CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY Vs. VIJAYALAKSHMI SAMUDRALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This City Civil Court Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is filed by the appellant/defendant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 05.09.2018, passed in O.S.No.434 of 2017, by the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby, the suit filed by the respondent herein/ plaintiff against the appellant herein/defendant, for eviction and mesne profits was decreed with costs, directing the defendant to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the plaintiff within two months from the date of the said decree and further directing the defendant to pay arrears of rent @ Rs.62,500/- per month from July, 2018 onwards to plaintiff by deducting the earnest amount of Rs.1,20,000/- paid by defendant to the plaintiff and also directing the defendant to pay future rents at the same rate from the date of said decree till the date of delivery of possession.

(2.) Heard Sri Srinivas Polavarapu, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Sri A.Sudershan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff and perused the record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant would contend that the subject suit is not maintainable against the appellant/ defendant, who is the Managing Director of the Helios Fitness Services (Pvt.) Limited company. The suit ought to have been filed against the said company, who is the actual lessee and is in occupation of the suit schedule premises. There was no tenancy in between the plaintiff and the defendant. This aspect was not considered by the Court below and erroneously decreed the subject suit. It is further contended that Ex.A.1-legal notice dated 29.07.2016 is invalid as it was issued through General Power of Attorney holder by name Gangavalli Venkata Ranga Rao. In fact, there was no GPA on that day. Ex.A.4-copy of GPA, does not reveal the date and it was introduced at a later stage. There is non-compliance of Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short "T.P.Act"). On these scores, the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be set aside. There is ample evidence on record to establish that the Helios Fitness Services (Pvt.) Limited, had paid the rents to the respondent/plaintiff/ landlady. I.A.No.3 of 2019 filed to receive the documents such as cheques, vouchers, receipts, is required to be allowed as those documents are necessary for determination of the subject lis. The findings recorded by the Court below are contrary to the material on record and ultimately prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 05.09.2018 and allow the appeal as prayed for. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the following decisions: