AHMEDUNNISA BEGUM DIED Vs. ZUBEDA KHANTOON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 25-4-2001 passed in AS No. 106 of 1995 by the learned III Member, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings-cum-VIII Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 7-3-1995 passed in OS.No.453 of 1987 by the learned VI Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the unsuccessful defendants, all through, filed this Second Appeal; whereas, CRP No. 1485 of 2001 was filed by the defendants in the suit aggrieved of the orders dated 28-2-2001 passed in IA.No.22 of 2001 in AS No. 106 of 1995 by the learned lower appellate court allowing the petition filed under Order 41 Rule 27 admitting additional evidence subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility. Likewise, CRP No. 1486 of 2001 was filed by the defendants in the suit aggrieved of the orders dated 12-2-2001 passed in I.A. No.6 of 2001 in AS No. 106 of 1995 by the learned lower appellate court dismissing the petition filed under Order 18 Rule 1 seeking a direction to the plaintiffs in the suit to commence the evidence. CRP No.4493 of 2003 is filed by the defendants - appellants herein aggrieved of the orders dated 28-2-2001 passed in I.A.No.22 of 2001 in AS No. 106 of 1995 by the lower appellate court allowing the petition filed under Order 41 Rule 27 admitting additional evidence subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility while CRP No. 4496 of 2003 was filed by the defendants in the suit aggrieved of the orders dated 12-2-2001 passed in I.A.No.6 of 2001 in AS No.106 of 1995 by the learned lower appellate court dismissing the petition filed under Order 18 Rule 1 seeking a direction to the plaintiffs in the suit to commence the evidence.

(2.) The factual matrix in narrow compass is the plaintiff - respondents herein have filed the suit for eviction of the suit premises bearing No. 15-6-214 and 15-6-215/9, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad and for recovery of rents of Rs.8,400/- and damages of Rs.1,800/- and for mesne profits of Rs.2,000/- per month from the date of suit till recovery of possession, contending that they let out the premises to the first defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.600/, who died on 22-11 -1992 and the defendants 2 to 8 were brought on record as his legal heirs. The first defendant was not regular in paying the rents and committed default from 1-7-1985 to 25-8-1986 and the plaintiffs got issued legal notice dated 18-6-1986 terminating the tenancy. But the defendants, having received the notice on 20-6-1986, did not vacate the premises. It is further case of the plaintiffs that though the premises were let out for running kirana shop, the first defendant diversified his business in other fields i.e. M/s. Afzal Transport Company, Atlas Transport Company and Atlas Tea Company, etc. and thus violated the terms of agreement. Therefore, the suit was filed.

(3.) The allegation of the plaintiffs that the first defendant committed default in payment of rents is denied and it is asserted that he was very regular in paying rents. It is also pleaded that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as the monthly rent is only Rs.600/- the Rent Controller is competent to try the same.