SHANTILAL JAIN Vs. REKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are lessees in respect of the premises owned by the respondent at Bank Street, Hyderabad, since 1997. They filed O.S.No. 1159 of 2005 in the Court of III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the respondent for the relief of perpetual injunction to restrain the respondent from interfering with the possession or from evicting them from the premises, otherwise than through process, prescribed by law. On her part, the respondent filed O.S.No. 2965 of 2005 for eviction of the appellants from the same premises. Through common judgment dated 27-02-2008, the trial Court dismissed O.S.No. 1159 of 2005 and decreed O.S.No. 2965 of 2005.

(2.) The appellants filed A.S.No. 115 of 2008 in the Court of XII Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the decree in O.S.No. 2965 of 2005. The appeal was dismissed on 29-12-2010. Hence, this Second Appeal.

(3.) Sri G. Dhananjai, Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the suit itself was not maintainable, inasmuch as there existed a clause in the agreement, dated 01-01-1997, providing for renewal of the lease. He contends that though no specific issue was framed on this aspect, the trial Court and lower Appellate Court ought to have taken the same into account. He further submits that in the course of trial, the respondent admitted that the rent for the premises as such was less than Rs. 3,000/- per month, and on the basis of that admission, the trial Court ought to have rejected the plaint, leaving it open to the respondent to approach the learned Rent Controller. He submits that the fact that the appellants made a deposit of Rs. 8 lakhs was not taken into account, and that the decree passed by the trial Court and confirmed by lower Appellate Court cannot be sustained in law.