the original lease agreement cannot be looked as it is not registered.?=Since the premises is a residential premises even in the absence of written document, the tenancy can be said to be from month to month and even if there is any defect in the notice under Section 106 T.P. Act in prescribing the time calling upon the defendant to vacate the premises, it will not defeat the suit.


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO

SECOND APPEAL No. 111 of 2012.

JUDGEMENT

            This second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful defendant in O.S.No. 58 of 2009 for recovery possession of the property on the ground that the defendant is a tenant and the rent payable was Rs. 4,500/- p.m. and subsequently the rent was enhanced to Rs. 5,000/-.  After the initial period of tenancy     was expired in September, 2003, as the defendant was not vacating the premises, quit notice was issued on 3.10.2008 and as the defendant failed to vacate the premises, the suit was filed and claimed damages for Rs. 1000/- per day. The husband of the defendant gave reply admitting the tenancy.  The defendant claimed that the notice is not valid and also she is the tenant holding over with the consent of the landlord and she is not liable to be vacated.  The courts below have not accepted any of the contentions raised by the appellant.
            The learned Counsel for the appellant claims that the original lease agreement cannot be looked as it is not registered. Since the premises is a residential premises even in the absence of written document, the tenancy can be said to be from month to month and even if there is any defect in the notice under Section 106 T.P. Act in prescribing the time calling upon the defendant to vacate the premises, it will not defeat the suit.  In view of the above circumstances, no substantial question of law arises for interfering in this second appeal.  Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission.  However, the appellant is granted two moremonths time from today for delivery of possession and the proceedings for determination of mesne profits as directed by the courts below shall be proceeded with. There shall be no order as to costs.

                                                                                    ________________________
                                                                                     N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J
22.06.2012.
KRB.





THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO


















SECOND APPEAL No. 111 of 2012.

JUDGEMENT





















22.06.2012.




Comments

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 http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

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.