Point of law: The material on record is clear that the basis for eviction of the appellants from the plaint schedule premises is not on account of default in payment of rents or breach of contractual tenancy committed by the appellants nor such is the ground sought to be made out either in the pleadings or at the trial on behalf of the respondents. Termination of tenancy simplicitor by issuance of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is the basis, which in turn is one of the modes of termination of lease, under Section 111(h) of the said Act. The appellants failed to make out that this way of termination of lease or tenancy is invalid or improper.

JUDGMENT :

M. VENKATA RAMANA, J.

1. The defendants, who were the tenants of the plaint schedule premises, are the appellants.

2. The respondent as the plaintiff instituted the suit against the appellants for their eviction, arrears of rent and future damages for use and occupation.

3. The respondent is the owner of the plaint schedule premises. It is an open space bearing Door No. 66/50 of Fort, Kurnool with a room therein.

4. The appellants were carrying on wholesale business in sale of fruits from this premises. They obtained this premises from the respondent with effect from 01.09.1989 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1800/- agreeing to enhance by 35% once in three years. It appears that the appellants did not stick on to this rate of enhancement and who chose to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 2200/- with 25% of enhancement on the original rent for next three years upto 1995. Thereafter, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 2800/- with effect from 01.09.1995.

5. In respect of first two terms of this tenancy, rent notes were entered into in between these parties stipulating certain terms admittedly.

6. Stating that the appellants failed to pay rent from May, 1996 in spite of his repeated demands and since they paid rent only upto April, 1996, the respondent got issued a notice dated 09.12.1996 terminating the tenancy of the appellants, demanding arrears of rent as well as delivery of vacant possession of plaint schedule premises. It is the contention of the respondent that inspite of service of this notice, the appellants neither vacated nor paid the arrears of rent nor issued any reply. In those circumstances, the respondent claimed that he was constrained to lay the suit seeking such reliefs stated above.

7. The appellants resisted the claim of the respondents mainly contending that the rent notes for earlier two terms were all prepared at the instance of the respondent, who retained originals while furnishing them only photocopies. They further contended that further rent note was entered into in between themselves on one hand and the respondent on the other for an extended period of three years from 01.09.1995 to 31.08.1998 on enhanced rent of Rs. 2800/- per month. They also contended that at the inception of tenancy they deposited Rs. 8000/- with the respondent and during second tenure, they deposited Rs. 8800/-. They also contended that while extending the tenure from 01.09.1995 to 31.08.1998, the respondent collected Rs. 11,200/- towards deposit, which he did not account for.

8. It is also the contention of the appellants that whenever they were paying rents, they were being entered into a small notebook and there was an oral understanding among them that they would pay the rent at their convenience, which was to be completely paid without any arrears within such tenure of three years.

9. The appellants also contended that the respondent demanded enhancement of rent to Rs. 4,000/- from Rs. 2800/- all of a sudden with effect from May, 1996, which they resisted, offering to consider his demand after expiry of the present term of tenancy, namely after 31.08.1998. The appellants also contended that in view of this fact, the respondent with an evil intention did not receive the rents they tendered and refused money orders for Rs. 2800/- per month, to remit rent for May to July, 1996. Thus they contended that the respondent played fraud and waived consenting for the breach of some of the material terms in the rent notes. Therefore, according to them the respondent is not entitled for any relief much less eviction against them. They also referred to alleged failure of the respondent in accounting for the advance deposited by them and that they had effected repairs and erected certain structures spending Rs. 35,000/-.

10. The appellants also questioned the quit notice issued by the respondent to them contending that it is invalid and inoperative since he did not furnish full particulars of the premises leased out and which did not mention payment of propert