M V V PRASADA RAO Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . M.V.V. Prasada Rao, the unsuccessful defendant in O.S.No.205 of 1986 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Kakinada, had preferred the present appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree made in the aforesaid suit, dated 22 -09 -1994. The Municipal Council, Kakinada, is the respondent -plaintiff.

(2.) THE respondent herein -plaintiff in the aforesaid suit filed the suit for recovery of Rs.1,64,126 -50ps due towards arrears of lease and penal interest with subsequent interest and for costs. The learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Kakinada, recorded the evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1, and marked Exs.A -1 to A -5 and Exs.B -1 to B -14, and ultimately decreed the suit in part after deducting Rs.43,000/ -, as D.W.1 admitted that the account shown in Ex.A -4 was correct, with proportionate costs and with subsequent interest at 6% p.a.,. from the date of decree till realization. Hence, the appeal.

(3.) SRI M. Ram Mohan, the learned counsel representing the appellant -defendant would contend that there is no written agreement for the period -in -question and unless there is a written agreement, the contract cannot be enforced as the same being void. On the strength of the same, no relief can be claimed by the respondent -plaintiff, the Municipal Council, Kakinada. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on Section 45 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (hereinafter, in short, referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience), which deals with the mode of executing contracts. The learned counsel also would submit that apart from the deduction which had already been given in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances, the appellant -defendant is entitled to certain further deductions. At any rate, the counsel would maintain that in the absence of a written agreement as contemplated by Section 45 of the Act, the respondent -plain! tiff is not entitled for any relief at all.