AKKINENI VENKATA RANGA RAO Vs. KOLLIPARA SAI SUBRAHMANYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 12-4-2006, passed in A. S. No. 26 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track court), at Gudivada, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge dismissed the appeal with costs filed by the appellant/1st defendant and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 29-8-2005 passed in O. S. No. 596 of 1999 on the file of the principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada.

(2.) THE appellant is the first defendant and whereas the respondent is the first plaintiff in o. S. No. 596 of 1999. One Lakshmi narasamma was the owner of a terraced house bearing Door No. 12/31 with assessment No. 12110 situated at 12th Ward, gudivada, Gudivada Sub-Registry, Krishna district. The total extent of the site in which the house situates is 261 sq. yards. The first defendant Akkineni Venkata Ranga Rao took the premises on lease on 14-4-1979 for a period of two years on a monthly rent of rs. 485/- for the purpose of running a coffee hotel. The second defendant Akkineni venkateswara Rao negotiated with Lakshmi narasamma with regard to terms of lease. The lease agreement was executed between the parties and the first defendant was inducted into possession of the premises as tenant. The lease was extended from time to time. The said Lakshmi Narasamma died on 11-7-1980 leaving behind the first plaintiff kollipara Sai Subrahmanyam as her sole legal heir. The first plaintiff extended the lease on the same terms and conditions from time to time and rent came to be enhanced to rs. 2,100/- per month. Since the defendants demolished a tiled portion of the building by taking away wood and logs of roof and tried to put cement sheets in the place of tiled portion of the house, an objection was raised by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are husband and wife. They got issued Ex. A-1 quit notice dated 30-10-1999 terminating the tenancy of the defendants and demanding them to vacate the suit schedule property by granting 45 days time from the date of receipt f the notice. They also claimed Rs. 50,000/-towards damages and at the rate of rs. 6,000/- per month for the unauthorized use and occupation of the premises after determination of the lease. The defendants got issued a reply notice. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit for eviction and recovery of possession. They also sought for decree for damages of Rs. 59,380/- with interest @ 12% p. a. and future damages at the rate of rs. 6,000/- per month for the use and occupation of the premises after determination of the lease.

(3.) THE defendants filed written statement. They took the plea that the second plaintiff is not a necessary party and as such the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties. They also took the plea that the second defendant and one yelamanchili Venkata Krishna Rao joinfly took the premises on lease on 5-4-1975 and did hotel business under the name and style 'sri Jaya Laxmi Vilas'. Subsequently, second defendant retired from the business by handing over the business to the said yelamanchili Venkata Krishna Rao on 26-1-1977. Subsequently, the said yelamanchili Venkata Krishna Rao wound-up the hotel business. Then the first defendant took the premises on lease and came into possession of the suit schedule premises on 14-4-1977. The lease agreement was executed between the first defendant and mother of the first plaintiff for two years. The first defendant has been paying the rents regularly. A written lease deed came to be executed between the first defendant and mother of the first plaintiff on 14-4-1979. Subsequent to the death of Lakshmi narasamma, natural parents of the 1st plaintiff used to receive rents on his behalf and they enhanced the rents from time to time. Enhanced rent at the rate of Rs. 1650/- was continued till 14-2-1998. When the first plaintiff refused to receive rent for May 1997, the first defendant sent the rents through money order till December, 1997. The first plaintiff received the rents from the first defendant from January, 1998 and acknowledged the receipt of rents on a notebook maintained by the first defendant. In February, 1998 there was settlement before the elders viz. , Sri Kakarala venkata Sobhana Chalapathi Rao and sri Vadlamudi Jogeswara Rao of Gudivada and in pursuance of which, rent came to be enhanced to Rs. 2,100/- per month on condition that the lease would be for a further period of 10 years from February, 1998. It was also agreed that the first defendant would continue to be in possession of the premises for five more years subject to his enhancing the rent at 25% per month. Since the tiled roof became old and weak, it collapsed on 7-10-1999 due to heavy rainfall. The first defendant's furniture and electrical equipment worth Rs. 30,000/- came to be damaged in the said incident. In spite of repeated demands made by the first defendant to make necessary repairs, the first plaintiff refused to oblige him. The first plaintiff expressed his inability to effect the repairs to the collapsed tiled roof. Instead, the first plaintiff gave permission to the first defendant to carry out necessary repairs and thereby the first defendant spent Rs. 24,000/- towards getting the collapsed roof repaired. Apart from spending Rs. 24,000/- towards repairs to the collapsed roof, he had also spent Rs. 40,000/-towards electrical equipment, furniture etc. The first plaintiff approached the first defendant in the last week of October, 1999 and demanded him to enhance the rent from rs. 2,100/- to Rs. 3,100/- with immediate effect, for which the first defendant refused. Thereupon, the plaintiffs issued notice with all false allegations. Thus, the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed.