JUDGMENT : Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, J. This Appeal is filed by the appellant/defendant against the Judgment and Decree dated 13.10.2003 in O.S. No. 425 of 1999 (hereinafter will be referred as ‘impugned judgment’) on the file of IX Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter will be referred as ‘trial court’), wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of money was partly decreed while dismissing the counter claim filed by the defendant. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be arrayed as per their status before the trial Court. I. BRIEF FACTS 3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the available record are that the plaintiff alleged to have taken an extent of 7033 square feet in the second floor in Door No.6-3-862/A in sy.No.193 and 194 of Ameerpet, Hyderabad consisting of room numbers 15 to 18 on lease under lease deed dated 27.02.1996 from its original owner i.e., defendant for carrying on its projects relating to Gas Power to establish Godavari – I gas project office and for establishing Hyderabad Liason office initially for a period of three years commencing from 15.10.1996, which is renewable at the option of the plaintiff for a further period of two years subject to increase of 20% of the rent. The mutual rent agreed was Rs.59,077/- for Godavri – I Gas power project office and Rs.25,319/- for Hyderabad Lisason office. Besides the same, the plaintiff also agreed to pay a maximum charge of 60 paise per square feet towards the security, lift maintenance, lighting in common areas, cleanliness of common areas etc. The plaintiff paid a refundable deposit of Rs.16,87,920/- under an agreement dated 27.02.1996. It was agreed that in case of delay in refund of the deposit, it shall carry 18% interest thereon. The plaintiff also deposited a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for the purpose of providing additional power requirement by a cheque on 28.08.1996. Thereafter disputes arose between the parties and defendant failed to execute the registered sale deed as per the understanding. Thus, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 09.10.1996 under Ex.A1 stating that the tenancy is terminated by the end of the tenancy month. Subsequently, notices dated 15.02.1996 and 06.11.1996 under Exs.A2 and A3 respectively were issued. The defendant got issued reply under Ex.A5. Thus, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 09.10.1996 under Ex.A1 stating that the tenancy is terminated by the end of the tenancy month. Subsequently, notices dated 15.02.1996 and 06.11.1996 under Exs.A2 and A3 respectively were issued. The defendant got issued reply under Ex.A5. After considering Ex.A5, the plaintiff got issued reply along with a demand draft for Rs.5,00,000/- towards the deposit for providing the electricity charges. In Ex.A5, the defendant gave permission to affect the repairs as mentioned therein. However, the differences continued between the parties leading to issuance of notices and reply notices between the parties. The plaintiff made some changes in the premises as per their requirement and got the expenditure estimated to be incurred for bringing the building to the original position. The plaintiff was prepared to pay the same and expect that the same shall be deducted out of the deposit amount and remaining may be paid to them. 4. In reply to the plaint averments, the defendant filed written statement along with counter claim by contending that the defendant is entitled for recovery of the rent over the premises as agreed and since they did not pay the same, defendant is entitled for adjusting the same from the deposit amount. Thus, the contention of the defendant is that the plaintiff is liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,87,781/-. II. ISSUES FRAMED BY THE TRIAL COURT 5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.21,07,527.99 paise from the defendant with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation? 2) Whether there is no cause of action to file the suit? 3) Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? 4) Whether the defendant is entitled for arrears of rent from 01.03.1997 and also estimated costs of Rs,.8,21,989/- to rectify the damages caused to the premises as pleaded by the defendant? 5) Whether the plaintiff is liable to be pay the rents from 01.03.1997 till the end of lease period of Rs.18,56,712/-? 6) Whether the defendant is entitled for counter claim of Rs.4,87,781/- from the plaintiff as prayed by the defendant? 7) To what relief? III. EVIDENCE ON RECORD: 6. 5) Whether the plaintiff is liable to be pay the rents from 01.03.1997 till the end of lease period of Rs.18,56,712/-? 6) Whether the defendant is entitled for counter claim of Rs.4,87,781/- from the plaintiff as prayed by the defendant? 7) To what relief? III. EVIDENCE ON RECORD: 6. During the course of trial, the General Manager of plaintiff examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A17 on behalf of plaintiff and whereas the Engineer of the defendant was examined as DW1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B5 on behalf of defendant. IV. FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT 7. After considering the rival contentions, the Trial Court, by judgment dated 13.10.2003, decreed the suit partly in favour of the plaintiff awarding a sum of Rs.17,44,658/- with a future interest thereon at 6% simple interest per annum from 01.04.1999 till the date of realization. The rest of the claim of the plaintiff and the counter claim of the defendant were dismissed. 8. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed the present Appeal to set aside the impugned judgment and decree. 9. Heard both sides and perused the record including the grounds of appeal. V. ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION: 10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the defendant, and having gone through the material on record, the only issue that arises for consideration in this Appeal is: “Whether there are any grounds to set aside the impugned judgment dated 13.10.2003 passed in O.S. No. 425 of 1999 on the file of IX Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad?” VI. ANALYSIS: 11. During the pendency of the appeal, Sri Y. Shanker Rao, i.e., Managing partner of appellant/defendant died, as such, the legal representatives of Sri Y. Shanker Rao were brought on record as appellant Nos.2 and 3. 12. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship of owner and tenant between the defendant and plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule premises. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant contended that the trial Court ought to have observed that Ex.A12, which is said to be a refundable deposit agreement, could not have been be marked as an exhibit, as it is not a registered one. 14. An unregistered document that should have been registered is generally inadmissible as primary evidence of a transaction involving immovable property. 14. An unregistered document that should have been registered is generally inadmissible as primary evidence of a transaction involving immovable property. However, an unregistered refundable deposit agreement can be admitted for "collateral purposes" that do not affect the property itself. The said document is helpful to establish the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship or confirming the payment of a deposit. It can also be useful to determine the nature of possession and the fact of the tenancy. The plaintiff being a tenant of the suit schedule property is entitled to establish his claim for recovery of the security deposit based on the unregistered agreement, provided the claim is framed as a personal claim for money owed rather than an attempt to enforce property rights. Hence, the above contention of the learned counsel for the defendant is unsustainable. 15. The learned counsel for the defendant contended that the trial Court ought to have observed that the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff failed to prove that the person, who signed the plaint had any authorization or connection with the plaintiff company and therefore, the plaint itself ought to have been rejected. 16. It is pertinent to note that the above said ground has already been raised by the defendant before the trial Court and while answering issue No.1 the said ground has been answered by the trial Court. It was observed in the impugned judgment that PW1 is the principal officer of the company being the General manager and in fact he was authorized by the board by way of its resolution, which is marked as Ex.A17. Thus, it is clear that PW1, who was examined on behalf of the plaintiff, is none other than the General Manager and he is authorized to represent the plaintiff by way of resolution passed by the plaintiff company under Ex.A17. Hence, the above contention of the learned counsel for the defendant is untenable. 17. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant further argued that PW1 in his cross examination clearly admitted that he has not inspected the leased out premises personally before taking possession and he was also not present at the time of handing over the possession, in such circumstances, his evidence cannot be taken into consideration as he does not know any of the facts of the case personally. It is further contended that though the plaintiff issued notice on 03.03.1997 terminating the lease and vacating the premises on or before 30.06.1997, but even after 30.06.1997 the plaintiff continued in the said premises and paid rents till August, 1997, which clearly shows that notice issued by plaintiff was vague and thus, the plaintiff is liable to pay the rents for the full lease period. It is further contended that the trial Court failed to observe the contents of Ex.B4, which is a letter addressed by the plaintiff informing the defendant that they are responsible for rent, maintenance charges, electricity charges till 31.08.1997 and asked the defendant to make arrangements to take over the premises from them by 31.08.1997, which clearly shows that the plaintiff did not give any importance to the termination notice given on 03.03.1997. 18. It is further contention of the defendant that when the plaintiff did not hand over the possession of the premises to the defendant, the trial Court erred in giving a finding that possession was delivered and even as per letter dated 03.03.1997 the plaintiff failed to vacate the premises, thus, without any further notice the lessee is liable to pay the rents for the full lease period even if the plaintiff vacates. 19. The trial Court failed to observe that according to the lease deed, the plaintiff had to hand over the premises in the original condition and since the plaintiff made some interior alterations and additional work over the suit schedule property, a sum of Rs.8,21,989/- is required to bring the premises to its original condition. Moreover, the trial Court failed to consider the estimation given by DW2, who is competent civil engineer. It is further contended that the trial Court failed to observe that Exs.A7 to A9 were not proved as the author was not examined. 20. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant further contended that the trial Court failed to look into the Commissioner’s report and the photographs which clearly shows the damaged portion of the roof of the premises, electrical connections, wiring, broken glass, window frames, damages of the tiles, tap connections, broken sanitary pipes and discontinuance of water supply to the bathrooms for which an amount of Rs.8 lakhs is required to bring the premises to its original condition. 21. 21. As seen from the impugned judgment, all the above grounds raised by the defendant were answered by the trial Court by taking into consideration of Exs.B3 to B5. It is pertinent to note that though Exs.B3 to B5 are the letters sent by the plaintiff, they were marked through the cross examination of PW1. Since, Exs.B3 to B5 are marked at the instance of defendant, the genuineness of Exs.B3 to B5 cannot be suspected. There is no dispute that the plaintiff did not pay the rents from March, 1997 to August, 1997. Ex.B5 is the notice dated 09.09.1997 addressed by the plaintiff to the defendant. As per Ex.B5, the key to the main door was handed over to the defendant on 01.07.1997 and that the plaintiff vacated the premises on 05.07.1997 itself and started functioning in a different place at Banjara Hills. After issuance of Ex.B5 by the plaintiff, the defendant did not issue any reply notice to the plaintiff company demanding the return of the keys of the premises. 22. The trial Court observed in the impugned judgment that the correspondence under Exs.B3 to B5 discloses that negotiations were going on in between the plaintiff and defendant with regard to the repairs that are to be attended and there was a difference of opinion between them. Since the plaintiff did not pay the rents for six months i.e., from March, 1997 to August, 1997, certainly the defendant is entitled for recovery of said arrears of rents to a tune of Rs.5,06,376/-. Merely because the plaintiff did not vacate the premises as promised, the defendant cannot contend that the plaintiff is liable to pay the rents for entire lease period. In fact, the defendant is entitled for recovery of rents for the months during which the plaintiff utilized the premises of the defendant. It is also to be noted that admittedly though the lease is from month to month, the plaintiff being tenant is having right to terminate the lease by giving a three months notice and accordingly the plaintiff had issued three months notice to the defendant expressing its intention to vacate the premises. It is also to be noted that admittedly though the lease is from month to month, the plaintiff being tenant is having right to terminate the lease by giving a three months notice and accordingly the plaintiff had issued three months notice to the defendant expressing its intention to vacate the premises. The plaintiff did not make any attempts to evade any of the dues that are to be paid to the defendant and it has been making every attempt to intimate the same to the defendant from time to time expressing its intention to adjust the due amount from the deposit amounts that are lying with the defendant. 23. So far as compensation claimed by the defendant towards damages by relying on the oral evidence of DW2 i.e., Rs.8,21,989/- is concerned, though the defendant relied upon the oral evidence of DW2, who is alleged to be competent civil engineer, no documentary evidence is adduced to establish that the damages as assessed by DW2 are appropriate. The trial Court observed in the impugned judgment that the claim made by the defendant towards damages was exorbitant. Though the defendant contended that the Commissioner’s report and the photographs were not considered by the trial Court, the said commissioner report and photographs were not marked and they are not even part of the material on record placed before this Court. The plaintiff did not refuse to pay any compensation to the defendant for the damages caused to the premises. The plaintiff got assessed the damages to a tune of Rs.2,40,750/- and intimated the same to the defendant under Ex.B4. The defendant did not even issue any reply notice to Ex.B4 disputing the assessment made by the plaintiff with regard to the damages caused to the schedule premises. The trial Court awarded Rs.2,40,750/- for the damages caused by the plaintiff to the schedule premises. Hence, we are of the view that there is no error committed by the trial Court in awarding Rs.2,40,750/- towards damages, which is appearing to be just and reasonable. 24. Though the plaintiff claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the refundable deposit amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, the trial Court observed in the impugned judgment that the plaintiff is not entitled for any interest as the defendant deposited the said amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with A.P. Transco Authorities for the purpose of additional power. 24. Though the plaintiff claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the refundable deposit amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, the trial Court observed in the impugned judgment that the plaintiff is not entitled for any interest as the defendant deposited the said amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with A.P. Transco Authorities for the purpose of additional power. As there was no specific terms of the agreement in between the parties for payment of interest at the rate of 18% per annum on advertisement charges under Exs.A7 to A9, the trial Court did not award any interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 25. The refundable security deposit amount of Rs.16,87,920/- was lying with the defendant and out of which an amount of Rs.5,06,376/- i.e., rents for six months and Rs.2,40,750/- towards damages were adjusted. Apart from that the trial Court awarded an amount of Rs.2,68,126/- towards interest at the rate of 18% per annum on Rs.9,40,794/-, which is the balance amount left in the refundable security deposit after adjusting the rents for six months and damages. The trial court awarded Rs.5,00,000/-, which is the refundable deposit made by the plaintiff for additional power requirement and Rs.35,738/-, which is 50% of the advertisement costs. Thus, in all, the trial Court awarded an amount of Rs.17,44,658/- to the plaintiff. So far as the counter claim made by the defendant to a tune of Rs.4,87,781/- is concerned, the trial Court dismissed the entire claim on the ground that self serving testimony of DW1 and his witness does not give any details with regard to the assessment of the damages. It was further observed that the commissioner’s report was not placed before the trial Court and no such steps were taken by either counsel. The trial Court observed in the impugned judgment that there is no piece of evidence available on record with regard to the estimation that was pleaded by the defendant. It appears that except filing number of photographs showing the damages that were noticed by him at the time of inspection, the commissioner did not even make any effort to find out the amount required for attending the repairs of the damages caused to the property through any Engineer or any appropriate authority. Moreover, the DW2 admitted in his evidence that he has assessed the damages at the request of defendant. Moreover, the DW2 admitted in his evidence that he has assessed the damages at the request of defendant. Hence, reliance cannot be placed on the evidence of DW2, more particularly, when DW2 did not file any documentary evidence to substantiate that his assessment is appropriate and not exorbitant. As can be seen from the record, except the self serving testimonies of DWs 1 and 2, there is no other cogent and convincing material placed on record by the defendant to establish its counter claim. VII. CONCLUSION: 26. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of either sides, rightly decreed the suit partly in favour of the plaintiff and dismissed the counter claim of the defendant entirely and thereby, we do not find any tenable grounds to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court. Thus, the appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. VIII. RESULT: 27. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in the appeal, shall stand closed.