BIKKINA SATYZANARAYANA Vs. REDDY LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Appeal under Section 100 of CPC against the decree in A.S.No.32 of 1996 dt. 11.3.2002 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram E.G. District preferred against the decree in O.S. No.55 of 1989 dt. 16.07.1996 on the file of the court of the District Munsif, Alamuru E.G. District.) Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District in Appeal Suit No.32 of 1996, dated 11-03-2002, wherein the learned Senior Civil Judge, after reappraisal of both the oral and documentary evidence available on record, reversed the finding arrived at by the District Munsif, Alamuru, East Godavari District in O.S.No.55 of 1989, dated 16-7-1996, the present second appeal is filed.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in the trial Court. The facts leading to filing of the above second appeal, briefly narrated, are that the plaintiff is the owner of the plaint schedule property by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 29-5-1981 along with some other properties that are situated to the north of the plaint schedule property. She purchased the said site from one Palacharla Abbayi. The defendant has been a tenant of the plaintiff for the suit schedule property on an yearly rent of Rs.1,200/-. The rent is from year to year and the year of the tenancy is from 1st April to 31st March of the succeeding year. The rent is payable by 1st April of the year. The defendant got constructed a godown and a shed and carrying on business therein under the name and style of Mandapeta Gas Company. The defendant paid rents to the plaintiff up to 31-3-1987 under receipt and failed to pay the same for the year 1987-88. As the defendant committed default in payment of rents, the plaintiff got issued a registered notice dated 29-9-1988 terminating the tenancy and demanded for delivery of the vacant possession by 1-4-1989 and also arrears of rent for the years 1987-88 and 1988-89. The defendant received the said notice on 1-10-1988 and got issued a reply on 15-10-1988 with false allegations. The plaintiff has not executed any lease deed as averred in the reply notice and the lease is not for 28 years as contended. To that reply notice, the plaintiff got issued a rejoinder dated 26-10-1988, requesting the defendant to send a Photostat copy of the alleged agreement of lease dated 9-10-1982. The defendant failed to the send the same. Along with the reply, the defendant sent a demand draft for Rs.1,200/- towards the rent of the year 1987-88. In the rejoinder, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to pay arrears of rent for the year 1988-89. Subsequently, the defendant sent a demand draft for Rs.1,200/- towards arrears of rent for the year 1988-89. The plaintiff demanded the defendant that he will be held liable for damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.3,600/-, if he fails to vacate the schedule property by 1-4-1989. But the defendant failed to vacate the premises. Hence the suit.

(3.) On the other hand, the defendant filed his written statement disputing the claim of the plaintiff. It is the case of the defendant that the plaintiff is his relative and that at the instance of the husband of the plaintiff late Reddi Surya Rao, the defendant applied for permission to Mandapeta Municipality for running business in L.P.G. cylinders in Mandapeta basing on the lease agreement dated 9-10-1982 in respect of the plaint schedule property, executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant for a period of 28 years commencing from 8-10-1982 to 9-10-2010, and that the plaintiff agreed for construction of the godown and office in the plaint schedule site at the cost of the defendant and authorized the defendant to pay taxes thereof. At the end of the stipulated period of lease, the plaintiff agreed to pay the value of the building at the rates prevailing by then, to take delivery of the plaint schedule property with the constructions thereof or otherwise the period of lease be extended further. The rent of Rs.1,200/- per year was stipulated in the said agreement. Due to the relationship and friendship with the plaintiff and her husband late Reddi Surya Rao, the defendant did not insist upon the plaintiff for execution of the required lease deed in respect of the plaint schedule site though the plaintiff agreed to execute the registered lease deed in terms of the lease agreement at her convenience. The defendant was put in possession of the plaint schedule site on 9-10-1982 itself, and that basing on the said lease agreement, the defendant constructed the office building in the year 1982 in the plaint schedule site and purchased Ac.0-01 cent of land adjacent to the east of the plaintiff schedule site from one Chikkam Mangayamma in the year 1983 for construction of the godown as the plaint schedule site was insufficient for construction of the godown. The defendant got his business registered from 29-7-1983 as L.P.G. Dealer for Mandapeta and started business on 12-3-1984. The defendant has been paying rent of Rs.1,200/- per year regularly to the husband of the plaintiff late Reddi Surya Rao. The defendant did not obtain receipts from late Reddi Surya Rao in view of the relationship, friendship and confidence. It is submitted that he did not make any default in payment of rent for the period from 1-4-1987 to 31-3-1988, that the defendant sent rents through his Clerk for the period from 1-4-1987 to 31-3-1988, that the plaintiff rejected to receive the same and that thereafter, the defendant sent the rent through money order. When the plaintiff refused the same and got issued a quit notice to him, he sent the rent for the year 1987-88 through demand draft along with reply notice, which was received by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, being the second wife of Reddi Surya Rao, after the death of Reddi Surya Rao, disputes arose between the plaintiff and the son of Reddi Surya Rao and that the defendant being relative of Reddi Surya Rao, played neutral role between them. The plaintiff bore grudge against the defendant, as he did not support the plaintiff directly and got filed this suit with false and frivolous allegations suppressing the fact of lease agreement between them for a period of 28 years. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for any future profits as claimed by her, and prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.