Common Judgment:

Second Appeal No. 1365 of 2007 arises out of the judgment in A.S. No. 207 of 2006 on the file of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad whereas the Second Appeal No. 1379 of 2007 arises out of the judgment in A.S. No. 208 of 2006 on the file of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties hereinafter will be referred to as plaintiff and defendant/defendants i.e., as they were originally arrayed in the respective suits.

3. O.S. No. 496 of 2003 and O.S. No. 497 of 2003 were filed by Smt. Amarjit Kaur, the land lady against the different tenants in respect of two different portions of the building. In O.S. No. 496 of 2003, Syed Lathaful Hussain is the tenant/defendant, whereas in O.S. No. 497 of 2003, Sri S.M. Hussain since the deceased (per L.Rs) is the tenant/defendant. In the said suit in O.S. No. 497 of 2003, the defendants 2 to 5 were brought on record as L.Rs of S.M. Hussain, the first defendant after his death.

4. The facts in both the cases are similar and the suits are filed by the same plaintiff-the land lady against the different defendants/tenants.

5. The facts gave rise to filing of the appeal are also almost similar. The suits were filed by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking eviction of the schedule mentioned premises and also for recovery of rents. Initially, the rent was said to be Rs.1,200/- per month and as on the date of filing of the suit it was said to be Rs.4,000/- according to the plaintiff. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the defendants were highly irregular in payment of rents in spite of repeated demands and thereafter she issued quit notice dated 01.09.2003 calling upon the defendants therein to vacate the premises and handover vacant possession of the same and also mentioning about the termination of tenancy by the end of August, 2003 and it was served on defendants on 04.08.2003 and they gave a reply dated 08.08.2003 admitting the tenancy and also the quantum of rent but denying any arrears of rent to the plaintiff.

6. The defendants in both the suits contended inter alia during the course of their written statements that the plaintiff was issuing receipts for the rents paid by them till 2000 and the last payment was in the month of May, 2002 towards rent for the month of April, 2002 in O.S. Nos. 496 of 2003 and 497 of 2003. The rents were regularly paid up to the month of July, 2003. The plaintiff who is an old lady is in the habit of forgetting the fact of receiving rents and again claiming the rents as if they were due. Therefore, in both the suits, the arrears of rents is disputed, but the factum of tenancy is admitted. In the trial Court P.W-1 was examined on behalf of the plaintiff and Exs.A-1 to A3 were marked whereas D.W-1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-41 were marked on behalf of the defendant in O.S. No. 496 of 2003. Similarly in O.S. No. 497 of 2003, P.W-1 was examined on behalf of the plaintiff and Exs.A-1 to A3 were marked whereas D.W-1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-41 were marked on behalf of the defendant.

7. After going through the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Court partly decreed the suits recording the following findings:

1. Even though the plaintiff did not enter the witness box and the son was examined on his behalf as P.W-1, the quit notice issued under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, which is admitted being valid, the defendants are liable for eviction.

8. However, the learned trial Court having held that by examining Syed Lathaful Hussain as D.W-1 in each case and marking as Exs.B1 to B-41, the defendants proved that they were paying rents regularly and that the plaintiff could not be able to establish that the rent receipts produced by the defendants are not genuine but held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover mesne profits from the defendant at the rate of Rs.4,000/-per month after the alleged date of termination of tenancy.

9. A