Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 451 (AP)

Ch. Pradeep Kumar v. Padma Shakuntala

2012-04-20

B.N.RAO NALLA

body2012
Judgment : This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2012 delivered in A.S. No. 154 of 2008 by I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein are the defendants/tenants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff, who filed a suit in O.S. No. 374 of 2006 on the file of the Court of XI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad against the defendants for vacating and delivering the vacant possession of the suit schedule property i.e. medical shop in the name and style of M/s.Priyanka Medicals at the ground floor situated in Sy.No.59/1/2, Karkana Main Road, Secunderabad and also seeking a direction to the defendants to pay future mesne profits @ Rs.9,500/-p.m. from March, 2006 till the date of delivery of possession of the schedule property. According to the plaintiff, she is the exclusive owner and landlady of the suit schedule property. The defendants are the tenants residing in a portion of the premises admeasuring approximately 210 sq. feet on a monthly rent of Rs.4,500/-excluding electricity charges. The tenancy is month to month and the rents shall be payable in advance and there is no subsisting rental agreement. At the inception of the tenancy, the tenants had deposited a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh towards security deposit refundable at the time of vacating the premises. The last payment of rent was made on 27.09.2005 for the month of September, 2005 and from October, 2005 onwards, the defendants defaulted in payment of monthly rents and became wilful defaulters. Therefore, the tenancy was determined by a legal notice dated 16.01.2006 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The defendants filed a written statement inter alia denying the plaint averments and stated that the tenancy is from month to month and the deposit amount is not adjustable towards arrears of rent. They were not wilful defaulters, as such, they are not liable to vacate the suit premises. Based on the pleadings of both the parties, the trial Court has framed the following issues; i) Whether the notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act is valid? ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property as prayed for? iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits as prayed for? ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property as prayed for? iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits as prayed for? Evidence, both oral and documentary, was let in by both the parties, and after taking into consideration the evidence and the material on record, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs by judgment dated 29.07.2008. Being aggrieved thereby, the defendants filed A.S. No. 154 of 2008 and the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, after perusing the material on record, framed relevant points for determination, and after considering the evidence with reference to the material on record and re-appreciating the same, came to the conclusion that the trial Court was not wrong in decreeing the suit, and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Challenging the judgment dated 23.01.2012 of the lower appellate Court, the defendants have preferred the Second Appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants-defendants has contended that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate and re-appreciate the evidence and other material on record in proper perspective and thereby misdirected themselves in coming to the erroneous conclusion in decreeing the suit and dismissing the appeal suit. The learned counsel appearing for both the parties have advanced their elaborate arguments for and against with reference to the facts of the case as well as the legal position with reference to the decided cases. However, on a careful analysis of the evidence and material on record and having regard to the strenuous contentions put forth by the learned counsel, this Court does not find any infirmity in the findings arrived at by the Courts below warranting interference from this Court, as such, it is of the opinion that neither any question of law nor any substantial question of law arises for consideration and adjudication in this appeal. Hence, this Court does not see any merits in the Second Appeal, and the same is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. There shall be no order as to costs. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellants-defendants has requested for a reasonable period of time to vacate and deliver the possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. There shall be no order as to costs. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellants-defendants has requested for a reasonable period of time to vacate and deliver the possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. Considering his request, four months’ time is granted for the purpose aforementioned subject to filing an undertaking by the learned counsel for the appellants to that effect within a period of two weeks from today and subject to the refund of the initially deposit of Rs.1.00 lakh to the appellants by the respondent-plaintiff at the time of handing over the possession of the property in question.