A G CHANDRASEKHAR Vs. RAMAGIRI MAHALAXMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2001 in A.S.No.434 of 2000 on the file of XII Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, confirming the judgment dated 29.9.2000 in O.S.No.771 of 1992 on the file of 1st Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Defendant in the suit is the appellant. Plaintiff is the respondent in this appeal.

(2.) Necessary facts for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:

(3.) In this second appeal, in the memorandum of grounds the appellant mentioned in all six grounds calling all of them as substantial questions of law to be determined in the second appeal. At the time of admission of this second appeal, the learned admission Judge treated ground No.1 alone as substantial question of law to be determined in this second appeal. The said substantial question of law, as framed in the memorandum of grounds of appeal, reads as follows: In view of the un-registered lease deed being invalid on account of execution for a period of 7 years, whether the lease got determined by efflux of time under Section 111 of Transfer of Property Act, in spite of the appellant carrying on its manufacturing activities even after the expiry of the lease period by continuing the practice of depositing the enhanced rent in the bank account of the plaintiff, thus, the tenancy thereafter being month to month, as held by Apex Court in AIR 2000 SC 1696 and AIR 1984 SC 143 ?