N. Y. HANUMANTHAPPA, J.

( 1 ) THE defendant in the suit, viz. Bank of India represented by its Zonal Manager is the appellant in the present appeal whereas the plaintiff in the suit is the Cross-Objector.

( 2 ) THE appeal and the Cross Objections are preferred against the judgment and decree dated 2/09/1996 passed by the learned First Additional Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad in O. S. No. 1548 of 1993.

( 3 ) THE appeal has been filed to set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the Court below by which the suit of the plaintiff was decreed in a sum of Rs. 39,461. 10 paise with 24% interest per annum on Rs. 22,942. 50 paise from the date of institution of the suit till realisation with proportionate costs.

( 4 ) IT is to be noted here that the original claim of the plaintiff in the suit was for Rs. 7,72,710. 19 paise as on the date of the suit i. e. , 31-12-1993 together with interest @24. 5% with quarterly rests on the amount of Rs. 5,48,786. 50 and costs. The plaintiff filed the Cross Objections seeking for a decree in a sum of Rs. 7,33,249. 19 aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree of the Court below. He prayed in the memorandum of Cross Objections that the Court below had decreed the suit in a sum of Rs. 39,461. 00 only whereas the suit claim was for a total sum of Rs. 7,72,710. 19, and that the difference being a sum of Rs. 7,33,249. 19, this Court may allow the Cross Objections to that extent and dismiss the CCCA.

( 5 ) IT is apposite to narrate a few facts that are necessary for the purpose of resolving the dispute arising in the appeal and the Cross Objections, which are as under:the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property being building bearing No. 3-5-1114/8 to 10. The entire ground-floor portion of the said building was let out to the defendant-bank. There is no dispute regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant that is existing between the plaintiff and the defendant. An agreement of tenancy was entered into between the parties whereby the defendant-bank agreed to pay the plaintiff a monthly rent of Rs. 2,294. 25 paise for the let-out floor-space admeasuring 2100 square feet. While so, the period of tenancy came to an end on 15-5-1988. Well before the expiry of the lease,i. e. , on 4-10-1987, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice terminating the tenancy of the defendant with effect from 15-5-1988 on the ground that the defendant-bank had committed default in payment of rents for the period from 1-2-1986 to 31-9-1987. The defendant-bank did not give any response to the said notice till the date of filing of the suit and thus, according to the plaintiff, the termination of tenancy came into being with effect from 15-5-1998 as incorporated in the legal notice. As can be seen from the record, certain negotiations had been taken place between the parties as regards continuation of the period of lease on fresh terms and conditions. The plaintiff addressed a letter to the defendant-bank wherein he agreed that he has no objection to renew the period of lease provided rent on fresh terms is fixed at the rate of Rs. 5. 00 per square feet for the 2100 square feet floor-space of the suit premises or Rs. 9,805. 00 per month. On 25-2-1993, the defendant-bank wrote to the plaintiff that they have recommended to head office the terms that they have discussed with the plaintiff and sought for approval of the same. The terms were to the effect that the period of lease would be in force for 6 years, that the rent payable would be at the rate of Rs. 9,805. 00 per month with effect from 16-5-1988 for the first three years and that for the subsequent period of three years it has to be paid at the rate of 15 per cent over and above the amount of Rs. 9,805. 00. The defendant-bank had informed the plaintiff that they had recommended to the head office for payment of rent at the enhanced rates and that they are awaiting for the consent of the head office in that regard. As the defendant-bank failed to pay

Click Here to Read the rest of this document