VIPPANAPALLY RADHA Vs. BRINDAVAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in A. S. No. 12 of 2003 on the file of the III Additional District Judge's Court at Karimnagar, dated 14-07-2004, by which the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 121 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Karimnagar dated 08-01-2003 were confirmed in respect of recovery of possession and set aside in respect of perpetual injunction, thus partly allowing and partly dismissing the appeal without costs, the defendants in the suit preferred the present second appeal. S. A. M. P. No. 896 of 2010 is a petition to receive copies of bye-laws of the respondent society and registered gift deed dated 05-10-2004 as additional evidence marking them as Exs. B. 6 and B. 7.

(2.) The parties are referred to herein as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

(3.) The plaintiff filed the suit originally for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, etc. , from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit leasehold premises in municipal door No. 1-5-165 old / 1-5-191 new, near Jubilee Kaman, Karimnagar unless otherwise evicted by due process of law. The relief was later amended to evict defendants 1 and 2 from the suit premises delivering the same to the possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff registered society claimed to be represented by its President M. Satyanarayana and to be the lessee of the suit premises running Brindavan English Academy in the premises. Its President M. Satyanarayana alias Satyam is the sister's son of the 1st defendant who is the wife of the 2nd defendant. The oral lease in July, 1993 was for a monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/-to be enhanced by Rs. 100/-in every succeeding academic year. The registered school is running continuously with reputation and goodwill. The property tax was requested by the defendants to be paid by the President of the plaintiff whenever demanded by the municipal council, Karimnagar, to be adjusted in monthly rents and they also collected a deposit of Rs. 20,000/-agreeing to pay interest at 24 per cent per annum to be adjusted in the monthly rents. Additional amounts were collected from time to time as deposit to a tune of Rs. 1,38,630/-with a similar stipulation to adjust interest at 24 per cent per annum thereon in the monthly rents. The defendants furnished an account sheet in December, 1996 in the own hand of the 2nd defendant admitting the balance of Rs. 1,01,000/-towards deposit after adjustment of interest up to 30-11-1996. The President of the plaintiff found that interest was charged illegally on monthly rents without any oral or written agreement in the account to a tune of Rs. 22,986/-while not accounting for interest on Rs. 20,000/-, the original deposit, and not adjusting Rs. 15,852/-paid by the plaintiff towards property tax. When the defendants were questioned to furnish a correct account, they attempted to dispossess the plaintiff and its staff and students in March, 1998 with the help of unlawful elements, which attempts were resisted. The plaintiff sent monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 2,400/-per month from January, 1998 to March, 1998 through an account payee demand draft No. 0205779, dated 15-04-1998 by registered post, which was returned as refused on 17-04-1998. The plaintiff by way of caution sent an additional copy and copy of the demand draft by registered post to the office of the 2nd defendant, for which a reply with false averments was given. The plaintiff gave a reply notice against the threat for eviction and the defendants were intimidating with the active support of the police. Hence, the suit originally for a permanent injunction. The plaintiff alleged that in wilful disobedience and breach of the injunction granted on 17-06-1998 in I. A. No. 557 of 1998, defendants 1 and 2 forcibly occupied the suit premises on 21-06-1998 and hence, the amendment of the plaint seeking the relief of eviction and delivery of possession.