P S BHARATHI Vs. KAMALA DEVI DHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Late Kamala Devi Dhar, who was the owner of the house bearing No.5-166/2/1 situated at Erragadda, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad, let out the house to the appellant herein in the year 1973 on a monthly rent of Rs.1200.00. Subsequently having given a quit notice, she filed O.S. No.3373 of 1980 seeking eviction of the appellant herein from the suit schedule premises. Ultimately at the intervention of some mediators they seemed to have entered into a compromise where under the appellant agreed to vacate the premises by December, 1985. Ex.A-2 is a compromise memo filed in the Court. Ex.A-3 is a decree passed in that suit. But the appellant, who has no respect for the law of the land, did not vacate the premises, perhaps on the advice of his Counsel whose conduct as noticed by me while considering the Legal Representative Petition as reprehensible one. In these circumstances once again the respondent herein perhaps on the advice of his Counsel issued another quit notice Ex.A.5 dated 25.10.1989 terminating the tenancy from 30.11.1989 and also claimed mesne profits from that date at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month. Since the premise is capable of getting the said rent the notice was received by the appellant as per Ex.A.4 postal acknowledgement. The appellant sent reply Ex.A.6 where under he has taken the stand that the respondent is not the owner of the property itself. Hence the respondent filed O.S. No.1743 of 1990 seeking the relief of eviction of the appellant from the suit schedule premises and for mesne profits at the rate of Rs.3,000.00 per month from 1.12.1989 to till the date of handing over possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff.

(2.) In the written statement, the appellant contended that the respondent is not the owner of the property and she has only right to receive rents. She also contended that the suit is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary party the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as the provisions of the Rent Control Act are applicable to the suit property, the notice determining the tenancy is bad and not issued by the owner, and the suit premises is not capable of fetching the income of Rs.3,000.00per month.

(3.) On the basis of these pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues: