SEREDDY CHENCHI REDDY Vs. HOTEL SAROVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff No.1 in the suit filed above revision against order, dtd. 3/3/2022 in O.S.No.279 of 2021 on the file of learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

(2.) The averments, in brief, in the plaint are that defendant No.1 firm is the owner of property bearing door No.13/8/187 admeasuring 832 square yards of site along with ground, first, second and third floors. Defendant No.1 firm leased out first, second and third floors along with steps on the ground floor as also reception counter along with lavatories and bathrooms and current connections to the plaintiffs, on 27/5/2015 for a period of six years from 1/4/2015 to 31/3/2021. Rent for three years i.e. from 1/4/2015 to 31/3/2021 is Rs.60,000.00 and from 1/4/2023 onwards, Rs.78,000.00 per month. The rent is payable on the fifth of every succeeding month. Plaintiffs took plaint schedule property on lease and have been running Sri Tirumala Hotel Sarovar Lodge. Plaintiffs paid Rs.10,00,000.00 to defendant No.1 as refundable advance amount without interest at the time of taking property on lease. Defendants represented that, plaintiffs can continue as lessees even after expiry of lease with same terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed. In the lease deed, a condition was also incorporated regarding damages. Plaintiffs invested huge amounts. Lease deed dtd. 27/5/2015 was registered as document No.5301 of 2015. Plaintiffs have been regularly paying rent through NEFT/RTGS and the present rent payable is Rs.78,000.00 per month including TDS. Defendants violated their assurance to continue plaintiffs as tenants and intended to evict plaintiffs from the plaint schedule property. Plaintiffs issued registered legal notice on 19/11/2020 requesting defendants to enter fresh lease for a period of five years. Defendants issued reply notice with false allegations. Subsequently, there were negotiations in the presence of Suravarapu Venkata Reddy and Ambati Srinivas Reddy. There was a compromise to extend the lease orally. Plaintiffs issued notice requesting the defendants not to take any coercive steps against them. With these averments, the suit was filed for perpetual injunction.

(3.) Defendant No.3 filed written statement and counter claim. It was contended inter alia that plaintiffs approached the defendants with an intention to run Tirumala Hotel Sarovar Lodge in the plaint schedule property. Accordingly registered lease deed was executed on 27/5/2015. As per the terms of the lease deed, rent was fixed at Rs.60,000.00 per month for first three years and thereafter at Rs.78,000.00 per month. Power consumption charges are to be paid by the plaintiffs and property tax is to be paid by defendant No.1. Plaintiffs also paid Rs.10,00,000.00 as refundable deposit. As per the terms and conditions of lease deed, if possession of the plaint schedule property is not delivered after expiry of the lease, plaintiffs will be treated as trespassers and defendants are entitled to claim Rs.25,000.00 per day towards damages, from the plaintiffs.