subject matter not covered under rent control act. month to month tenancy, however notice under sec.106 T.P.Act given, terminating the tenancy. - proof of bonafied , not necessary, no proof of payment of rents. the defendant is trespasser liable to be evicted after termination of tenancy, in mean while directed to pay rent




S.A.No.721 of 2012

Date: 04-09-2012



Mohd. Khaja
                                                                          .. Appellant


1.B.Ramesh Babu and
   two others.































S.A.No.721 of 2012



        The defendant in O.S.No.4236 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Principal Rent Controller-cum-12th Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, is the appellant herein. The suit was filed for eviction of the defendant from the suit schedule property contending that he was a tenant of the premises since 1995 on a rent of Rs.2,500/- per month.  The defendant paid the rent for a period of 12 months and subsequently committed default in payment of rents. Thereafter, a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was given and the suit was filed for recovery of arrears of rent and also for damages at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month from July, 2004 to till the date of disposal of the suit. The defendant admitted the tenancy but denied the liability to pay the arrears and claimed that entire arrears of rent was paid and there is no default in payment of rent and the suit for eviction is not bona fide.  After considering the evidence on record, the learned Junior Civil Judge has dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the willful default in payment of arrears of rent and as against that an appeal in A.S.No.109 of 2008 was filed before the Court of the XIV Additional Chief Judge (F.T.C), City Civil Court, Hyderabad and by its judgment the learned Additional Chief Judge has allowed the appeal, but, however directed the appellant/defendant to pay an amount of Rs.2,500/- per month towards damages from July, 2004 to till disposal of the suit as his occupation is illegal.  Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is filed.
          Evidently, the contract of tenancy is not covered under the Rent Control Act.  The question whether there is willful default or not is not a relevant factor. But, however, both the Courts below have found that there is no proof of arrears of rent and consequently the said finding has become final and the plaintiffs have not challenged the said finding.  The only question is whether there is valid notice of termination of tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The notice has been received by the appellant/defendant and no serious objections were raised in the writ statement about the insufficiency of the notice. Evidently, the contract of tenancy is on a month to month basis and consequently the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, even if it contains some allegations about the terms of contract of tenancy, if it is found will not defeat the validity of the notice.  There are absolutely no merits in the appeal warranting admission on any substantial question of law.  Consequently, the appeal; is liable to be dismissed.
          In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However, the appellant is permitted to vacate the suit schedule premises within a period of three months from today.  The appellant shall pay rent at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month from the date of the suit till the date of the judgment of the appellate Court and thereafter at the rate of Rs.5,000/- till the date of vacation of the premises.  The appellant is directed to deposit entire arrears of rent within a period of four weeks from today and the respondents are permitted to withdraw the same.  The appellant is entitled for deduction of the amount, if any, paid to the respondents. No order as to costs. The Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.        





Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.