ANDHRA BANK Vs. CHALASANI NAGESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the same proceedings at two different stages. A.S.No. 2539 of 1989 is filed by the defendant-Bank against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 33 of 1984 dated 19th August, 1985 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Guntur whereunder the suit for ejectment filed by the respondent-plaintiff in respect of Schedule A and B properties, for recovery of possession and claiming damages was decreed by granting Rs. 57,000/- towards arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. As regards the future profits, it was held that the same would be determined on a separtae application to be filed by the plaintiff. Subsequent to the said decree, on the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff in I.A.No.2447 of 1985, the future mesne profits were determined at the rate of Rs.9,000 per month as per the orders dated 19th March, 1987. Aggrieved by the same, the Bank preferred A.S.No,2290 of 1987.

(2.) The respondent-plaintiff had laid the suit against the appellant-Bank, inter alia, on the allegation that the respondent is the landlord of the suit property and the appellant had located its Branch Office in the suit building on payment of a consolidated monthly rent of Rs. 3,000/-, which includes Rs. 2,000/- for Schedule A property for its office in the ground floor and Rs. 1,000/- per month for the B Schedule property consisting of strong room, fittings etc., in the ground floor. It was alleged that the appellant paid the rents upto March, 1983 and the tenancy was terminated by a registered notice, Ex.A-1; dated 24-6-1983. Further, it was also alleged that the lease, as agreed, stood expired by 31-3-1983. It was also claimed that in view of the inflation, the respondent had called upon the appellant to pay a consolidated amount of Rs. 9,000/- per month for both the Schedule A and B properties from 1-4-1983. However, since the appellant did not vacate the premises, the respondent had filed the present suit seeking eviction and also claiming damages of Rs. 9,000/- per month from 1-8-1983 and also for future profits.

(3.) The said suit was contested by the-appellant-Bank, inter alia, on various grounds stating that there is an option for renewal and extension of lease for further periods and it was also alleged that since there was a refusal to accede to the request for the enhancement of the rent at abnormal rate, the suit was filed and the claim of Rs. 9,000/- per month towards damages is abnormal and exhorbitant. It was also further alleged that on behalf of the plaintiff one V.V. Subba Rao, approached the Manager of the Bank and agreed for renewal of the lease subject to payment of rent of Rs. 6,500/- per month. Apart from the said pleas, the validity of the quit notice etc., have also been raised in the written statement, of which there is no need to mention in view of the ultimate restricted question raised by the parties in these appeals.