SATISH KHANNA Vs. KANDURU ANURADHA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appeals are between the same parties and arise out of O.S. No. 320 of 2007. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment. The respondent is the owner of premises bearing H. No. 8-2-293-82/L/105-A, at M.L. As. Colony, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. The appellant took the premises on lease. Two registered lease deeds were executed on 21.02.2004; one in respect of the premises and the other in respect of fixtures, furniture and amenities. The rent was agreed to be at Rs. 16,000/- per month each for the premises, and amenities. Provision was also made for enhancement of rent at the rate of 10% per annum. The duration of the lease was stipulated as three years i.e., up to 31.01.2007.

(2.) The respondent filed O.S. No. 320 of 2007 in the Court of IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the appellant, for recovery of possession of the premises and arrears of rent with future mesne profits and costs. It was pleaded that just on the eve of the expiry of the stipulated period of lease, a notice was served upon the appellant, requiring him to vacate the premises and despite the same, the possession was not handed over. Damages were claimed at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month, for use and occupation.

(3.) The appellant filed a written statement opposing the suit. The existence of lease, under the lease deeds was admitted. It was however pleaded that there is a provision for renewal of the lease and though a request was made in that behalf, the respondent did not come forward. It was also pleaded that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short 'the Act') was issued, even while the lease was in subsistence and that the same cannot give raise to any legal consequences.