PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. MAHAVEER PERSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendants 1 and 7 have filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29-7-1993 passed by the learned 1st Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.S. No. 754 of 1983. The plaintiff is the first respondent and the defendants 2 to 6 are the respondents 2 to 6 herein.

(2.) The suit O.S. No. 754 of 1983 was filed for declaraion that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property, for recovery of possession thereof, for arrears of rent, and for profits. It was decreed declaing the right and title of the plaintiff; for consequential possession; and for mesne profits from 2-5-1982 onwards till the date of realisation, while denying the relief of recovery of arrears of rent. The plaintiff filed cross-objections as against that part of the decree whereunder the relief for arrears of rent was denied.

(3.) The factual matrix may be set forth at the outset thus : The plaintiff claims that he is the owner of the northern portion of three storeyed building ad measuring 94 square yards within the premises bearing MC No. 5-8-110 situate at Nampally in Hyderabad, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 27-2-1971 from one Sakinder Begum; and that the southern portion thereof belongs to his adoptive mother by name Triveni Bai wife of Madanlal. The said Madanlal was the President of the first defendant-Trust known as Triveni Bhavan Trust.' The southern portion of the building was given in trust for establishing a 'Dharma Sala.' The Trust wanted to establish a hospital in the year 1979. Therefore, under an oral agreement of tenancy with effect from 1-10-1979 the President of the Trust obtained the plaintiffs portion i.e. northern portion of the suit building on a monthly rent of Rs. l,000.00 for the said purpose under the name and style of Triveni Madanlal Charitable Hosptal' in the whole of the building including the southern portion. Apart from the rent, it was agreed to bear and pay the electricity and water charges, and property tax. However, since the date of tenancy i.e. from 1-10-1979 the defendants committed default despite the request of the plaintiff. When the rents had not been paid, the plaintiff got a notice of termination of tenancy dated 20-12-1981 issued to the defendants determining the tenancy with effect from 1-2-1982. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed rent for a period of three years towards arrears and the profits from 1-2-1982 till realisation. The plaintiff further claims that since the build ing was constructed in the year 1966, the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1961 do not apply.