UNION OF INDIA Vs. NALLAPANENI LAKSHMI KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal and the cross-objections are directed against the judgment and decree in O.S. No.17 of 1995 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Chirala, dated 06-07-2000.

(2.) The suit was filed by the respondent alleging that the appellants took the suit property on lease for running a telephone exchange on a monthly rent of Rs.4,000/- for five years from 26-02-1985 to 26-02-1990 under a registered lease agreement. On expiry of the period of lease, the respondent demanded the appellants to enhance the rent to Rs.8,000/- per month from 01-03-1990 and also issued a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure demanding the appellants to vacate the property and seeking enhancement of rent due to considerable increase in the rents in the locality. Then, the respondent filed O.S. No.1 of 1993 for eviction and possession and the suit was decreed with costs. The respondent initiated proceedings for obtaining delivery of possession and then the appellants filed an appeal before the District Court along with I.A. No.1402 of 1993 for condonation of delay. The petition and a revision against its dismissal in C.R.P. No.3264 of 1994 were dismissed, but the High Court granted time for the appellants up to May, 1995 to vacate, while observing that the rents should be regularly paid. The appellants still did not pay the enhanced rent and did not vacate the premises and therefore, the respondent issued another notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 29-08-1994 demanding them to pay the rent at Rs.8,000/- per month and also damages due to the damage to the building and mental agony caused to the respondent. The appellants gave a reply, dated 17-10-1994 referring to the pendency of revision before the High Court and denying the right of the respondent to claim enhanced rent, though the revision was dismissed on 15-09- 1994 itself. Hence, the respondent filed the suit for recovery of Rs.3,30,000/- towards the difference in rent from 01-03-1990 to 01-12-1994 to a tune of Rs.1,80,000/- at Rs.4,000/- per month, Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages caused to the building and Rs.50,000/- for mental agony. The suit for recovery of Rs.3,30,000/- was requested to be decreed with costs.

(3.) The appellants contested the suit claiming the claims of the respondent to be false and admitting the lease under the agreement, dated 27-02-1988 for five years ending with February, 1990. The appellants also claimed that O.S. No.108 of 1991, renumbered as O.S. No.1 of 1993 filed by the respondent for recovery of possession, resulted in the appellants delivering possession of the building through Court Amin. The appellants claimed the building to have been delivered in tact and the appellants to be not liable to pay any enhanced rent. The appellants also claimed the suit to be barred by limitation and the building to have been delivered back in the same condition in which it was taken on lease. They claimed their continuance in possession till delivery to be legal and the respondent herself to have never attended the legal proceedings. It was only the general power of attorney holder that was attending and hence, the appellants sought for dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs. The trial Court framed two issues for trial as follows: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages ? (2) To what relief ? During trial, P.Ws.1 to 8 and D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 and B.1 to B.23 were marked.