JUDGMENT :

1. The unsuccessful defendant in the suit is the appellant. The respondents are the plaintiffs.

2. This appeal is against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.581 of 2007 dated 09.09.2011 on the file of the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. The respondents laid the suit against the appellant for eviction from the shop room mentioned in the plaint schedule, to pay arrears of rent with interest at 18% per annum from the date of the suit till realization as well as for damages at Rs.20,000/-per month, for use and occupation from 01.06.2007 till the shop room is delivered to them.

3. The plaint schedule shop room is described being of 20 ankanams RCC building in ground floor of the premises bearing Door number 445 in Ward No.14 of Nellore City. It shall be referred to hereinafter as ‘the suit shop room’ for convenience.

4. The respondents laid the suit claiming that the appellant had taken the suit shop room from Sri R.Bheemraj Singh, S/o. Sri Manchikalapati Ramachandra Singh in the year 1998 on lease for running business on a monthly rent of Rs.9,000/-. They further contended that the tenancy is month to month and that the appellant committed default in paying rents from 01.04.2001 onwards since disputes arose between the appellant and Sri Bheemraj Singh. They also contended that the tenancy of the appellant was terminated by them issuing a notice dated 01.05.2007 under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act and that they sought the appellant to pay arrears of rent from 01.04.2001 while requesting to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the suit shop room by midnight of 31.05.2007.

5. Their contention is also that they sought damages for use and occupation at Rs.20,000/-per month from 01.06.2007 and that a reply notice was issued by the appellant dated 21.05.2007 with false averments claiming that he became the tenant of suit shop room under an unregistered lease deed dated 16.10.1996 on a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/-for godown purpose and that the period of lease was from 16.10.1996 to 15.10.1997 upon paying an advance of Rs.5,00,000/-to Sri Bheemraj Singh, which was refundable at the time of vacating the premises without interest.

6. In those circumstances, according to the respondents, in as much as the first respondent is intending to start his own software consultancy in the suit shop room being an engineering graduate and qualified, they sought the relief against the appellant. Thus, they contended that this premises is required for their bona fide use and occupation particularly, for the first respondent and since the appellant defaulted in paying rents continuously. On account of his continuous occupation of this premises, the respondents claimed that, he is liable to pay damages at Rs.20,000/-per month on account of location of this premises in a commercial locality in heart of the city.

7. The appellant resisted the claim of the respondents mainly on the ground that the tenancy was initially for a period of 11 months under an unregistered rental document dated 16.10.1996 at Rs.3,000/-per month, being the rent, at which time an advance of Rs.5,00,000/-was paid to be refunded at the time of vacating the premises, which would not carry any interest and that the appellant should indicate his intention six months in advance to vacate either to Sri R.Bheemraj Singh or his sons. He further contended that on account of this advance, it was also agreed that there would not be change in rental structure. Thus, he contended that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

8. The appellant also contended that other family members of Sri Bheemraj Singh are not the parties, on whose instructions the quit notice was not issued under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act and therefore, the quit notice is bad. He further contended that the claim of the respondents is basing on the Will of Sri M.Ramachandra Singh, father of Sri Bheemraj Singh and that this Will is forged and fabricated by the re