SAMPATHIRAO SUDHAKAR Vs. BENDI CHILKANNAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Appeal Suit is to the judgment, dtd. 21/12/2016, in Original Suit No.57 of 2013, on the file of the Court of Special Judge for trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, 1989-cum-IV Additional District Judge at Srikakulam (for short, 'the learned Additional District Judge') whereunder the learned Additional District Judge dealing with a Suit for eviction, recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property and for recovery of monthly rents to a tune of Rs.3,88,000.00 and damages decreed the suit of the plaintiffs.

(2.) The parties to this Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.

(3.) The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, according to the averments set out in the plaint, is that the mother of the plaintiffs is their registered General Power of Attorney holder, who stood as lessor in respect of the plaint schedule property i.e., ground floor of RCC slabbed building. The registered GPA was executed by her sons in her favour for managing and supervising the plaint schedule building. Previously, the defendant and his business partner viz., Lomada Rama Siddhareddy, S/o. Anna Reddy together took out the plaint schedule RCC slabbed ground floor building with all amenities such as fixtures of ceiling fans - 30, tube lights - 104, rolling shutters - 2 and entrance glass door etc. They took the plaint schedule property with an intention to carry on hotel business. Both of them entered into a registered lease deed, dtd. 23/2/2011, bearing No.1070/2011 with the mother of the plaintiffs for a period of three years commencing from 10/3/2011 to 9/3/2014. The purport of the lease was intended only for hotel business. The stipulated monthly rent was fixed at Rs.90,000.00 payable by the lessees on or before 10th day of every succeeding month to the lessor i.e., mother of the plaintiffs besides complying other terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement. Accordingly, the mother of the plaintiffs i.e., the lessor surrendered the vacant possession of the schedule property to the defendant and his business partner. Since then the defendant and his business partner used to carry on hotel business in the name and style of 'M/s.Star Alfa'. However, within a short spell of five months, after commencement of the lease, defendant and his partner wound up their joint venture and got the registered lease deed cancelled by executing another registered document, dtd. 25/8/2011, and surrendered the leased property to the lessor. The registered lease deed, dtd. 23/2/2011, ceased its entity by virtue of surrender of the leasehold rights to the lessor through the registered document, dtd. 25/8/2011. In fact, the lessor had an intention not to give consent for cancellation of the registered sale deed at the threshold but on account of the pressure made by the lessees, she gave her consent for cancellation.