BULCHAND AND COMPANY Vs. KHAMRUNNISA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole defendant in O.S. No. 901 of 1985 on the file of the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad filed these two appeals. The deceased 1st respondent filed the suit for eviction of the appellant from the premises in question. It was pleaded that the property bearing Nos. 5-8-615 and 5-8-615/1 comprising of two mulgies at Abids, Hyderabad, was owned by Sri. A.K. Babu Khan and in a preliminary decree for partition passed in O.S. No. 38 of 1964 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the property fell to her share. It was stated that the appellant was the tenant of the premises and in view of the allotment of the property in the partition, the tenancy was attorned to her. According to the 1st respondent, the rent for both the mulgies was Rs. 1,300/- per month and ever since 04.10.1998, new tenancy was created and the rent is being paid from month to month.

(2.) The 1st respondent got issued a notice, dated 10.04.1985, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and required the appellant to vacate the premises. Through reply, dated 24.05.1985, the appellant stated that the lease in respect of the two mulgies was separate and individual, with rent of Rs. 6507-per mulgi, and that there was an offer by the original owner, to sell the property for a consideration of Rs. 1,64,000/-. He further pleaded that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- has been paid under receipt, dated 08.06.1982, and that the 1st respondent has no right to terminate the lease. Other contentions were also advanced.

(3.) In view of the stand taken by the appellant in the reply notice, the 1st respondent filed O.S. No. 901 of 1985, for eviction and mesne profits. The contents of the notice, dated 10.04.1985, were repeated in the plaint, whereas, those in the reply were repeated in the written statement. The trial Court decreed the suit through judgment, dated 12.12.1996. Apart from directing eviction of the appellant, it has directed ascertainment of mesne profits. C.C.C.A. No. 23 of 1987 is filed challenging the decree in that suit.