Back
2003 Supreme(AP) 765
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : DALAVA SUBRAHMANYAM
Mohd.Ibrahim - Appellant
Versus
Managing Committee of Masjid-e-Khursheed jah, Nampally, Hyderabad - Respondent
S.A.No.150/02
Decided On : 06-24-03
Advocates Appeared :
Mr.Md.Ghulam Hussain,Mr.M.Basith Ali Yavar,Mr.Abdul Muqeeth Quarshi
Headnote:CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, Or41, R31 - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, Sec106 - Suit for eviction on ground that defendant, tenant is a chronic defaulter in payment of rents and changed nature of property and carried repairs and alterations without knowledge of plaintiff-landlord - Defendant contends that quit notice is not in accordance with law and alleged termination of tenancy is illegal and that suit not maintainable since all legal heirs of deceased landlord not impleaded in suit - Trial Court decreed suit and same confirmed by appellate Court
Contention that lower appellate Court did not formulate points for determination as provided under provisions of Or41, R31 CPC - If lower appellate Court had considered all grounds taken in memorandum of appeal by giving reasons, it amounts to sufficient compliance - Since lower appellate Court discussed all grounds raised by appellant in detail and gave specific finding, judgment of appellate Court cannot be set aside
In this case, evidence on record discloses that defendant acting on behalf of all legal heirs of deceased original tenant and tendering rent every month - Hence quit notice issued u/S106 of TP Act to one of legal heirs terminating tenancy is valid notice - Findings of both Courts below that plaintiffs are entitled to terminate tenancy and defendant is liable to be evicted - Justified - Appeal, dismissed
( 1 ) THE appellant-defendant filed this second appeal against the decree and judgment in A. S. No. 6 of 1998 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Judge. City Civil court, Hyderabad (Fast Track Court) dated 15-11-2001 in dismissing the appeal filed against the decree and judgment in O. S. No. 1338 of 1994 dated 28-11-1997 on the file of the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court hyderabad in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs directing the defendant to vacate the suit premises and deliver vacant possession and to pay the arrears of rent in a sum of Rs. 450. 00 and also to pay the mesne profits from 1-10-1993.
( 2 ) THE brief facts leading to the filing of second Appeal are as follows: the defendant is a tenant in the suit premises bearing No. 11-6-305 situated at masjid-e-Khursheed Jah, Nampally, hyderabad on a monthly rent of Rs. 150. 00 the suit premises belong to the first plaintiff, which is a Trust property. The defendant failed to pay the rent and he is a habitual and chronic wilful defaulter in payment of rents. Thereupon, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice terminating the tenancy calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent. The defendant also changed the nature of the 1 property and carried out certain repairs and alterations without the knowledge of the landlord. Hence the plaintiff filed the suit. The defendant resisted the suit contending that the suit as framed is not maintainable. The suit property was in occupation of mrs. Saoluy Bee wife of Qamaruddin about 50 or 60 years ago and the rents were enhanced from time to time and she died in. 1 the year 1956 and the defendant is one of the legal heirs of late Saoluy Bee. The defendant denied the allegations that he committed default in payment of rents. The defendant further contended that when the plaintiff interfered with his possession, he filed o. S. No. 3507 of 1993 and obtained interim injunction. The quit notice is not in accordance with law and the alleged termination of tenancy is illegal and the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Further, since all the legal heirs are not impleaded in the suit, the suit is not maintainable.
( 3 ) ON the above said pleadings the trial court framed and settled the following issues: (1) Whether the tenancy of the defendant is validly determined? (2) Whether the suit as instituted is maintainable and if the plaintiffs are competent to institute the same? (3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the mesne profits as sought? (4) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties? (5) To what relief?
( 4 ) ON behalf of the plaintiffs P. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Ex. A-1 to A-12 were marked. The defendant examined himself as d. W. I and Ex. B-1 to B-5 were marked on his behalf. The trial Court after appreciating the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the suit as framed was maintainable. The defendant committed wilful default in payment of rents and the quit notice issued against the defendant was valid and legal and consequently the suit was decreed with costs. Aggrieved against the decree and judgment, the appellant-defendant filed a. S. No. 6 of 1998 on the file of the XII additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court (Fast Track Court), Hyderabad and the learned Judge after hearing dismissed the appeal confirming the decree and judgment of the trial Court.
( 5 ) AGGRIEVED against the decree and judgment of the first appellate Court, the appellant-defendant filed the second appeal contending that both the Courts committed error in coming to the conclusion that the quit notice was legal and that the plaintiffs were entitled to file the suit against one of the legal heirs of the original tenant. Considering the contentions of both the parties, the following substantial questions of law would arise in the second appeal. (1) Whether the termination of tenancy of only one of the legal heirs of the original tenant is sufficient to terminate the tenancy of other legal heirs
