Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 122 (TS)

Ammatul Syeda Azra v. Arif Mohaiuddin

2019-03-13

SHAMEEM AKTHER

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-defendant aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12.02.2018 passed in O.S.No.1274 of 2016 on the file of IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. The appellant-defendant filed I.A.No.3 of 2018 to appoint an advocate commissioner to inspect the subject premises and I.A.No.1 of 2019 to amend the prayer of the appeal as under: By deleting the prayer in the appeal: “The Appellant therefore prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the Appeal by setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated.12-02-2018 passed in O.S.No.1274 of 2016 on the file of IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad, with costs in the interest of justice. By incorporating the prayer in the appeal: The Appellant therefore prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the Appeal by setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated.12-02-2018 and Order and Decreetal order dated.23-07-2018 passed in Review Application in I.A.No.261/2018 in 0.S.No.1274/2016 on the file of IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad, with costs in the interest of justice.” 3. The appellant-defendant also filed I.A.No.2 of 2019 to permit him to file the bill for renovation work undertaken in respect of subject premises. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant would contend that the findings recorded by the court below are contrary to law and facts of the case. The repairs undertaken by the appellant-defendant were not taken into consideration and the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- spent towards the repairs were not adjusted in the rent. There is documentary evidence to substantiate the same. The respondent-plaintiff did not issue rental receipts and made an allegation that the rents are not paid regularly. The respondent-plaintiff agreed to extend the lease for a period of three years in terms of Clause (1) of Ex.A.1- registered lease deed, dated 07.12.2013. The decree of eviction is passed by the trial Court contrary to law and facts of the case and ultimately prayed to set aside the same. In support of his submissions with regard to additional evidence, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in Malayalam Plantations Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2010) 13 SCC 487 ) and Akhilesh Singh v. Lal Babu Singh (2018) 4 SCC 659 ). 5. In support of his submissions with regard to additional evidence, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in Malayalam Plantations Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2010) 13 SCC 487 ) and Akhilesh Singh v. Lal Babu Singh (2018) 4 SCC 659 ). 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff supported the judgment of the trial Court and contended that there is a valid legal notice issued under Ex.A.2 dated 23.09.2016 and no amount was spent by the appellant-defendant to undertake the repairs etc. There is not even a single document to substantiate the same. There is default in payment of monthly rent of Rs.52,500/-. The trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit for eviction and ultimately prayed to dismiss the appeal. In support of his submission that the bill sought to be taken as additional evidence is a fictitious one, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma (1995) 1 SCC 421 ). 6. In view of the submissions made by both sides, the following points have come up for consideration: (1) Whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit for eviction? (2) Whether the appellant-defendant spent Rs.5,00,000/- towards repairs of subject building? (3) Whether there was extension of lease after a period of 36 months? (4) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Court below in O.S.No.1274 of 2016, dated 12.02.2018, is liable to be set aside? (5) Whether the interlocutory applications filed by the appellant-defendant are liable to be allowed? Points 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5: 7. In view of the submissions made by both the sides, it is appropriate to extract the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882: “106. Duration of certain leases in absence of written contract or local usage.— (1) In the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary, a lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by six months' notice; and a lease of immovable property for any other purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by fifteen days' notice. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the period mentioned in sub-section (1) shall commence from the date of receipt of notice. (3) A notice under sub-section (1) shall not be deemed to be invalid merely because the period mentioned therein falls short of the period specified under that sub-section, where a suit or proceeding is filed after the expiry of the period mentioned in that sub-section. (4) Every notice under sub-section (1) must be in writing, signed by or on behalf of the person giving it, and either be sent by post to the party who is intended to be bound by it or be tendered or delivered personally to such party, or to one of his family or servants at his residence, or (if such tender or delivery is not practicable) affixed to a conspicuous part of the property.” 8. In view of the mandate prescribed under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, fifteen days quit notice is essential since the let-out premises is residential accommodation. There is oral and documentary evidence to substantiate the same. There is no much dispute with regard to the issuance of quit notice and service on the appellant. As per Ex.A.1-registered lease deed dated 07.12.2013, the duration of the tenancy is 36 months commencing from 01.12.2013 and after expiry of three years lease period mentioned under Ex.A.1-registered lease deed 07.12.2013, a quit notice dated 23.09.2016 was issued and the suit was filed. Certainly, a suit for eviction is maintainable. Though the appellant contended that he spent Rs.5,00,000/- towards repairs, there is no documentary evidence to substantiate the same. Now, in this appeal, he has come up with the application seeking permission to lead additional evidence. The application is an after-thought and in spite of ample opportunity before the trial Court, the appellant did not choose to place the documents which he intended to file now. It is not the case of the appellant-defendant that those documents were not available. The application is an after-thought and in spite of ample opportunity before the trial Court, the appellant did not choose to place the documents which he intended to file now. It is not the case of the appellant-defendant that those documents were not available. In the decisions relied upon by the appellant-defendant in Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (supra 1) and Akhilesh Singh (supra 2) to allow the application to lead additional evidence, it was observed by the Apex Court that the application is required to be considered on merits and when the Court holds that it is necessary to lead additional evidence to come to a just conclusion, an opportunity is to be provided. In the instant case, the original suit was only for eviction. In the said suit, the appellant-defendant had taken a stand that he made additions/repairs to the let-out premises and incurred an expenditure of Rs.5,00,000/-. The documentary evidence, which he wanted to lead, was within his knowledge and possession. Further more, there is no written agreement between the parties identifying the repairs and permission to the appellant-defendant to undertake those repairs. It is not the case of the appellant-defendant that those documents which he intended to file were not available and there is no justifiable reason for not filing those documents before the trial Court. The facts and circumstances narrated in the above decisions are quite different from the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Therefore, the application to permit additional evidence is without merit and is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the decision relied on by the respondent-plaintiff in Chandra Shashi (supra 3), it was held that filing of the forged and fabricated document before the Court with oblique motive of deceiving or defrauding the Court results in interference with administration of justice and amounts to contempt of Court. The veracity of the documents on which the appellant-defendant herein proposed to rely on is not yet established. 10. The contention of the appellant-defendant that the lease period was extended for three more years cannot be sustained and does not merit any consideration in the absence of a registered document to substantiate the same and the contention raised is also not inconsonance with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. 10. The contention of the appellant-defendant that the lease period was extended for three more years cannot be sustained and does not merit any consideration in the absence of a registered document to substantiate the same and the contention raised is also not inconsonance with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The stand taken by the appellant-defendant that there was reduction of rent from Rs.52,500/- to Rs.30,000/- is also not supported by any document and it is only an oral contention and against the recitals of Ex.A.1-registered lease deed dated 07.12.2013. All the grounds agitated before this Court merit no consideration. Therefore, I.A.No.3 of 2018 and I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2019 as well as the appeal do not merit any consideration on any ground and are liable to be dismissed. Therefore, point Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are answered against the appellant-defendant and in favour of respondent-plaintiff. 11. Accordingly, I.A.No.3 of 2018 and I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2019 and the Appeal are dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any also stand dismissed in terms of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs.