JUDGMENT : This appeal, under Section 96 r/w Order XLI Rule 1 of CPC, is filed by the appellant/defendant, challenging the judgment and decree, dated 17.06.2014, passed in O.S.No.1717 of 2011 by the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby, the subject suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for eviction of the appellant/defendant from the suit schedule property and arrears of rent was decreed with costs. 2. Heard the submissions of Sri S.M. Rafee, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Sri R.A. Achutanand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff and perused the record. 3. The appellant herein is the defendant/tenant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff/landlord in the Original Suit. The parties are hereinafter referred to as per their array in the Original Suit. 4. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the big hall in the second floor admeasuring about 1700 square feet forming part and parcel of premises bearing Municipal No.3-5-377, Vittalwadi, Narayanguda, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred as ‘schedule premises’). He filed the subject suit against the defendant for his ejectment and arrears of rent, inter alia contending as follows:- “The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the schedule premises. He leased out the same to the defendant for the purpose of running a gym under the name and style of "Fitness King Gym" on a rent of Rs.8,000/- per month, excluding electricity charges. It was agreed that the rent shall be enhanced by 10% after completion of 2 years. The said lease deed has expired and the defendant has been continuing in the premises as holding over on month to month basis. The present rent of the schedule premises is Rs.10,400/- per month. In order to avoid payment of rent, the defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.870 of 2010 on the file of X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the plaintiff seeking perpetual injunction, alleging that the plaintiff has sent unsocial elements and tried to evict him from the schedule premises. Having agreed to pay Rs.8,000/- per month towards rent, the defendant started paying part of rent, i.e., Rs.6,500/- by way of cheque to the plaintiff. Initially for 8 months, the defendant paid rent @ Rs.8,000/- per month, i.e. Rs.4,000/- by way of cheque and Rs.4,000/- by cash, for which the plaintiff has issued a receipt on a plain paper. Having agreed to pay Rs.8,000/- per month towards rent, the defendant started paying part of rent, i.e., Rs.6,500/- by way of cheque to the plaintiff. Initially for 8 months, the defendant paid rent @ Rs.8,000/- per month, i.e. Rs.4,000/- by way of cheque and Rs.4,000/- by cash, for which the plaintiff has issued a receipt on a plain paper. Thereafter, the defendant represented that he is not in a position to generate good business and started paying Rs.6,500/- per month as rent, with a promise that he will clear the arrears of rent. The plaintiff, bona fidely and in good faith, received Rs.6,500/- per month as part of rent. Thereafter, the defendant stopped payment of rent from November, 2009 till July, 2011 @ Rs.10,400/- per month. The defendant is due by an amount of Rs.4,10,100/- to the plaintiff towards difference of rents from August, 2003 to October, 2009 and from November, 2009 till July, 2011. The defendant cannot squat over the schedule premises without paying the rents. The plaintiff has issued notice of termination, dated 11.07.2011, to the defendant terminating the tenancy under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, demanding him to vacate the schedule premises within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. In the said notice, the plaintiff has shown the arrears of rent as Rs.4,73,700/- instead of Rs.4,10,100/- due to clerical mistake. In the legal notice issued by plaintiff, it was clearly stated that in case the defendant fails to vacate the schedule premises even after expiry of the notice period, his possession will be that of a trespasser and he will be liable to pay damages for use and occupation @ Rs.20,000/- per month or any other rate prevailing in the locality, till he vacates the schedule premises. The defendant got issued a reply notice, dated 27.07.2011, alleging that at the time of obtaining the schedule premises on lease, it was about 1700 square feet and by the end of 2003, the defendant has surrendered 200 square feet to the plaintiff and on mutual understanding of reduction of rent from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.6,500/- per month from 2004 onwards. At no point of time, there was any mutual understanding between the plaintiff and the defendant and the defendant has not surrendered 200 square feet to the plaintiff as alleged. At no point of time, there was any mutual understanding between the plaintiff and the defendant and the defendant has not surrendered 200 square feet to the plaintiff as alleged. Under the provisions of the amended Transfer of Property Act (Act 3 of 2003), a fifteen days notice is sufficient to terminate the lease. Admittedly, the defendant has sent reply notice on 27.07.2011 and as such, the subject suit complies the requirements of Act 3 of 2003. That apart, as per Section 3 of Act 3 of 2003, the provisions of the Section 106 of the Principal Act, as amended by Section 2, shall apply to all notices in pursuance of which, the suit or proceedings is pending at the time of commencement of Act; and all notices which have been issued before the commencement of Act but where no suit or proceedings filed before the commencement. In view of the same, the plaintiff has rightly terminated the tenancy of the defendant. Moreover, the plaintiff has also stated that any amount received after issuance of the notice will be accepted under protest and without prejudice to his right towards damages claimed. The schedule premises is located at prime locality where a number of commercial and business establishments are existing. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the subject suit for eviction of defendant and arrears of rent.” 5. The defendant filed written statement, inter alia contending as follows: “The suit, as framed, is neither maintainable in law nor on facts. The defendant is in occupation of part of second floor portion admeasuring about 1500 square feet in the schedule building and running a Gym therein. The present monthly rent of the schedule premises is Rs. 6,500/-. Originally, the defendant had obtained about 1700 square feet in the second floor of the schedule building from the plaintiff on lease under an unregistered lease deed, dated 13.12.2002, for a period of eleven months, commencing from 02.12.2002, on a monthly rent of Rs.8,000/- and deposited Rs.50,000/- towards interest free refundable security deposit. After one year of commencement of tenancy, the plaintiff requested the defendant to surrender 200 square feet from out of 1700 square feet, for leasing out the same to another tenant, in the fag end of the year 2003. Accordingly, the defendant had surrendered 200 square feet to the plaintiff with mutual understanding of reducing the rent from Rs. After one year of commencement of tenancy, the plaintiff requested the defendant to surrender 200 square feet from out of 1700 square feet, for leasing out the same to another tenant, in the fag end of the year 2003. Accordingly, the defendant had surrendered 200 square feet to the plaintiff with mutual understanding of reducing the rent from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs.6,500/- per month from the year 2004 onwards. Accordingly, the defendant has been paying the rent for the demised premises @ Rs.6,500/- per month from 2004 onwards and the plaintiff has been accepting the same without any protest till February, 2010. Initially for some time, the defendant used to pay rent in cash, and subsequently, at the request of the plaintiff, he paid the rents by way of cheque @ Rs. 6,500/- every month. From December, 2009, the plaintiff, with an intention to enhance the rent exorbitantly, demanded the defendant not to pay the rents by cheques and asked to pay in cash, or else, to vacate the demised premises. In good faith and to have cordial relationship with the plaintiff, the defendant had paid the rents @ Rs.6,500/- per month in cash to the plaintiff up to February, 2010. The plaintiff did not pass any receipt for the same. After receiving the rents, the plaintiff had threatened to evict the defendant from the demised premises in January and February, 2010, and finally in the first week of March, 2010, with the help of unsocial elements. Vexed with the attitude of the plaintiff, the defendant lodged a complaint on 04.03.2010 with the Police, Narayanguda, requesting to take action against the plaintiff and his henchmen for their illegal activities. On the advise of police, the defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.870 of 2010 on the file of X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for perpetual injunction against the plaintiff, along with I.A.No.192 of 2010 for interim injunction. The plaintiff, with a mala fide intention to dub the defendant as a 'defaulter', demanded rent in cash and received the same up to February, 2010, without passing any receipts, and without any protest. Subsequently, when the defendant tried to tender the rents personally, the plaintiff refused the same and hence, the defendant was constrained to send the rents through money orders. The defendant had also offered to deposit the rents @ Rs. Subsequently, when the defendant tried to tender the rents personally, the plaintiff refused the same and hence, the defendant was constrained to send the rents through money orders. The defendant had also offered to deposit the rents @ Rs. 6,500/- per month into the Court, but the application filed by the defendant seeking the said relief, was dismissed on merits. The defendant has always been ready and willing to pay rents @ Rs.6,500/- per month from March, 2010 onwards either personally to the plaintiff or to deposit the same in his bank account and requested the plaintiff to furnish his bank account. The defendant never committed default in payment of rents at any point of time. Therefore, the entire allegation/claim of the plaintiff is false and created for the purpose of issuing the notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, and to evict the defendant from the demised premises. The contention of the plaintiff that the rent is enhanceable by 10% after completion of two years and the present rent is Rs. 10,400/- does not arise at all. The said condition was never agreed upon by the defendant. The present monthly rent of schedule premises is Rs. 6,500/-, but not Rs.10,400/- as alleged. The contention of the plaintiff that the defendant is due of the alleged total sum of Rs.4,73,700/- is false and baseless. The allegation of the plaintiff that he requires the schedule premises for personal occupation of his children etc., is incorrect. After expiry of the original lease agreement, dated 13.12.2002, it was not renewed after surrendering 200 square feet. It was orally agreed that the rent payable was Rs.6,500/- per month till the defendant vacates the schedule premises. The plaintiff had no right to terminate the tenancy. The defendant is not liable to pay any damages. The defendant is ready and willing to pay the rent @ Rs.6,500/- per month from March, 2010 to December, 2011. The alleged demand of the plaintiff to pay rent @ Rs. 10,400/- per month is a triable issue and the plaintiff is not entitled for claiming the same. Therefore, the allegation that the defendant is due of an arrears of Rs.4,11,487/- and also future rents @ Rs.10,400/- per month from the date of petition are not correct. There is no cause of action for filing the suit. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.” 6. Therefore, the allegation that the defendant is due of an arrears of Rs.4,11,487/- and also future rents @ Rs.10,400/- per month from the date of petition are not correct. There is no cause of action for filing the suit. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.” 6. Basing on the above rival contentions, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial. (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to evict the defendant from suit schedule premises? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages? (3) To what relief? 7. During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself was examined as P.W.1, and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. On behalf of the defendant, the defendant himself got examined as D.W.1 and no documents were marked. 8. On merits, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs directing the appellant/defendant to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the schedule premises to the respondent/plaintiff within two months from the date of the said judgment and to pay arrears of rent of Rs.4,11,487/- and further observed that the plaintiff is entitled to recover further mesne profits till the date of delivery of property, by filing separate petition. Aggrieved by the said decision of the trial Court, the defendant is before this Court as appellant. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant would contend that the Court below did not appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case in proper perspective. The plaintiff requested the defendant to handover 200 square feet from out of the leased premises of 1700 square feet for letting out the same to another tenant, with a mutual understanding to reduce the rent from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.6,500/- per month with effect from the year 2004. Since then, the defendant has been paying rent of Rs.6,500/- per month to the plaintiff. The plaintiff neither enhanced the rent nor demanded for enhancement of rent at any point of time. The plaintiff never received the rents under protest, as alleged. The Court below erred in holding that the defendant failed to pay the enhanced rent for a period of five years, though there was no enhancement of rent at any point of time. The Court below wrongly concluded that the defendant committed breach of terms and conditions of lease deed, dated 13.12.2002, though the plaintiff received the admitted rent of Rs.6,500/- without any enhancement and protest. The Court below wrongly concluded that the defendant committed breach of terms and conditions of lease deed, dated 13.12.2002, though the plaintiff received the admitted rent of Rs.6,500/- without any enhancement and protest. Further, the Court below grossly erred in coming to the conclusion that the claim of the plaintiff for recovery of rents has been proved, though there is no enhancement of rent and arrears of rent, as claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff instituted the subject suit by boring grudge on the defendant and as a counter-blast to the suit filed by him against the plaintiff seeking perpetual injunction and ultimately prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and allow the appeal as prayed for. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would contend that the Court below rightly decreed the subject suit. At no point of time, there was any mutual understanding between the plaintiff and the defendant for reduction of rent and the defendant has not surrendered 200 square feet to the plaintiff, as alleged. Initially for 8 months, the defendant paid rent @ Rs.8,000/- per month. Thereafter, the defendant represented that he is not in a position to generate good business and started paying Rs.6,500/- per month as rent, with a promise that he will clear the arrears of rent. Thereafter, the defendant stopped payment of rent from November, 2009 till the end of July, 2011. The defendant cannot squat over the schedule premises without paying the rent. The plaintiff issued 15 days legal notice under Section 106 of the amended provisions of Transfer of Property Act (Act 3 of 2003) and rightly terminated the tenancy. The Court below appreciated the evidence on record in correct perspective and rightly decreed the suit. There is nothing to interfere with the same and ultimately prayed to sustain the impugned judgment and decree and dismiss the appeal. 11. In view of the above rival contentions, the points that arise for determination in this appeal are as follows: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek possession of the schedule premises from the defendant? 2. Whether the tenancy of the defendant was validly terminated by the plaintiff? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for arrears of rent of Rs.4,11,487/- granted by the trial Court? 4. To what relief? POINTS: 12. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek possession of the schedule premises from the defendant? 2. Whether the tenancy of the defendant was validly terminated by the plaintiff? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for arrears of rent of Rs.4,11,487/- granted by the trial Court? 4. To what relief? POINTS: 12. As per the evidence elicited from the cross-examination of the plaintiff and the admitted evidence of the defendant, the defendant was inducted as tenant of the schedule premises admeasuring 1700 square feet on a monthly rent of Rs.8,000/-, which is enhanceable by 10% for every two years. Admittedly, the alleged lease agreement evidencing the tenancy is not marked as exhibit. The Court below held that the alleged lease deed was unregistered and was executed for a period of eleven months. The plaintiff contended that the defendant was inducted as a tenant in 1700 square feet on a monthly rent of Rs.8,000/- enhanceable by 10% after completion of two years. On the other hand, the defendant contended that out of 1700 square feet leased out to him, 200 square feet was handed over to the plaintiff at his request for letting out the same to another tenant, with a mutual understanding of reducing the rent from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.6,500/- per month. It is settled law that mere pleading, without cogent and convincing evidence to substantiate the same, is of no use. The defendant, except pleading that he has surrendered 200 square feet to the plaintiff at his request with a mutual understanding of reducing the rent from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.6,500/-, did not let in any cogent and convincing evidence to substantiate the same. In other words, there is no proof of surrender of 200 square feet to the plaintiff and reduction of rent from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.6,500/-. D.W.1, in his cross-examination, admitted that the plaintiff demanded him to vacate the schedule premises after the expiry of the lease period and that the plaintiff has not renewed the lease after five years and that the rent is enhanceable by 10% after completion of two years and that he did not pay the enhanced rent. D.W.1, in his cross-examination, admitted that the plaintiff demanded him to vacate the schedule premises after the expiry of the lease period and that the plaintiff has not renewed the lease after five years and that the rent is enhanceable by 10% after completion of two years and that he did not pay the enhanced rent. In view of the categorical admission of the defendant in his evidence that the rent of the schedule property is enhanceable by 10% for every two years, and as there is no proof of surrendering 200 square feet to the plaintiff on a mutual understanding of reducing the rent from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.6,500/- per month, the defendant ought to have paid the enhanced rent. The defendant did not do so. Under these circumstances, the Court below is justified in holding that the defendant committed default in payment of rents and committed breach of contract. 13. Insofar as the validity of Ex.A.1 notice is concerned, the Court below held that though it is admitted by the plaintiff that as per clause 11 of the lease deed, dated 13.12.2002, the landlord has to issue two months notice to the tenant to vacate the premises, the said clause would not come in the way of termination of lease after expiry of the lease period. There is no perversity in the said finding. Admittedly, the alleged lease deed, dated 13.12.2002, was for a period of eleven months and it was not renewed thereafter. Tenancy is a contract which is entered into between the parties, where one proposes and the other accepts the proposal. The tenancy of the defendant had come to an end by afflux of time and he had continued to remain in the schedule premises as a tenant "month by month". When the tenancy has come to an end by the afflux of time and when there is no fresh tenancy, a 15 days’ notice terminating the tenancy under Section 106 of the amended Transfer of Property Act is valid and sufficient to evict the tenant. Thus, the Court below was right in holding that the plaintiff is entitled to evict the defendant from the schedule premises. 14. Thus, the Court below was right in holding that the plaintiff is entitled to evict the defendant from the schedule premises. 14. Insofar as the plaintiff’s entitlement for damages is concerned, the plaintiff contended that the defendant stopped payment of rent from November, 2009 to 04.08.2011 @ Rs.10,400/- per month and he is also due part of rent from August, 2003 to October 2009. On the other hand, the defendant contended that there is no arrears of rent, as alleged by the plaintiff and that he has not defaulted in payment of rent at any point of time and he paid the rent of the schedule premises @ Rs.6,500/- up to date. When the plaintiff denies receipt of rent, burden lies on the defendant to prove that he has paid the rents up to date. The defendant has not let in any evidence to negate the evidence of the plaintiff with regard to the default in payment of rents and damages. There is specific evidence of the plaintiff that the defendant had not surrendered 200 square feet of area from 1700 square feet. Moreover, there is admission of D.W.1 (defendant) that the rent is enhanceable by 10% for every two years. Therefore, the trial Court came to the conclusion that there is default in payment of rent by the defendant and assessed the arrears of rent @ Rs.4,11,487/-, which cannot be faulted. There is nothing to take a different view with regard to the arrears of rent awarded by the trial Court. Further, it is appropriate to state that except the self-serving statement of D.W.1 (defendant) with regard to the surrender of 200 square feet to the plaintiff, there is no evidence of any other person to substantiate the same. Furthermore, there is no evidence of the said 200 square feet of area being in occupation and use of the plaintiff. When the entire premises admeasuring 1700 square feet was taken on lease by the defendant from the plaintiff, the defendant ought to have obtained a written document in respect of surrender of 200 square feet to the plaintiff and reduction of rent from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.6,500/-. In the absence of any written document as well as convincing oral evidence, the stand taken by the defendant is unsustainable. In the absence of any written document as well as convincing oral evidence, the stand taken by the defendant is unsustainable. Further, in the given circumstances, no presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act can be drawn in favour of the defendant with regard to the reduction of area let out to him as well as the rent. All the contentions advanced on behalf of the defendant do not merit consideration. The Court below elaborately discussed the material evidence and arrived at a just conclusion. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Court below is justified in decreeing the subject suit as indicated above. There is no perversity or material irregularity in the judgment and decree under challenge. There is nothing to take a different view. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.