K V V SATYANARAYANA Vs. MUTTAMSETTI TULASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INTRODUCTION: K.V.V.Satyanarayana, the unsuccessful defendant in O.S.No.418 of 1988 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, had preferred the present appeal. Smt Muttamsetti Tulasi, the respondent herein, who is the plaintiff in the suit, filed the suit as against the appellant/ defendant for delivery of vacant possession of the schedule property and for arrears of rent with subsequent interest and also for damages @ Rs.3,000/- per month. The learned Judge, on the strength of the respective pleadings of the parties, having settled the issues, recorded the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and D.W.1 and D.W.2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-6 and Exs.B-1 to B-32, and decreed the suit as prayed for with costs, but without awarding any interest and granting future damages at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month. Hence, the appeal. SUBMISSIONS OF SRI V.S.R.ANJANEYULU:

(2.) Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, the learned counsel representing the appellant/ defendant, would submit that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute at all for the reason that the agreed rent per month is only Rs.800/-and hence, the p remises is governed by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The learned counsel had also pointed out the evidence of D. W.1 in this regard and had taken this Court through Exs.B-1 to B-6, B-18 to B-32 and would contend that the learned Judge committed a serious error in arriving at a conclusion that the rent as on the date of filing the suit was Rs.1,740/- and hence, the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The learned counsel also had pointed out that in the light of the specific plea taken in the additional written statement, the quit notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (For short 'the Act') is not in accordance with law. While further elaborating the submissions, the learned counsel would maintain that except the evidence of P.W.1 relating to the quantum of damages to be fixed, there is no other acceptable evidence. The learned counsel pointed out that the evidence of D.W.1 on this aspect is clear that it is not a busy locality and the premises is situate in a small lane and in the light of this evidence, the award of Rs.3000/- per month by way of damages cannot be sustained. SUBMISSIONS OF SRI SRINIVAS:

(3.) Sri Srinivas, the learned counsel representing the respondent/land-lady, the plaintiff in the suit, would contend that the quit notice is in accordance with law and even otherwise, in the light of the language employed in Section 106 of the Act as substituted by the Amending Act 3 of 2003, the defence, if any, need not be seriously considered. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in M/s.Gold Medal, represented by its sole Proprietor, Mohd Ali Arifi (Died) per LRs. v. Smt. Ameena Begum through her GPA. While further elaborating his submissions, the learned counsel pointed out the evidence of P.W.1 and also Exs.A-1, A-2, A-5 and A-6 and would contend that the evidence is clear on record that as on the date of institution of the suit, the quantum of rent between the parties was Rs. 1,740/-. and in the light of Exs.A-5 and A-6, the cheques, it is for the appellant/defendant to explain as to why the said cheques had been issued and in the absence of any explanation in this regard, the self-serving documents relied upon by him Exs. B-1 to B-32 may not come to his aid at all. Hence, the counsel would contend that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit as on the date of the institution of the suit. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through the pleadings of the parties and also the evidence available on record and the findings receded by the learned Judge. While further making his submissions, the learned counsel would contend that in matters of fixing the quantum of damages, the Court can take judicial notice as to the location of the premises and the other relevant aspects. The learned counsel pointed out that it is true that elaborate evidence had not been let in this regard and there is oath against oath the evidence of P.W.1 and the evidence of D.W.1. But, however, the fact that within a span of a few years, the original rent of Rs.800/- had been enhanced to Rs.1,740/- would go to show the increase or enhancement of rents and even if this increase is to be taken into consideration, if the corresponding increase is calculated, as on the date of the quit notice and subsequent thereto, the date of institution of the suit, as on the date of the decree, fixing the quantum of Rs.3,000/- per month would be just and proper. Hence, the said findings need not be disturbed. The learned counsel also pointed out that this appeal was dismissed for default and subsequently, the same had been restored. In the meanwhile, the decree was put to execution and the respondent/land-lady/plaintiff had already taken possession of the premises on 12-07-2005. The learnef counsel would contend that in view of the subsequent events during the pendency of the appeal also, the appeal is bound to fail.