Point of law : Even when the first appellate court affirms the judgment of the trial court, it is required to comply with the requirement of Order XLI Rule 31 and non-observance of this requirement leads to infirmity in the judgment of the first appellate court. No doubt, when the appellate court agrees with the views of the trial court on evidence, it need not restate effect of evidence or reiterate reasons given by trial court. Expression of a general agreement with the reasons given by the trial court would ordinarily suffice.

JUDGMENT:

This second appeal is presented against the decree and judgment in A.S.No.89 of 2010 dated 07.11.2015 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional District Judge, Guntur, by the defendant in O.S.No.1365 of 2007 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

2. The sole defendant died during pendency of this second appeal. His legal representatives being the appellants 2 to 7 have been brought on record.

3. The respondents are the plaintiffs in the suit. The suit was decreed in their favour by the judgment dated 29.10.2009 directing ejectment of the deceased - first appellant from the plaint schedule property.

4. The property in dispute described in the plaint schedule is a tin roof shed of two rooms with vacant site bearing Assessment Number 2754, in an extent of 50 Square Yards on Main Road, Near Bus Stand at Chebrolu, Guntur District. It shall be called hereinafter as 'the suit property' for convenience.

5. The first respondent is claimed to be a private temple (Mandir) belonging to a particular community at Chebrolu. The respondents 2 and 3 claimed being its trustees.

6. Their case in the plaint was that this Mandir was constructed about a century ago by the ancestors of the respondents 2 and 3 and is being maintained by their private family trust with their own funds. The suit property is stated to be a part and parcel of this Mandir. It was further averred in the plaint that on account of increase of worshippers, it was felt by them to renovate and add new constructions to suit their convenience, where the idles of Sri Vinayaka and Sri Rama are consecrated.

7. It was further averred in the plaint that at the request of the deceased – first appellant, the respondents agreed to lease out the suit property initially for a period of two years from 16.06.1999 to 15.06.2001 subject to the condition that he should vacate the premises irrespective of period of lease, on their demand. It was further extended for two more years from 16.06.2001 to 15.06.2003 subject to payment of rent at Rs.7,000/- per annum and later-on extended from 16.06.2003 to 15.06.2005 on agreed rent at Rs.9,000/- per annum.

8. It was also averred in the plaint that the deceased – first appellant undertook to sell only pooja material besides coconuts from this property offering to vacate when ever demanded as per the requirements of the respondents, upon 15 days advance notice. It was also averred that this lease was oral. It was further averred in the plaint that the deceased – first appellant without keeping up his promise did not vacate or surrender the premises upon expiry of lease period and illegally continued his occupation.

9. It was also averred that he defaulted in paying rents to the respondents leading to an altercation in between them, who also failed to pay the electricity charges. Thus, he failed to pay the rents from 16.06.2005 onwards and it was further averred that in those circumstances, the respondents got issued a legal notice on 04.12.2006 to the deceased - first appellant terminating his tenancy calling upon him to vacate and surrender the premises on or before 15.01.2007 while further claiming damages @ Rs.18,000/- per annum for unauthorised occupation of the premises besides arrears of electricity consumption charges. It was further averred that the deceased appellant got issued a reply dated 18.12.2006 to it with false and untenable allegations that made the respondents to issue a rejoinder on 04.01.2007 without there being any further response. It was further averred that since the deceased - first appellant was making attempts to sublease this premises and in view of his illegal acts and highhanded nature, they were constrained to institute the suit.

10. Thus stating in the plaint, the respondents sought ejectment of the deceased - first appellant from the suit property, damages @ 18,000/- per annum from June 2005 till the deceased - first appellant vacated the premises and handed over possession