LAWS(APH)-2012-4-59

CH PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. PADMA SHAKUNTALA

Decided On April 20, 2012
CH PRADEEP KUMAR Appellant
V/S
PADMA SHAKUNTALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2012 delivered in A.S. No. 154 of 2008 by I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the appellants herein are the defendants/tenants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff, who filed a suit in O.S. No. 374 of 2006 on the file of the Court of XI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad against the defendants for vacating and delivering the vacant possession of the suit schedule property i.e. medical shop in the name and style of M/s.Priyanka Medicals at the ground floor situated in Sy.No.59/1/2, Karkana Main Road, Secunderabad and also seeking a direction to the defendants to pay future mesne profits @ Rs.9,500/- p.m. from March, 2006 till the date of delivery of possession of the schedule property. According to the plaintiff, she is the exclusive owner and landlady of the suit schedule property. The defendants are the tenants residing in a portion of the premises admeasuring approximately 210 sq. feet on a monthly rent of Rs.4,500/- excluding electricity charges. The tenancy is month to month and the rents shall be payable in advance and there is no subsisting rental agreement. At the inception of the tenancy, the tenants had deposited a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh towards security deposit refundable at the time of vacating the premises. The last payment of rent was made on 27.09.2005 for the month of September, 2005 and from October, 2005 onwards, the defendants defaulted in payment of monthly rents and became wilful defaulters. Therefore, the tenancy was determined by a legal notice dated 16.01.2006 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants-defendants has contended that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate and re-appreciate the evidence and other material on record in proper perspective and thereby misdirected themselves in coming to the erroneous conclusion in decreeing the suit and dismissing the appeal suit.