rcss.I{ervould also submitthat thebuilder} l'.Ilavili:rnt lr [ic(].1' al tcrnl)ted lo rentovc^{htm lrom the possession} ol rhc suit n-rulgi ancl pJaintiff also creating^{confusionby sayingA} &, R Sc:heciulc propert.v and thal lhey are^{lrying to pull downthe} slructllre ol' rhL: ciefcndatlts. The plaintiffs have not^{leit out any} irrcai nruch lcss 50 scluarc -vards^{ope n as stated by the plaintiffsir-t} the pllrint lrrrci lltus li.ris surt Ibr evictron^{is void, premature and is} liirblc to lrl clisnrissccl. IIc also st:ttcd lhal^{B-Scheduleproperty} irrl.jact nL rr, ll .No.5 8-32b^ri as^{ou necl b1' Dr'.S.Padma Rao s'ho is} n( )t .:i l).r.rt| ro t llC sLlil.^{-l'1te p1;rinriil'sand the builderapproached} hirn:rncl aqreecl to allol a :reri mulgi adrncasuring^{12 x 16 feet ie.,} 192 sclnart' leet. Accordingh' an agreement^{dated13.10.2003 was} erectrtcd, but the plaintiffs are trying to^{interfere withthe} possession b1' putting supporting beams and^{also damagingthe} roof bt' pr-rttir-rg centring pools.

¶76

'l'here is no dispute regarding the relationship of land lord erncl tenant between the first^{plaintiff and the first defendantand} even during the pendency of the suit^{both of them died and their} children rvere brought on record as^{theirlegal representatives and} contested the matter.

¶77

ryts-

¶78

¶79

An agrecment datcd 13.10.2003^,,r'as entercci ir-rIo br:lr,r ecrr Dr.S.Mohan Rao-plaintifl and thc builcler N,Ir.Ravik:Lnth [iedcL arrrl Mr. S. P. Mallaiah-first defendant. Tl-re trial Cor.rrt olrsen'ccl that irs per Ex.A.1 rentai agreement execute(l on 06.07. 19,39 betu'ee n thc lirst plaintiff arnd rhe first dcfer-rciar11. titc pcrio(1 ntenLionecl in ii r,',as lapsed, but the lirst dcfcndant is itr:ing colttir)Lut.tg ltis possession rvithout rc'neu,ing Ex.A. 1 It ri as irlso obst,r'r r:rl Llrirt lhere is no rcr-reu,al ol lhc renerl aqrcclreltt ltel,,i'cr:n boih Lhl parties. The lzrr-rd lord has et,en, right to clctcrminc thc tcn.rnC\ under due process of lalv. D.W. 1 s as onlr' .1 tctl:utl ancl ht, is in occupation of the mulgi bearing No.5,8-326/9 in the capacitl o1'tr tenant, even if the muigi is going to be coltstrLtctt--d is irllou,ocl or not as per Ex.A.2, his status as a tcnant u'ill nor be changed or effected and thus it was held that the plaintiffs eire r:r'rtirlcd ro terminate the tenancy and D.W.1 has no manncr of right to interfere with the lawful possession of P.W. i and his Iamih.' members. With regard to the cl,rim of mt:nsc pnrl'its, the Cor-rr.l belor,l, did not granl and thc plaintifls ',r,eru: dircctccl Lo l'rlc ;r separate petition under Ordcr 20 Rulc 12 CPC rincl thc clcfcnrlants n'ere directed to vacate and hanclor.cr the r,acr:Lnt possession 1o thl pLaintiffs within three months lrorr tltc darc ol'thi: order anrl rltlts the suit rvas dccrecrl partlr,.

¶80

¶81

(.r. -l'hc rrppc'l1atc' Court coni'irmecl tho judgmcr-rr and held thar thcre \'as valid quil. notice.

¶82

I 0. O.S.No.5851 of 2OO4 u'as filed^{by the tenant seekingspecific} pr:rformance ol an agreement dated 13.10.2003^{against the land} krrcl and borh of them are^{representedby theirlegal} r'(:llrcsontalivcs.^'l'l.rc pl:rirttil'l'Lenant in^{the suit r'vouldsubmil that} lhc lirst rlelcrtdant c:rtercd into a^{Deveiopment Agreementon} 2s. I l 2Oo I u irh lrim lirr construction of^{a commercialcomplex.} 'l'hr lirsr i)nc1 s( cor.r(l clr'lirtrlants approaiched hirn and entered into iin aei L'r'nrrrnt cLartcci 1iJ. 1O.2OO3 lor allolmct-tt^{of a neu' mulgi in} tiri' proposctl Irr:u lt cottstructcd complex^{Ti-rev also agreed lo} ir-rrnish :L copr of the sanclionecl^{plan and developmentagreement} lo rl-rt: piaintills. IIc uor-rld fttrLitcr^{assert lhat hc l.ras prerogatjveto} c:lroost .rnl orirel shop out of thc share^{of the second respondent,} i!-Lhc sirop in Lht' sharr: ol thc first dcfendanr^{is not suitableto} p)rintil'f, li;r u ltich tl-re llrst dclendar-rt^{gave an undcrtakrngdated} 10. 10.2003 lo thc cffect th;rt^{hc is a permanenttenant sincelorty} vcars and thus agreecl to^{give the same plinth area in the newly} const|ucled multistoriecl complex.^{The defendants commencedthe} constrllction but failed to earmark or^{identifl' the portionto be} given to lhc l'irst plaintill'. When the talks ri'ere^going on,^the

¶83

¶84

defendants issued legal noticc (iatecl 17.0t).200+ :ltcl tlir-ts ltr: filetl suit for specific performancc,

¶85

I 1. The deicndants in their $ ritten st.ll('m(int assc't-tCcl tlirLt t1rr,,. have not executed any lette r ol nnclcrtaking d:rtccl 10.10.200:1. There was no diflicultf in identifr.ing thc proposed shop ls thc plaintiffs were rvell a\l,are that tl-re lirst del'cndant got onh. ru.o shops in the ground floor. One shop $'as alreadl' constructccl ancl the remaining to be constructed rvas meant to be given or-r lcitse to the plaintifls and that the site plan u'as ar.ailablc u.ith tl-rc Supervisor of the building and rhat rr,,hen thev garr..e a clurir notie,dated 17.09.2004 reply \:as given on 27 .Og.2OO4 rr.ith lalst: allegations. The defendants u,ould furthcr avcr th.tt rhc pr.()pen\ which is proposed to be let our to the plaintills unck:r rltc agreement is not in existence as on the date o[ filing rlrc sr-riI rtrtrl there cannot be a reiief of specific pr;rforr.narnce cl1'a noit cxistaitl property. Thel'also contcncied that tl-rc first plainiii'f artrl lris son:; r,,,ere demanding sale dccds Lo bc exccr-ttcd iri 1irr,,or ol' tltt. lir..st plaintilf at a price fixed bl thcm in rcspcct ol t}-re ltroposccl shol;s and then onh thev $'ill alio$. thc dr:k,ndants to l)roccc(l r.r irlt tltL. further construction. As thcre is a dcmarrd, s hich is coiltrilr. t() the agreement, the agreement became unenlorceable and as such

¶86

¶87

tlrr:r' lilecl rhc suit for- e'ictio'r ..cl i. I.A.No.122o oi'2oo4 interim ot(lct- ti'crtt qt'aiptgcl in thcir layorrr.

¶88

ll. 'l'he rrial Court considering the evidence of both the parties, thc p'.r,isi,n ol' the Indian Contract Act and the terms and ( ()f'rclirio.s ol tirc eLgrcemcnr, observed that there is no valid i'.r-rsidc.atian a,ci no certainty in thc terms and conditions of the irgreer"ncnt. Thc lcrm s Of the agreement appears to be one sided a.cl thc co,imolt inte.Lion oi the parties is lacking in between the plainrill-s and rhe defendants, and the parties to Ex.A.1 are no nr(lre. Thcr(' is n0 existr:ncc of the mugi in the newly conslruc[ed l,rrildirg. ThL' te nrrnt hars no rocus standi to dictate the terms and ( ()r.r(lirio.s r. tlte larrd lorcl. l(o properq: ,as allotted to p,W. 1 as on lhc rlitlc oi Dx.A.I rrncl lrc rvus onh a tcnant on a rronthll. rcnt ,.)l lls. 1.20L) , 'l'ht. co.(.r.llr ,)l lli.rm;,tcnt [(,nar.(., is not avail.b]e rrrrrl ,r'r'.rcli.iql-r tlrsnrisscci rhe suiL. The said order u.as conlirmcd l)\ the irppt.llutc Corlrt holc11:rg to the eflect th:rt the agreemenl is aot cltli)rctc;Lble irs therc is r.to prol:ert,r,, in existe,ce and permanent 1r'.anc' is unl<ltrrr'r-r lo la, and there is no certainty of the terms r,lrrcl c..clitioas ir.r the :rgrecment ancl that no consideration was nr('ntioned in lix.A I , and thus, it is not enforceabie in law.

¶89

¶90

From the above, this Court fcels it reasonable to cxtr.rct th( terms and conditions ol the agrecment datccl i 3. 1O.2003 ior tirc sake of convenience.

¶91

i) That the First Party and the Second Party have agrec:d to allot a new mulgi admeasuring 12'x 16'= 192 Sft. in the new complex to bc constructed in Mulgi No.5-832619, Public Garden Road. Nampalir,, H1'dcrabacl, to the third party.

¶92

ii) That the existing mulgi admeasr:ring 12'x 16'= 192 Sft. will be continued under the posscssion of thc third party herein till the new complex is ready lor occupation.

¶93

iii) That the rent shall be Rs.1200=00 (Rupees Onc Thousand and two hundred onl1J, u'ith an incrcase r>l Rs.50/ - (Rupees fifty orry') pcr ye.lr.

¶94

iu) That tl-re t}-rird partv shr,rll pa1, tlrc sarnc rronllrh rc:rl of Rs. 1200=00 i)er r-nonlh ,,r'ith i'ni'nrrccri.rt'iri^,rl Rs.50/-,

¶95

v) That the first and second parties sl-rall llrrn ish a Xerox cop,v ol the Sanctioncd plat'r and the Dcveloltrncnt Agreement to the Devcloplrcnt Agre cntcnt ro tit(r thtl (i party herein for proper idcntificzrtion trncl pcrr-rsal.

¶96

vi) That the tenancy of thc third partl'shall bc month to month tenancy reckoned as per the Er-rglisl-r Crcgo|iar-i Calendar and will be exciusive of Electricrtl'and Watcr charges.

¶97

vii) That the first party and second part]. sl'rall be liable to deliver and handover the vacant physical posscssinrr of the Neu' Constructed mr-rlgi altcr contplctiort ol tht complex within (18) months from Lhe ciatc ol this Agreement and the third partl' shall bc enrirlcd r() occupy the same under existing terms and conditions.

¶98

viii) That the third party is also entitled, ro choose anv other shop, out of the share ol the second partv, in ti.rt:

¶99

¶100

event the shop in the share of the first party is not suitable to him.

¶101

ix) That any loss caused to the third part5r due to violation of this Agreement Clauses, the fir;t ,.ri tf,. second parties, are liable to compensate the third qarty, not only for the loss, but also for the disturbance of his business, apart from damages.

¶102

\l Irr t:rsc' of brezlch ol an,v- other terms, the third party shall be enrirled tu .,-lfo..e tl-ri" ug.."-."tlrj ,r-r. llrope^{r court} ol lau..,

¶103

Nou. ir is lil. tl-ris Court to see whether there is any s Lt bs t:t lt I i,rl qltcstiolts of law arises lor consideration in these Sccol rc.l Appr.als.

¶104

.Adrnitrccli.1., rherc is no dispute regarding the relationship bctri cr,n thc parlics :rs landlord ar-id te nant and also in respect of c.rc.t*io. ol aq.cemcnl of lcasc bct\.ecn pJaintill., builder and the lL'lt.ult. .lt appe:ir.s ll-om thc lbcts on record that the sonS of the tcr.r:rnt rlc:mirndcd lor execution of sale deed for the neu,ly colrst.Lrctcrd r.nlrJgi i'rfa'our of their lather and interf.ered rvith the constructi.)t-t :rcti.itjcs ol- rhc ncu, c.ommercial complex, and thus, tlri' lir.cilr,r'ci issLrccr clliir r-l()tic(r cratcd 17.og..2oo4 a,cl arso rircd sLrit lirr-c'ir:ti.r''r .r thc .rr-rlgi. As er resLrit or u.hich, the tenanr arso IllL cl sLrit lirr spt cific per-ri;rmance. Both the sLiits u.ere decided by ,.'r' slir'rc Pl .sicii.g Ofl-rcer. orr Lht, s.rntr: da1,, bur in differerrt -jlrclgmt:nts.^Ir is a iiicr tl.rat ti,rc tcnant was residing in the said

¶105

---!-.-.-

¶106

i.l

¶107

mulgi ftom 1963 onrvards, As Lhe tenant \..a s continLliltg tl)e tenancy for a longer periocl, thc iancllord along u.ith the r.icvt.Jopcr. approached and promised him to allot thc ncu.ntulgi of thc s:,rr]tc dimension in the newly constructed complex to that el.lect thc.r. also executed an agreement in u,riting ancl permittr:cl thc tenanr r,r continue in rhe posscssion of the .rc1 r'r-rulgi ti, th<' .,.t'n(,111 rrr'ril(, neu' mulgi and asked him to prr,r thc r..11r ilL Llrc r.lr rc .1 I?s I Ju(l per month rn'ith an enhancemcnl o1. I?s 50//_. Titrrr. ltrornlst.ri i,, furnish the xerox copr. of thc sancrronccl pl;,rn ancl thc cle,,,t:krllucn t agrccment of tl're buildins for propcr icle,tific:rti.. irrrcl .ls. promisecl to deiiVcr and hando'"'er- 'acill'lt PosscssiOn or'thc, r.rc,.r.rr constructed mr-rlgi *'ithr, erghrccn nrorrhs l.io.r ilrc (lilr(. r)l elgrecmc.t.^'l'her lurther.q:t'e hi,r Iil;cr.tr irt clt.,rst. uri\ otlr(,i sltol) in thc share of t he sccorrd parrl 7 builcicr. if t hc sho1.-l in t ltc shar.c, jn ti-re frrst party is nol suitable to him. Ei,cn i:.t Lhc,\.nttclt sl:itcn.tcnl filed bv the landlord he clearll, adm it tcci rl_r.it rhcrc is,u riilTir:,.r1.. in identifying the proposed shop. 1'he frrst part.r. u iU gct onrv t\.(l shops in the ground floor, one shop \,.:ls arreaclr. conslr-r_rctccl :_Lr.rcr remaining is to be constructed, u,hich is mcilnt to lte qir.cn to tlt., tenant. It is to be notcd thal arftcr liling ol thc cztses lt.r thl' landlord and tenant. both u.erc cxpircd un<l rhc iitigarion u;rs continued bcttlec:n the chilclrcn ol- botl.r Iltc ])ilrlrcs. IL rr:,rs on

¶108

¶109

¶110

record that^{the childrenof the tenant insisted lhe landlordto} executethesaledeedregardinSthenewmulgiinthenameof tcnant,^{and thus the landlord initiated stepsto evict the tenant} and accordingly^{filed the suit for eviction'}

¶111

Court that^{there is no valid} 16. The^{reasoningolthe trial} terms^{and conditionsand no} consideration,^{no certaintY of the} iclentitv^{of the propertyis not proper' The agreemententered into} betrvect.t^{the parties is onlv to an extent of allotment of a new} nrltlgi irr^{Lhtr ctlutrr;rciltl complcx u'ith thc same climcnsions as he} But, as Per^{the factson} ,,'irs i1 '.( lrirlll lirr LhCnl lbr:L^{Iorlgcrperiod} lor execution^{of the sale} lecord tht^{sot.ts tll' tll(l1(lnalll insisted} cict'rl atrcl^{thl-ls thc agrcemenlol lease bcLu'centhe partiesstood} [rr-rslraled^{ilncl bccamcullenlorceableAs thc tenant was vacated} br duc^{processo[ lau', irc was no more a tenantand there is no} o1;iigation^{on lhe part oi the landlord to provicle him another mulgi} irr rhe neu^{ltcotlstructecl buildingAdmittedly'he is the owner of} lhc propcrtv^{and tl-tc lenant hasno right or clarm over lhe propert-iY} ;r ntl ht: cllllllol^{rcstraitl the ou'nerto col-lstruct a nerv buildingand} .i tn()t^{ilt1L,r'lcrc s ith lht' llllvsiczil posscssionoi tire propertyNo} (1,)Lrbt. iil(' .ltll cclllcll!^{u'its etllercd origir-izrllv betlvect-rthe ierndlord} :i,cl tc.ir.L^{(lLtc l() tlle l.llg rr:latio:-ls1-ripo1' more than lort' ycars'} lrr-tI tlte sotls^{of lhc lentlnt \'cre hast]' and greedy' [he agreement}

¶112

¶113

stood frustrated and the tenant \ras duly evictcd and thc sllir ior specific perforrnance of thc agrccl.r.lcnt oi lcast: lrc:r'rrr.rr' unenforceable as there \ras no concepl of pcrmanent tenanc'.^'l hI trial Court accordingly dismissed the suit lor specil-ic pcrlormi] ncr' and allowed thc sllit filed for eviction and it u'as confit-itrcd br, t hr. appcllate Court. As therc is rro sr-rbs1:l-rii:tl clrrt stions r1 1;tr'. inr,oh,ed in Lhcse tu'o sccorrci :rppeais. rhis Cor.rrl nr.r,cis nl interlercnce. Accordir-i91r', the :rppr':rls ai'c Ii:rlrli: to irt clisrnissc rl.

¶114

l7. in thc rcsr:lt, iroLh tlrc ser:onrl appcais irlc clisnlisslrl Hou'cver. thcre shall bc no orclcr zls Lo costs.

¶115

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stancl dismissed in the light of this final^judgment.

¶116

SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

¶117

,TRUE COPY'

¶118

SECTION OFFICER

¶119

To, 1. The lll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Co urt, Hyderabad 2. The Xll Junior Civil Judge, City Civjl Court, Hydera bad^.

¶120

One CC to Sri Bathula Raj Kiran, Advocate

¶121

[oPUC]

¶122

One CC to Sri Vivek Jain, Advocate [OPUC l 5. Two CD Copies 6. One Spare Copy gbr *-

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1410312022

COMMON JUDGMENT

S.A.Nos.314 and 318 of 2010

¶127

i?A /,PR ntt
L-
.,,
<br>

¶128

DISMISSING THE BOTH APPEALS.

¶129

%,,\ a4t

¶130

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶131

IVONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF N/ARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶132

PRESENT

¶133

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶134

SECOND AP PEAL NO.3 18 0F 2010

¶135

S.A.No.318 of 2010

¶136

Between:

¶137

S.P.Mallaiah (died per LRs.), S/o.Chanchaiah, aged 83 years, proprietor, Mis. Steam Electric Dry Cleaners, Shop No.5-8-326/9,^public Gardens Road, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶138

S.lV.Vijay Kumar, S/o. Late S.P.Mallaiah, aged 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 5-8-326/7, Nampally, Hyderabad. - 38.

¶139

S.M.Krishna, S/o. Late S.P.Mallaiah, aged 46 years, Occ: Business Rio.5-8-326/7, Nampally, Hyderabad. - 38.

¶140

S.lvl.Shankar, S/o. Late S.P.Mallaiah, aged 42 years, Occ: Business R/o. 5-8-32617, Nampally, Hyderabad. - 38.

¶141

S.t,4.Pradeep Kumar, S/o. Late S.P.Mallaiah, aged 39 years, Occ: Business Rlo. 5-8-32617, Nampally, Hyderabad. - 38.

¶142

S.lr/.Sujatha, D/o. Late S.P.Mallaiah, aged 48 years, Occ: Business R/o. 5-8-32617, Nampally, Hyderabad. - 38. ...APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS

¶143

AND

¶144

Dr. S.Manmohan Rao, S/o. S.Narsing Rao, aged 67 years, Fyo. 5-8-326/7 Flat No. 406, Ashok Chandra Apartments, Lakdikapul,

¶145

S.Muktha Rao, W/o. Late S.Manmohan Rao, aged 66 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No. 5-8-32617, Nampalty, Hyderabad.

¶146

S.Abhishek rao, S/o. Late lr,4anmohanrao, aged 33 years, Occ: Employee, R/o H No. 5-8-326t7. Nampalty. Hyderabad.

¶147

S.Sangeeta Rao, Dio. Late S. lVlanmohan Rao, aged 42 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No. 5-8-32617, Nampally, Hyderabad.-

¶148

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS

¶149

Appeal Under Section 100 of CPC against the Decree of the Court of the lll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in A.S.No.333 of 2008 dated 05.02.2010 Preferred against the Decree of the court of court of the Xll Junior civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S.No.5833 of 2003 dated 29.08.2008.

¶150

DECREE: This Second Appeal coming on for hearing upon perusing the grounds of Appeal, the Judgments and Decree of the Lower Appellant Court and the Court of the First instance and the material papers in the suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Bathula Raj Kiran, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri Vivek Jain, Advocate for the Respondents.

¶151

This Court Doth Order and Decree that the Decree of the Lower Court be and hereby is confirmed and this Second Appeal is Dismissed and this court Doth further Order and Decree that there be no order as to costs in this Second Appeal.

¶152

SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' d--

¶153

SECTION OFFICER

¶154

To,

¶155

The lll Additional Chief Jud ge. City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2. The Xll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hydera bad 3. Two CD Copies 4. One Spare Copy gbr

A''7_

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1410312022

DECREE

S.A.No.318 of 2010

DISMISSING THE APPEAL

¶162

1"^oq*, 0^\ G)

¶163

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶164

IVONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF IVARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶165

PRESENT

¶166

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUOHA

¶167

SECOND APPEAL NO. 314 OF 201O

¶168

S.A.No.314 of 2010

¶169

Between:

¶170

S.P.lr/allaiah (died per LRs.), S/o.Chanchaiah, aged 83 years, Proprietor, N//s. Steam Electric Dry Cleaners, Shop No.5-B-326/9, Public Gardens Road, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶171

S.M.Vijay Kumar, S/o. Late S.P.Mallaiah, aged 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 5-8-326/7, Nampally, Hyderabad. - 38.

¶172

S.M.Krishna, S/o. Late S.P.Mallaiah, aged 46 years, Occ: Business R/o.5-8-326/7, Nampally, Hyderabad. - 38.

¶173

S.lt/.Shankar, S/o. Late S.P.tr/allaiah, aged 42 years, Occ: Business R/o. 5-8-32617, Nampally, Hyderabad. - 38.

¶174

S.N/.Pradeep Kumar, S/o. Late S.P.lt4allaiah, aged 39^years, Occ: Business Rlo. 5-8-32617, Nampally, Hyderabad.^- 38.

¶175

S.lV.Sujatha, D/o. Late S.P.tr/allaiah, aged 48^years, Occ: Business^R/o. 5-8-32617, Nampally, Hyderabad. - 38.

¶176

...APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS

¶177

AND

¶178

Dr.S.Manmohan Rao, S/o.Yellaiah, aged 67^years, R/o.5-8-32617, Flat No.406, Ashok Chandra Apartments, Lakdikapurl, Hyderabad.^(Died)

¶179

P Ravikanth Reddy, S/o. P.Padma Reddy, Occ: Real Estate Business cum Developer R/o. 6-3-596i43, Venkataramana Colony, Road No.^1, Baniara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶180

S.lVuktha Rao, Wio. Late S.lt4anmohan Rao, aged 66^years, Occ:^Household R/o. H.No. 5-8-32617, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶181

S.Abhishek Rao, S/o. Late S.lt4anmohan Rao, aged 33^years, Occ: Employee R/o. H.No. 5-8-32617, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶182

S.sangeetha Rao, D/o. Late S.lVanmohan Rao, aged^{42 years, Occ:} Household R/o. H.No. 5-B-32617, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶183

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS

¶184

Appeal Under Section 100 of CPC against the^{Decree of the Courtof the lll} Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad^{in A.S.No.332 of 2008 dated} 05.02.2010 Preferred against the Decree^{of the Court of Court of the Xll JuniorCivil} Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S.No.5851 of^{2004dated 29.08.2008.} DECREE: This Second Appeal coming on^{for hearing upon perusing the groundsof} Appeal, the Judgments and Decree of the Lower Appellant Court^{and the Courtof} the First instance and the material^papers in^{the suit and upon hearingthe}

¶185

¶186

arguments of Sri Bathula Raj^{Kiran, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri Vivek} Jain, Advocate for the Respondents.

¶187

This Court Doth Order and Decree that the^{Decree of the Lower Court be and} hereby is confirmed and this Second Appeal^{is Dismissed and this Court Doth further} Order and Decree that there be^{no orderas to costsin this Second Appeal.}

¶188

SD/-K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT RE ISTRAR //TRUE COPY'

¶189

SECTION OFFICER

¶190

To I The lll Additional Chief Jud ge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2 The Xll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 3 Two CD Copies 4 One Spare Copy gbr

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1410312022

DECREE

S.A.No.314 of 2010

DISMISSING THE APPEAL .

¶197

.rl/
\ o'*
D't
(D

S.P.Mallaiah (died per LRs.) v. Dr.S.Manmohan Rao (died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

S.P.Mallaiah (died per LRs.) v. Dr.S.Manmohan Rao (died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakhanamoni Sathya Sovudu Vs Lakhanamoni Narayan [died]

G.Satyanarayana Vs St.Georges Grammer School

Shakeel Ahmed Vs Mohd Akheel and Anr.

S.P. Mallaiah, (Died per LRs) Vs Dr. S.Manmohan Rao

Union of India, Jabalpur, Mp Vs Harmony Foods Pvt. Ltd., Visakhapatnam and Anr.

Shaik Massod Vs Syed Mahmood