S. R. K. PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal and cross-objections are directed against the judgment and decree passed in OS No. 521 of 1991 on the file of the learned I Additional Sub-Judge, Visakhapatnam.

( 2 ) THE facts that arises for consideration can be stated briefly as follows:defendants are the appellants. It is admitted fact that Smt. Umabala, who is the 1st defendant, is the owner of the suit schedule building bearing No. 47-11-28, described in the schedule and it is located at Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam. The 2nd plaintiff, who is the husband, is said to have fitted fixtures and furniture s mentioned in the schedule to the said building. The plaintiff s claim that the property was let out to one Sri P. Venkata Reddy for running a hotel under an unregistered lease deed dated 9-6-1980 initially for a period of three years on a monthly rental of Rs. 1,500. 00 for building proper and Rs. 1,000/- towards rent for fixtures in the building. The lease commenced from 1-7-1980. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that the said lease period in favour P. Venkata Reddy came to an end in June 1987 and thereafter the 1st defendant taken the said premises on lease on 1-7-1987. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that it was taken on lease agreeing to pay Rs. 3,000. 00 to the 1st plaintiff towards building rent and Rs. 1,500. 00 towards hire charges for fittings and fixtures to the 2nd plaintiff. It is also pleaded that the 1st defendant was running hotel business in the name and style of Oasis Bar and Restaurant as a tenant from month to month. Rents are payable on 1/04/1990. It is further alleged that from 1-4-1990 till the end of June, 1990 the first defendant was paying enhanced rent of Rs. 4,500. 00by cheque for the building proper and Rs. 2,000. 00 each for the fitting and fixtures under two different receipts issued by the first and second plaintiffs separately. The plaintiffs have come with a version that the 1st defendant promised to vacate the premises by the end of July, 1991 and also agreed to pay the enhanced rent for the period July, 1990 to July, 1991 at the rate of Rs. 5,500. 00 for the building proper and the same existing rent of Rs. 2,000. 00 for the fixtures. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that instead of paying enhanced rent of Rs. 5,500. 00 for the building from July, 1990 onwards, the 1st defendant continued to pay Rs. 4,500. 00 for the building proper, while pressing to pay the balance of rent i. e. , 1,000/- at a later date. It is alleged that the plaintiff issued the quit notice dated 30-7-1991 to both the defendants viz. , defendants 1 and 2 terminating the tenancy with effect from mid-night of 31-8-1991 and called upon to vacate the premises.

( 3 ) IT is stated that 1st defendant died during the pendency of the matter and the other defendants were impleaded, who are said to the managing partners of the 2nd defendant. As the defendants did not vacate the premises, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for eviction against the defendants from the scheduled premises and for recovery of vacant possession along with the fixtures and also sought for arrears of rent. The plaintiffs also claimed damages for use and occupation of the building from 1-9-1991 to 30-9-1991 and also for subsequent damages from the date of suit i. e. , from 1-10-1991.

( 4 ) THE 1st defendant died during the pendency of the suit, even before filing of the written statement. 2nd defendant filed written statement signed by P. Narayana Reddy. Defendants 4 to 6 filed a memo signed by the Counsel adopting the written statement filed by the 2nd defendant on all aspects.

( 5 ) THE contentions raised by the defendants and canvassed before this Court can be briefly summarised as follows:the 1st contention is that the lease taken by P. Venkata Reddy for carrying on the business by entering into a partnership with nine others under the name and style of Oasts Bar and Restaurant has been continued. It is also claimed that it was leased out for seven y

Click Here to Read the rest of this document