RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.

( 1 ) (ON difference of opinion between Chennakesav Reddy and Lakshminarayan Reddy, JJ.):- Defendants 1 and 2 have filed this appeal against the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 578 of 1979 on the file of the 1st Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule house together with the fittings and fixtures therein and for recovery of mesne profits from the date of suit.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows :-THE suit house bearing No. 6-3-347/16 Dwarakapuri Colony, Panjagutta, Hyderabad belongs to one Smt. Prameela Reddy, examined as P. W. 3 in the case. The said house was let out for a period of one year under an unregistered lease deed dt. 13-4-1970 to a company Purushottam Traders Private Limited on a rental of Rs. 450/- per month for the building, and a monthly hiring charges of Rs. 150/- for use of the fittings, articles, furnishing and chattel lying on the premises at the time of the lease. The lease deed was signed by the Director H. C. Gupta, the 1st defendant, on behalf of the company. On 10-8-1978 the plaintiff purchased the house from P. W. 3 under a registered sale deed. It appears that the name of the company was changed to Messrs. Purushottam Iron and Steel Industries Private Limited. P. W. 3 addressed a letter Ex. A-1 dt. 14-8-1978 to Messrs. Purushottam Iron and Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. informing the company of the sale of the house to the plaintiff and calling upon the company to pay the rents from July 1978 onwards to the plaintiff. A copy of this letter was also addressed to the plaintiff. On 8-9-1978 on behalf of the plaintiff, a notice Ex. A-2 was issued by his lawyer to the 1st defendant Sri H. C. Gupta terminating the tenancy by the end of Sept. 1978 and calling upon him to deliver vacant possession of the suit house together with all fittings and furnishing and stating that in default of his delivering possession, the 1st defendant would be liable to pay Rs. 800/- and Rs. 300/- per month towards the damages for use and occupation of the building and furnishings and fixtures.

( 3 ) THE 1st defendant received the said notice Ex. A-2 and sent reply through his letter Ex. A-3 dt. 18-9-1978 admitting the purchase of the house by the plaintiff and stating as follows :"it is denied that the rent of the house is Rs. 400/- plus Rs. 150/- per month is the charges against furnishing and fixtures as all the furnishing and fixtures are mine and question of charges against these things does not arise. The house when taken into possession was in a dilapidated condition and required extensive repairs. The owner Smt. Prameela Reddy told the undersigned to get the same repaired as she is not in a position to spend so heavily. The total repairs including the complete mosaic flooring, plastering walls, changing the sanitary fittings, repairs and painting the doors and windows and the entire building costed in two years about Rs. 20,000/ -. Mrs. Prameela Reddy seeing the condition of the house after repairs appreciated and in return agreed that she would not ask any enhancement of rent till 1985, as the money spent by me was quite considerable on repairs. Not only this she agreed that she will not get the house vacated from me ever but she would not pay any annual repairs which is to be borne by me. You confirm from Smt. Prameela Reddy if she has ever paid repair bills since the building has been occupied by me. "

( 4 ) AS the 1st defendant failed to deliver possession, the plaintiff issued another notice Ex. A-5 dt. 1-12-1978 through his lawyer, the office copy of which is filed as Ex. A-4 terminating the tenancy by end of Jan. 1979 and calling upon the 1st defendant to deliver possession of the building together with the fittings and furnishings etc. , on 1-1-1979. This notice Ex. A-5 was sent to the suit house where the 1st defendant has been residing. But, this was redirected to Balanagar address where

Click Here to Read the rest of this document