SATYABHAMA MENON Vs. A MOTIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S.No. 715 of 1986, dated 26-6-1990 this appeal has been filed.

(2.) The appellant is the defendant in the suit. The admitted facts by both the Counsel are that the premises bearing No. 6-3-853, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, owned by the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the suit premises") was leased out on rent to the appellant in the month of April, 1968. It is stated that there is no rental agreement between the parties. The transaction of letting out the premises to the appellant by the respondent took place in the last week of March, 1968 initially for a rent of Rs.350/- per month and periodically it was raised to Rs.1,500/- per month at the time of instituting the suit. The plaintiff-respondent issued notice through her Counsel determining the tenancy of the defendant-appellant under Ex.A-1, dated 4-2-1986. It is stated that the notice was served on the defendant on 7-2-1986 terminating the tenancy on 28-2-1986 and directed the appellant to handover the possession on first of March, 1986, treating the tenancy from month to month commencing from the 1st day of the calendar month and ending with the last day of the calendar month, that the tenancy is terminable by a 15 days notice ending with the end of the calendar month and claiming the mesne profits at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month with effect from 1-3-1986 till the date of handing over possession. It is submitted that the appellant has sent a reply to the said notice, but copy of the reply notice has not been filed as Exhibit. It is also stated that the appellant had committed various acts of malfeasance and misfeasance in respect of the suit premises.

(3.) Mr. V.V. Ramanadham, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the defence raised in the suit by the appellant was that though the tenancy is a monthly tenancy but the commencement of the tenancy is from 4th of April 1968 to 3rd of May 1968, i.e., month commencing from 4th of the month ending with the 3rd of next month. As such, notice Ex.A-1 determining the tenancy is invalid and the suit is not sustainable and deserves to be dismissed as it is not in conformity with the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is further submitted by him that as per the oral agreement, the appellant had constructed certain sheds for running the school and the tenancy was not for residential purposes only, but for running the school which the appellant was previously running in a small premises. For expansion of the school, the appellant had taken the premises on lease, and in fact, the respondent had agreed to compensate the appellant the cost of the construction of the sheds at the time of vacating the premises.