ST MARYS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY Vs. QUTUBUDDIN AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two second appeals are filed by the Defendants 1 to 3 in O.S. No.610 of 1997, on the file of the n Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The parties to both the second appeals are common. The Respondents 1 and 2 filed the suit, for the relief of delivery of vacant possession of the plaint schedule property, on payment of the value of the suit building, to be ascertained by a Commissioner, that may be appointed by the Court. They also claimed mense profits, at the rate of Rs.35/- per sq. feet, per month, from the date of filing the suit, till the date of delivery of possession. Respondents 4 and 5 in the appeals were impleaded as Defendants 4 and 5, in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in the suit.

(2.) The plaintiffs are the owners of premises bearing Door No. 3-6-137, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad, admeasuring 1,612 sq. yards, with an old building, thereon. The 1st defendant is an Educational Society and Defendants 2 and 3 are its members. With a view to establish and run a Junior College in the said premises, Defendants 1 to 3 (for short "the defendants") approached the plaintiffs. Both of them agreed on certain terms, such as, that the suit schedule property shall be leased for a period of 15 years, with effect from 2-10-1987 to the defendants, that a building shall be constructed by the defendants, with their own funds, in accordance with the plan to be sanctioned in the name of the plaintiffs by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, that the defendants shall deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/-, and that the monthly rent shall be Rs.7,000/-. Initially, an agreement was entered into on 11-8-1986. Thereafter, a lease deed was executed on 2-10-1987, but it was not registered.

(3.) The defendants were inducted into possession and construction was undertaken. Few years thereafter, notices were exchanged between the parties, in the matter of payment of certain additional amounts, as advance to the plaintiffs. Alleging that the defendants constructed large halls in the 5th floor of the building, without permission from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, failed to demolish an old structure, which too was a condition imposed by the Municipal Corporation, for undertaking new construction, and that they have subleased part of the premises in favour of Defendants 4 and 5, the plaintiffs got issued legal notice dated 20-2-1997. The defendants, in turn, issued a reply dated 3-3-1997, denying the allegations contained in the notice. Not being satisfied with the reply issued by the defendants, the plaintiffs filed the suit for the reliefs referred to above.