P VATSALA Vs. T SRISAILAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11-8-2003 in O.S. No.1475 of 1997 on the file of I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, wherein the suit filed by the respondents herein for eviction of the appellant and for mesne profits was decreed and the claim for damages in a sunn of Rs. 1,50,000/- was dismissed.

(2.) The respondents herein filed suit with the following averments : The plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the premises bearing No. 1-5-176/35/22 (Plot No. 11-A), Bhagyalakshminagar Colony, Hyderabad, described in the plaint schedule. The defendant approached the plaintiffs for lease of the schedule premises for the purpose of residence cum school. The monthly rent was fixed at Rs.3,500/- per month for about two years with a stipulation to enhance the rent by 10% over two years. An agreement dated 27-3-1991 was entered into. The present rent for the suit premises in Rs.4,235/- per month. The tenancy commenced from 1-6-1991 and the lease was for a period of six years with a provision to extend the same with mutual consent. Contrary to the terms of agreement, the defendant made alterations to the building and put up thatched sheds and asbestos sheds for running school. The meter fixed to the bore well was also not maintained properly. The plaintiff sustained damage to an extent of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The suit building is located in the midst of the residential locality. The President of Bhagyalakshminagar Welfare Association issued a notice dated 28-9-1993 complaining about the nuisance caused by the students of the school in the locality. The defendant never paid the rents in time. After issuing notice dated 15-5-1997, the defendant started sending rents by post. In the said notice, the plaintiff demanded to vacate the premises. The defendant gave a reply dated 27-5-1997 with false allegations. The tenancy is terminated by the end of May. The defendant failed to vacate the premises in spite of quit notice. The plaintiffs are entitled to claim mesne profits at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month as per prevailing rental value. Accordingly a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- towards mesne profits is due to the plaintiffs.

(3.) The defendant filed written statement admitting that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit building and she is a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.3,500/- and later enhanced to Rs.4,235/-. The defendant however denied the agreement dated 27-3-1991 and further contended that the said document is not admissible in evidence for want of necessary stamp duty and registration. She also denied to have made any alterations to the building and caused any damages. The defendant further denied that she was irregular in payment of rents or that the lease period expired by 31-5-1997. She further contended that the notice dated 15-5-1997 issued by the plaintiff is illegal and void and she gave & suitable reply on 27-5-1997.