1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2003 passed in O.S.No.301 of 2001 by the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. For the sake of convenience, as this is a first appeal, the parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendant only.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff- society is the owner of the suit schedule property which is premises bearing No.3-3-869 situated in the heart of the Hyderabad City. The defendant has been staying in the said premises on rent of Rs.1,800/- per month. The tenancy, as per the lease deed dated 16.04.1981, is for a period of 11 months. Thereafter also, the tenants stayed over in the property. Ultimately, on 26.01.1999 the plaintiff got issued a legal notice for termination of the defendant to vacate the premises on 16.03.1999 and deliver the possession by 17.03.1999. The plaintiff is also claiming damages for use and occupation on 17.03.1999, arrears of rent etc.

4. The defendant, on the other hand, filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and stating that there was an oral understanding that the defendant can continue as a tenant till he desires. He also raised a plea that the tenancy is not from the 16th of the month and that this notice for termination of tenancy is not correct or valid. He states that there are no arrears of rent and therefore, he is praying that the suit may be dismissed.

5. On the basis of the pleadings, the lower Court framed the following seven issues:

(a) Whether the tenancy month commenced from 16th April or from 10th April?

(b) Whether the quit notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is valid?

(c) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for arrears of rent of Rs.4,500/-?

(d) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for use and occupation at Rs.10,000/- per month from 17.03.1999 and if not at what rate?

(e) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for legal notice charges as claimed?

(f) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for objection of the defendant?

(g) To what relief ?

5. During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined one witness as PW.1 and marked as Exs.A.1 to A.13. The defendant examined himself as DW.1 and also examined DWs.2 & 3 and marked Exs.B.1 to B.10. Ex.X.1 to X.3 were also marked by the lower Court. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the lower Court decreed the suit directing the defendant to vacate the premises and also to pay damages at Rs.1,980/- per month from 17.03.1999 with an increase of 10% till he delivers the vacant possession. Three months time was granted to the defendant to vacate the premises. Proportionate costs were also awarded. It is this judgment and decree that is assailed in the present appeal.

6. I have heard Sri B. Balchand, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant and Sri R.A. Achuthanand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.

7. As this is the first appeal for eviction on the basis of an admitted lease deed, the first question that arises in this case is whether the lease commenced from 16.04.1981 as pleaded and the necessary corollary is whether the notice to quit demanding the defendant to vacate the suit schedule property is correctly issued and is valid.

8. The first and foremost submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant is that the tenancy did not begin from 16.04.1981 and that the payment of rent, as per the receipts, is from the first of every month, therefore, the assertion that the date of commencement of lease is 16.04.1981 is not correct.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, pointed out that as per the Ex.A.1 lease deed, the tenancy, which commenced from 16.04.1981 is up to 15.03.1982. He also pointed out that the carbon copy of Ex.A.1 is marked as Ex.B.4. In Ex.A.1, the date of commencement of lease is not mentioned, but the same is mentioned in Ex.B.4, which is in the custody of the defendant and which is filed by him into the court. He also pointed out that b