S. P. MALLAIAH Vs. S. MANMOHAN RAO DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second Appeal No.314 of 2010 arises out of the judgment dtd. 5/2/2010 passed by the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in A.S.No.332 of 2008 confirming the judgment and decree dtd. 29/8/2008 passed by the learned XII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.S.No.5851 of 2004. The said suit was filed by the plaintiffs therein seeking specific performance of an agreement dtd. 13/10/2003 and granting a permanent lease for suit mulgi in terms of the above agreement. By the judgment dtd. 29/8/2008, the trial Court dismissed the suit.

(2.) Second Appeal No.318 of 2010 arises out of the judgment dtd. 5/2/2010 passed by the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in A.S.No.333 of 2008 confirming the judgment and decree dtd. 29/8/2008 passed by the learned XII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.S.No.5833 of 2004. The said suit was filed by the respondents herein seeking decree for eviction of the defendants therein from 'A' schedule property, mesne profits at the rate of Rs.10,000.00 per month for wrongful use and occupation of the subject property. By the judgment dtd. 29/8/2008, the trial Court decreed the suit partly.

(3.) In Second Appeal No.318 of 2010 learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the quit notice dtd. 17/9/2004 issued under Sec. 106 of Transfer of Property Act is not valid and that the suit is barred by time. He would further assert that there is no proper termination of lease as there is a contract for delivery of a built-up area of 192 square feet and thus the eviction notice is void and infructuous. He would also assert that the trial Court failed to appreciate the terms and conditions of Ex.A2 agreement executed between the parties and wrongly held it as unenforceable and framed the following substantial questions of law.