A. GOPAL REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals are directed against the common judgment and decree dated 02-04-1999 rendered in O. S. No. 778 of 1996 and O. S. No. 461 of 1998 on the file of learned IV-Senior Civil Judge, City Civil court, Hyderabad.

( 2 ) THE defendant, who suffered eviction decree and also decree for mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 20,000-00 per month for the suit schedule premises from 01-11-1995 to 30-04-1996 and also future rent at the rate of rs. 20,000-00 per month from the date of decree till delivery of vacant possession in o. S No. 778 of 1996, filed the appeal - CCCA. No. 99 of 1999.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff-landlord aggrieved by the common judgment and decree in o. S. No. 778 of 1996 filed A. S. No. 100 of 1999 filed CCCA No. 100 of 1999 claiming mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 40,000-00 per month from 26-4-1996 till date of present appeal and future rent at the same rate till the date of delivery of vacant possession.

( 4 ) THE facts, not in dispute, are that the plaintiff landlord leased out the suit schedule premises to the father of the first defendant and husband of the second defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,300-00 under Ex. A-6 for a period of 25 years from 01-08-1970 to 31-7-1995. The plaintiff got issued a notice dated 10-10-1995 under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act to the defendant terminating the tenancy of the defendants and to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises by 31-10-1995 and the same was duly received by the defendants. Thereafter the defendants sent two cheques towards the rent for the months of September and october, 1995 and they were returned by the landlord in view of the termination of tenancy. In spite of the same, the defendants sent cheques, and the landlord filed the above suit for eviction and for mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 40,000-00 per month for use and occupation of the suit schedule premises, apart from the rents due in a sum of Rs. 2,600-00 for the months of september and October, 1995.

( 5 ) THE same was resisted by the defendants, but they have admitted that they are paying a sum of Rs. 1,300-00 per month as rent and defendants 1 and 2 are the partners of business carried out under the name and style of central Studio which is in their occupation since 1946. Due to some misunderstandings the erstwhile landlord initiated judicial proceedings in the year 1968 and a settlement was arrived and that in pursuance of the settlement, a lease deed was executed, under which, they are not only entitled for lease of twenty-five years, but renewal for a like period of 25 years at their option. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot immediately terminate the tenancy treating it as a tenancy of month to month. The notice issued is not in accordance with the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. The defendants also contended that after the expiry of lease in the month of July, 1995, the plaintiff continued to receive the rents till August, 1995. The plaintiff is under an obligation to execute the registered lease deed for a further period of twenty-five years. During the subsistence of the lease period under renewal clause, in the absence of any breach of the conditions of the lease, it is not open for the plaintiff to terminate the tenancy in respect of the suit schedule property. In view of the same, according to the defendants the suit notice is bad in law and the defendants sent a suitable reply to the termination notice and after issuing terminating notice, the plaintiff received the rents. In view of the same, non-encashment of cheque is of no consequence whatsoever and it is deemed that the landlord waived the notice issued terminating the tenancy. The defendants further pleaded that the total extent of the plaintiff premises was originally 2734. 94 Sq. Ft. for which the rent payable was at Rs. 1,300-00 per month. The municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, during the road widening scheme, demolished certain portion of suit schedule premises with

Click Here to Read the rest of this document