JUDGMENT : Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J. This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short "the C.P.C."], is filed by the Appellants/Defendants, challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 21.04.2003 in O.S.No.289 of 1996 passed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada [for short "the Trial Court"]. The appellants herein are the defendants and the Respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff, who died during the pendency of appeal, his legal representatives are already on record as respondent Nos.2 to 6. 2. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the Suit for recovery of enhanced rent and also cost of repairs from the lessee. 3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Trial Court. 4. The brief averments in the plaint in O.S. No.289 of 1996 are as under : (i) The 1st defendant, representing the 5th defendant-Corporation, has taken on lease six godowns belonging to the plaintiff firm from 16.01.1991 on a monthly rent of 65 paise per sq. foot. The lease period is two years. Godown 1, 3 to 6 were given possession on 13.03.1991 and the 6th godown bearing No.2 was given on 05.04.1991. (ii) The plaintiff further pleaded that on 15.01.1993, plaintiff met 1st defendant personally at Hyderabad as lease period is completed and demanded for enhancement of rent from 65 paise to Rs.2/- per sq. foot as the prevailing rent at that time was Rs.2.50 per sq. foot per month. The 1st defendant promised to take necessary steps but he failed to pay the same. Therefore, plaintiff gave a reminder on 15.02.1993 and another reminder on 13.05.1993 and personally approached 1st defendant several times. Again, the plaintiff also gave reminders on 04.05.1994, 02.11.1994 and 28.07.1995, but the defendants neither gave any reply nor paid the enhanced rent as demanded in notices. (iii) The plaintiff further pleaded that as per the oral agreement between the plaintiff and defendants, the expenditure for repairs of roads and flooring which was effected during the business transaction shall be met by the defendants. As demanded by the defendants in their letters, dated 07.10.1994, 04.12.1995 and 20.12.1996 roads and flooring were repaired. Plaintiff spent Rs.22,900/- and demanded the defendants to pay the same by letter, dated 04.11.1994, but the defendants failed to pay the same. As demanded by the defendants in their letters, dated 07.10.1994, 04.12.1995 and 20.12.1996 roads and flooring were repaired. Plaintiff spent Rs.22,900/- and demanded the defendants to pay the same by letter, dated 04.11.1994, but the defendants failed to pay the same. Finally, the plaintiff got issued a notice, dated 19.08.1996 to the defendants under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, requesting the defendants to vacate the premises and pay the enhanced rent. Defendants received the notices, dated 19.08.1996 and 20.08.1996, but they did not give any reply and that the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. 5. The brief averments in the written statement filed by the 2nd defendant which was adopted by the defendant Nos.1, 3 to 5 is that they never accepted for the enhancement of rent. Without accepting the enhanced rent by the defendants, plaintiff is not entitled to the same. The allegation of sub-lease is concoction. The oral agreement wherein defendants agreed to pay the cost of repairs to the roads and flooring is utterly false. The plaintiff has to keep his godowns in proper condition and the suit is premature and may be dismissed. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues : (i) Whether there is concluded and binding contract between both parties for enhancement of rent and collect the same at Rs.2/- per sq. foot per month from 65 paise? (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount as difference of rent due as prayed for? (iii) Whether there is contract between both parties to bear the repair amount from tenant? (iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount as arrears of bills for repairs as prayed for? (v) To what relief? 7. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiff, PW1 was examined and Ex.A1 and Ex.A21 were marked. On behalf of the Defendants Ex.B1 to Ex.B8 were marked during the cross examination of P.W.1. 8. After completion of the trial and on hearing the arguments of both sides, the Trial Court decreed the suit with costs vide its judgment, dated 21.04.2003, against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellants/defendants in the suit questioning the Decree and Judgment passed by the Trial Court. 9. 8. After completion of the trial and on hearing the arguments of both sides, the Trial Court decreed the suit with costs vide its judgment, dated 21.04.2003, against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellants/defendants in the suit questioning the Decree and Judgment passed by the Trial Court. 9. Heard Sri Maheswara Rao Kunchem, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Srinivasa Rao Basava, learned counsel, representing on behalf of Sri S. Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the judgment of the trial Court is contrary to law and contrary to evidence on record. He would further contend that the trial Court erred in proceeding with the suit as if it is a summary proceeding and in deciding the case on the pleadings without referring to or discussing the evidence on record. He would further contend that the trial Court should have seen that the 1st respondent/plaintiff had never claimed or pleaded or prayed for any interest on the suit amount and he would further contend that the appeal may be allowed by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the learned trial Judge. 11. Per contra, leaned counsel for the respondents would contend that on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly decreed the suit and there is no need to interfere with the finding given by the learned trial Judge. 12. Now the point for determination in the appeal is that; Whether the Trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit? Point: 13. The case of the plaintiff is that the 1st defendant, representing the 5th defendant-Corporation, has taken on lease six godowns belongs to the plaintiff firm from 16.01.1991 on a monthly rent of 65 paise per sq. foot and lease period is two years and the Godown 1, 3 to 6 were given possession on 13.03.1991 and the 6th godown bearing No.2 was given possession on 05.04.1991. The plaintiff further pleaded that due to non-cooperation of the defendants officials, the lease agreement between both the parties could not be put in writing. The plaintiff further pleaded that on 15.01.1993 he met 1st defendant personally at Hyderabad as lease period is expired and demanded for enhancement of rent from 65 paise to Rs.2/- per sq. foot as prevailing rent at that time was Rs.2.50 per sq. foot per month. The plaintiff further pleaded that on 15.01.1993 he met 1st defendant personally at Hyderabad as lease period is expired and demanded for enhancement of rent from 65 paise to Rs.2/- per sq. foot as prevailing rent at that time was Rs.2.50 per sq. foot per month. The plaintiff further pleaded that the 1st defendant promised to take necessary steps, but he failed to pay the same and that the plaintiff addressed a reminder on 15.02.1993 and another reminder on 13.05.1993 and also personally approached 1st defendant for several times. As a last chance, the plaintiff also gave reminders on 04.05.1994, 02.11.1994 and 28.07.1995, but the defendants neither gave any reply nor paid the enhanced rent amount as demanded in the notice and that the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. 14. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that there is no concluded contract or binding contract between the parties for enhancement of rent for Rs.2/- per sq. foot from 65 paise per sq. foot per month. The case of the plaintiff is that the agreement in between both parties is oral agreement only and the same is not disputed by the appellants. In cross examination Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.4 are marked through P.W.1, it goes to show that relationship between the plaintiff and defendants as landlord and tenants is not disputed by the appellants. In cross examination nothing was suggested to P.W.1 by the defendants that there is no oral agreement between both parties for enhancement of rent from 65 paise per sq. foot to Rs.2/- per sq. foot per month. It was simply suggested to P.W.1 in cross examination by the learned counsel for the defendants that the 1st defendant is not liable to pay enhanced rent as claimed by him. The said suggestion is denied by P.W.1. It was admitted by both parties the premises was delivered to the defendants in the year 2002. The suit is confined with regard to the enhancement of rent and also recovery of amount of Rs.22,900/- spent by the plaintiff towards repair charges as promised by the defendants to pay the same subsequent to undergone repairs by the plaintiff. 15. The material on record reveals that the lease is oral lease, 5th defendant-Corporation has taken six godowns on lease belongs to the plaintiff firm from 16.01.1991 onwards and godown No.2 was delivered to the defendants on 05.04.1991. 15. The material on record reveals that the lease is oral lease, 5th defendant-Corporation has taken six godowns on lease belongs to the plaintiff firm from 16.01.1991 onwards and godown No.2 was delivered to the defendants on 05.04.1991. The contention of the plaintiff is that the lease period is oral only and the same is for two years from 16.01.1991. Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9 goes to show that from 12.03.1991, the plaintiff addressed several letters to the 1st defendant. The same is not at all in dispute. Ex.A.13 to Ex.A.15 are the letters addressed to the plaintiff by the 2nd defendant. As stated supra, Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9 clearly goes to show that the plaintiff addressed several letters for demanding the amount and also for vacation of the premises. The plaintiff repeatedly contends that the lease period is only two years and the lease is oral lease. The defendants never denied the same. Though the plaintiff demanded the defendants to pay the enhanced rent and also an amount of Rs.22,900/- towards repair charges as incurred by the plaintiff, but the defendants failed to pay the same to plaintiff. In view of the promise given by the defendants, the plaintiff demanded the enhanced rent in respect of rental value prevailing in the locality, but the defendants did not deny the same and did not adduce any evidence and continued in possession from 1991 to 2002. The defendants continued in possession of the property after expiry of two years lease period in the capacity of the tenants. It is also admitted fact that the lessee is entitled to continue in possession of the property after expiry of the lease period of two years, the landlord demanded the defendants by addressing several letters under Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9 to vacate the premises, but failed to do so. Further more, the landlord is entitled to take possession of the property after expiry of the lease period. 16. The material on record reveals that though the plaintiff addressed several letters to the defendants to vacate the premises and to pay the repair charges as spent by the plaintiff, the defendants have not responded the demand made by the plaintiff. Further more, the landlord is entitled to take possession of the property after expiry of the lease period. 16. The material on record reveals that though the plaintiff addressed several letters to the defendants to vacate the premises and to pay the repair charges as spent by the plaintiff, the defendants have not responded the demand made by the plaintiff. The suit schedule property is located at Toorangi village, near to Kakinada, at where the 2nd defendant is doing business but they did not venture to give any reply notice to the plaintiff or they did not enter into witness box to prove the defence in the written statement. 17. The learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance in the case of Manepalli Udaya Bhaskara Rao vs. Kanuboyina Dharmaraju, (2004) 1 ALD 269 wherein the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as follows : “Silence or non-issuance of reply notice cannot be termed to be admission under Section 17 of Evidence Act since Section 17 contemplates of a statement in oral, documentary or electronic form. There is no provision in Evidence Act including Section 114 under which admission can be presumed”. The composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh further held as follows : “From the above discussion, it makes clear that the admission has to be spelled out only from the positive acts on the part of the party, but cannot be culled out or cannot be based on any presumptions. The exchange of notices would only at the most constitute, a demand and refusal in writing, but the absence thereof would not either way constitute an admission. Even failure to issue a notice cannot be said to be an absence of demand nor the failure to reply to such notice would amount to an admission of the claim made in the notice. Such omission would not amount to a tacit consent in respect of the demanded liability. Even otherwise, on a reading of the defence as set up in this case, it amply shows that there is a valid defence leading to a triable issue which has to be appreciated and considered only after giving opportunity to both sides to substantiate their respective pleas”. In the case on hand several letters under Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9 were addressed by the plaintiff to the defendants. In the case on hand several letters under Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9 were addressed by the plaintiff to the defendants. The defendants have not pleaded in the written statement that the contents mentioned in Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9 letters to the defendants are absolutely incorrect. It is not the case of the defendants that the plaintiff is a totally stranger to them. The ratio laid down in the said decision is relates to the promissory note suit filed by the plaintiff, but not a dispute in between the landlord and the tenant. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case law is not applicable to the present case on hand. 18. It is the specific contention of the plaintiff that there was an oral agreement in between the plaintiff and the defendants with regard to the payment of enhanced rent and the defendants have to incur the expenditure for repairs of roads and flooring which was effected during the business transaction that repairs have to be made by the defendants. The plaintiff further pleaded as demanded by the defendants in their letters, dated 07.10.1994, 04.12.1995 and 20.02.1996 under Ex.A.13 to Ex.A.15, the plaintiff attended the repairs, but the defendants failed to comply their promise to pay a sum of Rs.22,900/- which was incurred by the plaintiff. The material on record also further goes to show that the plaintiff got issued a notice, dated 19.08.1996 to the defendants under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act requesting the defendants to vacate the premises and to pay the enhanced rent and the defendants also received registered notices, dated 19.08.1996 and 20.08.1996, but they did not choose to give any reply. Therefore, the landlord is entitled to take over the possession of the property after expiry of the period of lease. Further more, the defendants simply addressed letters to the plaintiff under Ex.A.13 to Ex.A.15 to carry out the repairs, but they did not deny the claim made by the plaintiff for cost of repairs and that the plaintiff is entitled to an amount of Rs.22,900/- towards repair charges from the defendants. 19. Further more, the defendants simply addressed letters to the plaintiff under Ex.A.13 to Ex.A.15 to carry out the repairs, but they did not deny the claim made by the plaintiff for cost of repairs and that the plaintiff is entitled to an amount of Rs.22,900/- towards repair charges from the defendants. 19. As stated supra, it was demanded by the plaintiff as per oral agreement between him and the defendants, the defendants have to pay the repair charges of Rs.22,900/- and they are also pay the enhanced rent as per the oral agreement in between both the parties as demanded by the plaintiff in the letters addressed to the defendants. The same is not denied by the defendants by issuing a reply or they did not enter into witness box to prove that there was no oral agreement in between both the parties and also the plaintiff is not entitled to claim enhanced rent and for repair charges of Rs.22,900/-. In fact, the defendants addressed letters to the plaintiff to attend repairs, the defendants did not enter into witness box to prove that the plaintiff is not entitled enhancement of rent and also an amount of Rs.22,900/- from the defendants towards repair charges spent by the plaintiff. 20. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the landlord gives a notice after completion of contract period of two years to the tenants that he would be charged at the enhanced rent from a certain rate and should vacate the premises. If really the tenants does not accept the enhancement of rent and also refused to pay the enhanced rent, the tenants should be deemed to be accepted the enhanced rent as demanded by the landlord. In the case on hand, the plaintiff also got issued a legal notice, dated 19.08.1996 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, requesting the defendants to vacate the premises and pay the enhanced rent and the defendants received two notices, dated 19.08.1996 and 20.08.1996 and for the reasons best known to them, they did not choose to give any reply. Though they pleaded a defence in the written statement, they did not enter into the witness box to prove their defence. Though they pleaded a defence in the written statement, they did not enter into the witness box to prove their defence. Admittedly, the defendants did not vacate the premises on the date specified in the notices and the plaintiff has to suffer loss on account of the occupation of the premises by the defendants after the expiry of lease period. 21. In the case on hand, the 2nd defendant filed written statement and the same is adopted by other defendants, but to prove their defence, they did not enter into the witness box. The law is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case of Vidhyadhar vs. Manikrao and others, AIR 1999 SC 1441 where the Hon'ble Apex Court held that; “Where the party to the suit does not appear into witness box and states his own case on oral and does not offer himself to the cross examination by the other side, a presumption would arose that the case set up by him is not correct”. In the case on hand, the defence put forth by the defendants in the written statement was not at all supported by the defence as they did not enter into witness box and they did not state the facts pleaded in the written statement on oath in the trial Court and avoided the witness box so that they may not be cross examined. 22. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality in the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court except the rate of interest at 12% per annum awarded by the trial Court from the date of suit till the date of realization. 23. In the case of Central Bank of India v. Ravindra, (2002) 1 SCC 367 , a Constitutional Bench of Apex Court held as follows : “Though interest can be capitalized on the analogy that the interest falling due on the accrued date and remaining unpaid, partakes the character of amount advanced on that date, yet penal interest, which is charged by way of penalty for non-payment, cannot be capitalized. Further interest, i.e. interest on interest, whether simple, compound or penal, cannot be claimed on the amount of penal interest. Penal interest cannot be capitalized. Further interest, i.e. interest on interest, whether simple, compound or penal, cannot be claimed on the amount of penal interest. Penal interest cannot be capitalized. It will be opposed to public policy.” The Apex Court further held as follows : “Subject to the above, we answer the reference in following terms: (1) Subject to a binding stipulation contained in a voluntary contract between the parties and/or an established practice or usage interest on loans and advances may be charged on periodical rests and also capitalized on remaining unpaid. The principal sum actually advanced coupled with the interest on periodical rests so capitalized is capable of being adjudged as principal sum on the date of the suit. (2) The principal sum so adjudged is "such principal sum" within the meaning of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on which interest pendente lite and future interest i.e. post-decree interest, at such rate and for such period which the Court may deem fit, may be awarded by the Court.” 24. In the case of Andhra Bank, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad v. M/s. Manney Industries, AIR 1993 (AP) 53 , the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as follows : “This Bench is of the view that the discretion has to be exercised judiciously and supported by reasons for granting interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit or rate higher than 6% p.a., and below the contractual rate of interest. In this case the unit has become sick immediately after its commencement and thereafter they could not pay the due amount and another person has taken over the unit and created an equitable mortgage and so under these circumstances and taking into consideration that they have not earned any yield or profit out of the transactions even from the inception of the unit itself and in view of the fact that the unit had become sick immediately after its commencement, the learned judge thought it fit and granted interest at 6% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of realisation. Normally, this Court would not interfere with the discretion exercised by the Court below regarding the rate of interest, provided it satisfied the reasons that have been given by it are sound and reasonable. Normally, this Court would not interfere with the discretion exercised by the Court below regarding the rate of interest, provided it satisfied the reasons that have been given by it are sound and reasonable. We fortified our view even by the decision reported in State of M. P. v. Nathabhai Desaibhai ( AIR 1972 SC 1545 ), wherein the Supreme Court took into account the conduct of the parties and the reasons given by them which are as follows: "Coming to the question of interest subsequent to the date of the institution of the suit, it was found that the appellant had unlawfully withheld the amount due to the respondent even after coming to know that the collection made was an illegal one. Before instituting the suit, the respondent had issued a notice to the appellant, calling upon the appellant to pay the money illegally collected from it; but despite that notice, the appellant failed to pay back the amount illegally collected from the respondent. That being so, in our opinion, the High Court was justified in awarding interest on the principal amount from the date of the suit". In the special circumstances of the case, as found by the Court below, which are sound and well founded, granting interest at 6% p. a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization is perfectly justified and does not warrant any interference by this Court.” 25. On considering the aforesaid case law and in view of the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that the legal heirs of the 1st respondent/ plaintiff i.e., respondent Nos.2 to 6, who were already on record, are entitled to an amount of Rs.11,78,851/-, but they are entitled to the interest at the rate of 6% per annum on Rs.11,78,851/- from the date of decree till the date of realization. Legal heirs of plaintiff i.e., respondent Nos.2 to 6 are entitled the rate of interest at 12% per annum on Rs.11,78,851/- from the date of suit till the date of decree. 26. The findings arrived by the trial Court on appreciation of the evidence in this case, therefore, are correct and do not call for any interference, except the rate of interest as indicated above. 27. 26. The findings arrived by the trial Court on appreciation of the evidence in this case, therefore, are correct and do not call for any interference, except the rate of interest as indicated above. 27. In the result, the appeal suit is allowed in part by modifying the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court as the suit is decreed with costs for an amount of Rs.11,78,851/- (Rupees eleven lakhs, seventy eight thousand, eight hundred and fifty one only) and with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree on Rs.11,78,851/- and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realisation. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed.