POONAM CHATARJEE Vs. GANAPATHY NALAMAHARAJU REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is filed against the concurrent judgments, rendered by the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, in O.S.No.335 of 1996, and the Court of VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, in A.S.No.14 of 2003.

(2.) The respondent is the owner of the suit schedule premises. Through a lease deed dated 7-5-1993, the respondent granted lease in favour of the appellants, for a period of six months. The lease expired and the appellants did not vacate the premises. Thereafter, the respondent filed the suit for eviction and recovery of damages. The appellants filed a written statement, stating that the suit is not maintainable, since it was not preceded by a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, for short "the Act". It was alleged that the rents were being paid, even after the expiry of the lease. A further plea was raised to the effect that they surrendered the premises to the respondent, and thereafter, they were leased in favour of one Sri Sudhakar Rao. The trial Court took the view that since the lease expired, the appellants did not become tenants at sufferance, or holding over, and it was not necessary for the respondent herein, to issue notice under Section 106 of the Act. Accordingly, it decreed the suit. The lower appellate Court affirmed the view of the trial Court, through its judgment dated 17-3-2005.

(3.) Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned Counsel for the appellants, submits that Section 116 of the Act gets attracted, not only where the lessor receives the rents, even after the expiry of the period of lease, but also permits the lessee to remain in possession, otherwise. According to him, though the lease expired, way back on 7-11-1993, the suit came to be filed only on 24-4-1996, and in that view of the matter, the respondent can be presumed to have permitted the appellants, to continue as lessees.