CHILUKOTI SRINIVASA RAO Vs. ADIDAM MOHAN RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is directed against the common judgment dated 28-9-1999 in A.S. Nos.4 and 79 of 1999 on the file of the II Add1. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada under which the plaintiff's suit O.S. No.1310 of 1996 against the defendant- landlord restraining him from evicting the tenant otherwise than in due course of law has been decreed and similarly O.S. No.88 of 1997 filed by the plaintiff-landlord for evicting the defendant-tenant from the suit schedule premises has also been decreed along with the relief of damages for use and occupation of the suit premises. This second appeal is filed by the defendant-tenant in O.S. No.88 of 1997 against the dismissal of the appeal and decreeing the suit for eviction against him.

(2.) For the convenience of the reference, the parties will be referred to as the tenant and landlord respectively. The appellant shall be referred to as the tenant and the respondent as the landlord.

(3.) The facts leading to this appeal may be stated as follows: The tenant obtained the suit premises on lease for running a printing press in the suit premises. The tenancy was agreed to be month-to-month corresponding to calendar month with a monthly rent of Rs.2,500.00 per month. The tenant failed to pay rents from October 1996 onwards. The landlord got issued notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') terminating the tenancy by the end of December 1996 and demanding to deliver vacant possession with effect from 1-1-1997. It is further claimed that as after the termination of tenancy, the tenant's possession was that of a trespasser, and as such damages at the rate of Rs.5,000.00 were also claimed. As the tenant failed to vacate the premises the suit for eviction and claiming arrears of rent and damages has been filed. As stated above, the tenant himself filed the other suit for injunction restraining the landlord from evicting him otherwise than in due course of law. The Trial Court framed issues in both the suits, more particularly in O.S. 88 of 1997 which was for evicting the tenant, a specific issue whether the quit notice dated 29-11-1996 issued by the plaintiff was valid besides the other issues relating to arrears of rent and claim of damages and entitlement of the plaintiff for evicting the plaintiff was framed. The defendant-tenant in the eviction suit, in his written statement admitted that he obtained the premises on a monthly rent but the quantum of rent was disputed. It is stated that he obtained the premises for residential and non-residential purposes. It was also stated that at the time of induction the tenant paid Rs.30,000.00 as advance to the landlord. The terms of tenancy were stated to be oral. The tenant has been paying the rents regularly but the landlord was not issuing receipts. In November, 1996, the landlord demanded the tenant to enhance the rent up to Rs.3,000/- per month for which the tenant refused. Thereupon, the landlord bore grudge and refused to receive the rents sent by money orders. The landlord resorted to steps for forcible eviction of the tenant. On behalf of the landlord, P.Ws.l and 2 have been examined; Ex.A-1 and A-3 have been marked. On behalf of the defendant D.Ws.l to 3 have been examined including the defendant-tenant as D.W.1 and Exs.B-1 to B-3 have been marked. On this evidence, the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada held that the notice terminating the tenancy issued by the landlord was valid and the tenancy was validly terminated and accordingly decreed the suit of the landlord for possession and on the question of rent, the trial Judge held that the monthly rent agreed to between the parties was Rs.1,200.00 per month as stated by the tenant and in regard to damages also he held that the plaintiff is entitled to damages at the rate of Rs.1,200.00 per month. This, common judgment was challenged by both the landlord and the tenant. The tenant filed A.S. 79 of 1999 and the landlord filed A.S. 4 of 1999. The learned Senior Civil Judge framed points for consideration, which included whether the tenancy was fixed for month to month and whether the notice issued under Section 106 of the Act was valid. He also made it a point for consideration as to whether the rent was Rs.1,200/- or Rs.2,500.00 p.m. and whether the tenant was entitled to permanent injunction and whether the landlord was entitled to seek eviction. The learned Senior Civil Judge held that the tenancy was for month to month and the notice under Section 106 of the Act was valid and the tenancy was validly terminated and the landlord was entitled to seek eviction of the tenant. He also held that monthly rent was Rs.1,200/- per month and the tenant was entitled for injunction.