BOORUGU MAHADEV & SONS Vs. SIRIGIRI NARASING RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 06.09.2005 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition No. 5228 of 2002 whereby the High Court allowed the revision petition filed by the respondents herein and set aside the judgment dated 17.09.2002 passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.A. No. 93 of 1998 and restored the judgment dated 31.12.1997 passed by the Principal Rent Controller Secunderabad in R.C. No. 165 of 1993.

(2.) In order to appreciate the issue involved in this appeal, which lies in a narrow compass, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts in brief infra.

(3.) The premises bearing No. 9-3-692 to 694, Regimental Bazar, Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as "suit premises" was purchased jointly by the predecessors of the appellants herein under a registered sale deed dated 28.07.1904 from Sirigiri Yellaiah, and others, which they sold in discharge of pre-existing mortgage debt to avoid court attachment in O.S. No. 178 of 1900 on the file of the District Court. Since the date of sale, the respondents ' predecessors continued to occupy the suit premises and thus became the tenants of the appellants ' predecessors-in- title on a monthly rent of Rs.10/- in addition to payment of property taxes, conservancy and electricity charges etc. under an agreement dated 01.08.1904. The said agreement was incorporated in a book maintained by the appellants ' predecessors in the regular course of business and was duly signed by the respondents ' predecessors by way of rent every month. After the death of Sirigiri Vishwanadham, i.e., respondents ' predecessor, his four sons became the tenants and continued to pay monthly rent at the rate of Rs.75/- besides other charges. The respondents are the grand children of late Sirigiri Vishwanadham, who continued to occupy the suit premises as the tenants of the appellants. However, the respondents stopped paying rent w.e.f. 01.06.1987 to the appellants. Since the rent was not being paid in spite of repeated requests and demands, a legal notice was sent by the appellants to the respondents on 22.07.1992, to which interim reply was sent on 03.08.1992 followed by a detailed reply on 30.08.1992 and thereafter there were exchange of legal notices ensued between the parties.