JUDGMENT :

Ramesh Ranganathan, J.

1. These three appeals are preferred against the common judgment passed by the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Vijayawada, in OS Nos. 201, 202 and 203 of 2001 dated 26.12.2007. AS No. 87 of 2008 is preferred against the judgment passed in OS No. 202 of 2001; AS No. 88 of 2008 is preferred against the judgment passed in OS No. 203 of 2001; and AS No. 89 of 2008 is preferred against the judgment passed in OS No. 201 of 2001. This Court passed an order in CRP No. 4991/06 dated 13.7.2007 directing the trial Court to club all the three Suits and to record evidence in OS No. 203/2001. Consequently evidence was recorded in OS No. 203/2001, which was read into the two other Suits. It would suffice, therefore, to refer to the pleadings and the issues framed in OS No. 203 of 2001. The appellant herein is the 2nd defendant in OS No. 203 of 2001. The parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as they are arrayed in AS No. 88 of 2008 preferred against the judgment passed in OS No. 203 of 2001.

2. OS No. 203 of 2001 was filed by the respondent-plaintiff seeking eviction and recovery of arrears of rent from 1.5.2000 to 31.8.2000 at Rs. 35,769.60 paise per month i.e., a sum of Rs. 1,43,078/-, and from 1.9.2000 to 31.1.2001 at Rs. 42,923.52 per month i.e., a sum of Rs. 2,14,670-60 paise, totally for a sum of Rs. 3,57,695-60 besides damages from 1.2.2001 at Rs. 85,847.04 paise. The respondent-plaintiff contended that the first plaintiff in the Suit was a body corporate constituted under the Indian Companies Act, rep. by its G.P.A; the 2nd plaintiff was a registered firm and owner of the building Bearing No. 29-12-13A, situated in Ramachandra Rao Road, Vijayawada; the 2nd plaintiff got constructed the said building in the site taken on lease from CSITA; the 1st defendant was the monthly tenant in the eastern portion of the ground floor of the Suit premises; the present rent payable for the suit premises is Rs. 42,923.52 paise per month as per the agreed terms; the first plaintiff is a proforma party; the tenancy month commenced on the 1st of every calendar month, and the rent was payable by the 10th day of the succeeding calendar month; inspite of repeated requests, the 1st defendant was irregular in payment of rent for the last two and half years; the 1st defendant paid rent till 30.4.2000; the rent for the month of February, 2000 was paid by Pay Order No. 920719 of Federal Bank, under receipt dated 15.5.2000; the rent, for the month of March, 2000, was paid on 28.6.2000 by way of cheque of the Federal Bank; the April month rent was paid in the month of September, 2000 by way of cheque of the Federal Bank; the clerk of the 1st defendant's office himself wrote the receipts with ante-dates for reasons best known to him; the 1st defendant failed to pay the rent from 1.5.2000; and, hence, the first defendant was liable to pay interest also for delayed payment.

3. It is stated in the plaint that the 2nd plaintiff got issued a Quit Notice on 28.12.2000 terminating the tenancy, and called upon the 1st defendant to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit premises by the end of January, 2001, in proper condition by removing the unauthorized construction; the first defendant was called upon to pay arrears of rent alongwith interest at 24% per annum, besides electricity charges, for water supplied from the bore-well, and water charges of the municipal tap; the first defendant acknowledged receipt of the notice and got issued a belated reply on 28.1.2001 with false allegations; and, hence, the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent with interest and damages. The 2nd plaintiff (1st respondent herein) estimated the damages, for use and occupation, at double the rent payable as the suit premises was situated in a prime locality of Vijayawada having high commercial activity; if the premises was let out on the date of filing the Suit, it would have fetched more than double the payable rent; and, hence,