UDAY Vs. DILMOHANSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff 's second appeal.

(2.) I have heard the learned advocates of both the sides.

(3.) The plaintiff averred that the suit premises which is a shop was originally owned by Laxman Ingle and after his demise his wife Sumanbai (PW3) became the landlady. The respondent was her tenant in the suit premises. He, however, sub-let it to the plaintiff for monthly rent of Rs.6,000.00 since 1/7/1994. Sumanbai filed suit for eviction against the respondent under the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 on various grounds. They entered into a compromise. He paid the rent to her till 2004. Thereafter, he informed the plaintiff about having surrendered the tenancy and he could directly deal with her. Accordingly, since 2004 from time to time he is in possession of the suit premises on periodical lease with agreed rent which he paid to her from time to time till June 2009. The respondent did not assert any right or claim over the suit premises. The plaintiff surrendered the tenancy to the landlady - Sumanbai whereupon the respondent started demanding an amount of Rs.50,000.00. On his failure to pay, he started disturbing his possession and, therefore, he filed the suit for perpetual injunction simplicitor.