This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2013 in A.S.No.52/2010 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Warangal whereunder and whereby the decree and judgment in O.S.No.181 of 2006 dated 27.01.2010 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal is confirmed.

I have heard Sri C.A.R. Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Aadesh Varma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

The appellant is the defendant. The respondent is the plaintiff. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit in the trial Court.

The factual matrix giving rise to filing of this second appeal may be stated shortly as follows:

The defendant-Indian Oil Corporation Limited obtained the suit premises on lease from the mother of the plaintiff by name Vinoda Reddy on 02.01.1973. The lease was taken for establishing of a retail outlet of petroleum products. The period of lease was 20 years and was due to expire by 16.08.1992. Under Ex.A1 lease agreement dated 02.01.1973 the rent for the first 5 years is Rs.180/- per month, for the second 5 years @Rs.200/- per month, and @Rs.235/-per month for the next 10 years. Even before the expiry of the lease, the mother of the plaintiff filed original suit being O.S.No.77/1988 against the defendant seeking eviction on the ground of default in payment of rents. The said suit however was dismissed holding that the lease period was not expired and the terms of the lease agreement are not unconscionable. The mother of the plaintiff did not prefer any appeal against the said judgment. Subsequently, the mother of the plaintiff expired and the plaintiff stepped into her shoes as her legal representative.

Even though the lease period expired by 16.08.1992, the defendant did not vacate the premises, thereafter, the plaintiff who is the son of the original lessor filed original suit in O.S.No.181/2006 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal seeking eviction of the defendant on the ground that the defendant committed default in payment of rents from January, 1994 onwards and it was liable to pay damages for unauthorized use and occupation of the premises by remaining in possession of the same after the expiry of the lease period. Before instituting the suit, the plaintiff issued legal notices dated 30.07.1997 and 15.07.1999 demanding the defendant to vacate the suit schedule premises and payment of arrears of rent and damages @Rs.8,000/-per month. The defendant did neither respond to the aforesaid notices nor did it pay the agreed rent or damages claimed in the notices. On that, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit.

The learned trial Court passed a decree and judgment dated 27.01.2010 holding that the defendant Corporation failed to prove that it paid the rents after the expiry of 20 years of lease period and therefore, it is liable to vacate the schedule premises. However, the trial Court took the view that the defendant which has been continuing in possession of the schedule premises cannot be treated as a trespasser, it is either tenant by sufferance or holding over, it paid municipal tax on behalf of the plaintiff and therefore, it has right to continue in possession after the expiry of the lease period till it is evicted by due process of law. Consequently, the trial Court held that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim damages. The trial Court accordingly passed a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, directing the defendant to handover the vacant possession of the plaint schedule premises to the plaintiff within 6 (six) months from the date of the judgment.

Feeling aggrieved, the defendant preferred appeal in A.S.No.52/2010 on the file of the 1st Additional District Judge, Warangal, which came to be dismissed, confirming the decree and judgment of the trial Court. The present second appeal thus arises from the concurrent findings recorded by both the learned Courts bel