CALVERY BAPTIST CHURCH Vs. YEGALLA VIVEKANANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 17 of 1991 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Visakhapatnam. The respondent herein is the defendant in the said suit. The plaintiff filed the suit for eviction of the defendant from the plaint schedule building by directing him to deliver vacant possession of the building and subsequent damages for use and occupation @ Rs. 1,600.00 per month.

(2.) The plaintiff averred through his plaint that the defendant made a proposal to establish a printing press in the suit building and the plaintiff agreed for the same. Accordingly the plaintiff executed an agreement of lease on 2.9.1985 mutually agreeing that the defendant should pay Rs. 1,000.00 p.m. towards house rent and Rs. 1,000.00 towards amenities. It was further agreed that the plaintiff should let out the building to the defendant for a period of 5 years with a liberty to either of the parties to terminate the tenancy by giving six months notice to the opposite party. The defendant paid Rs. 4,000.00 towards advance refundable at the time of vacating the building. The defendant is running a printing press and is violating the terms and conditions of the agreement. The plaintiff sent a notice to the defendant on 26.3.1988 terminating the tenancy under Clause (7) of the agreement and calling upon him to vacate the property by six months notice. The defendant failed to give any reply and promised to vacate the same. The defendant subsequently approached the plaintiff to permit him to continue the tenancy for the full period of 5 years and the plaintiff agreed for the same. Subsequently the plaintiff issued a notice to the defendant on 4.5.1990 calling upon him to vacate the house on expiry of the period of 5 years. The defendant having received the notice, failed to send any reply. The plaintiff therefore filed the suit for eviction of the defendant from the suit property on the expiry of the period of tenancy and also on the ground that the plaintiff requires the property for occupation.

(3.) The defendant resisted the suit through his written statement contending that the plaintiff failed to provide certain amenities promised to be provided at the time of agreement of lease. The plaintiff violated the conditions of lease. At the time of lease, the defendant specifically stated to the plaintiff that he required the building for a long time, since he cannot afford to change the printing press business within short time. The plaintiff filed the present suit to lease out the suit premises to third parties. There is no proper notice issued by the plaintiff as contemplated under law. Even if such notice is true, it became invalid due to acceptance of rent by the plaintiff from the defendant subsequent to the notice. The suit is therefore liable to be dismissed with costs.