Back
2022 Supreme(AP) 167
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
K. Prabhakar Reddy – Petitioner
Versus
Lakkaraja Munirathnam – Respondent
A.S. No. 54 of 2020
Decided On : 25-03-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: A. Jagannadha Rao.
For the Respondent: E.V.V.S. Ravi Kumar.
Point of Law: Once the primary requirement of proof of expenditure has not been demonstrated before the trial Court or this Court, the further issues that would have come up on such proof, do not require any further consideration by this Court.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950- Quit notice - Supplementary lease deed - Rent was reduced to amount mutual agreement - On respondents received papers through Court informing them that O.S. had been filed by lessees before III Additional District Judge for an injunction against them - Thereafter a legal notice was issued by plaintiffs to which a reply was given on - Dispute finally culminated in filing of O.S. before IV Additional District Judge against five persons who were said to be partners Associates - This suit was filed for a decree and judgment directing defendants to vacate suit premises and deliver the peaceful possession of same to plaintiffs and for payment of costs and such other orders that Court may deem fit - It appears that appellants had also filed O.S. claiming damages of Amount - This suit was dismissed for default and appellants have moved this Court by way of C.R.P. which is still pending before this Court.
Finding of the Court:
Hon’ble High Court has encapsulated basic principles that need to be followed while cross examining a witness - Court am in complete and respectful agreement with said principles enunciated in said judgment - Hon’ble Supreme Court’s affirmation of said principles seals entire issue - These principles would be applicable to present case if no suggestion had been made to witnesses appearing for appellants - A suggestion denying claims of appellants had been made to DW-1 that no money was spent by defendants for repairs or renovation of suit schedule premises as suit schedule premises was a new construction - In view of this specific suggestion principles laid down in aforesaid judgments would not be applicable to present case - Once primary requirement of proof of expenditure has not been demonstrated before trial Court or this Court further issues that would have come up on such proof do not require any further consideration by this Court.
Result: Appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
1. The respondents herein are the owners of a building, which was being used as a hotel in the name and style of Hotel Annapurna, situated in Tirupati town. The said hotel is the schedule premises of the suit. The respondents had let out the suit schedule premises to M/s. Sri. Venkateswara Associates, a partnership firm having four partners, for a period of 7 years commencing from 15.07.2007 to 14.06.2014. The terms and conditions of the lease were said to have been reduced in writing on 14.08.2007 by way of an unregistered lease agreement on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,75,000/- per month initially, which was to be increased to Rs. 3,00,000/- per month till 15.06.2012 and Rs. 3,60,000/- from 15.06.2012 to 14.06.2014. Thereafter the rent was reduced to Rs. 2,04,000/- by mutual agreement under a supplementary lease deed, which also extended the lease up to 31.03.2015.
2. On 09.01.2014, the respondents received papers through Court informing them that O.S. No. 20 of 2015 had been filed by the lessees before the III Additional District Judge, Tirupati for an injunction against them. Thereafter, a legal notice was issued by the plaintiffs on 21.02.2015 to which a reply was given on 23.03.2015.
3. The dispute finally culminated in filing of O.S. No. 107 of 2015 before the IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati against five persons, who were said to be the partners of M/s. Sri. Venkateswara Associates. This suit was filed for a decree and judgment directing the defendants to vacate the suit premises and deliver the peaceful possession of the same to the plaintiffs and for payment of costs, and such other orders that the Court may deem fit. It appears that the appellants had also filed O.S. No. 132 of 2016 claiming damages of Rs. 1,65,00,000/-. This suit was dismissed for default and the appellants have moved this Court by way of C.R.P. No. 2180 of 2019, which is still pending before this Court.
4. The defendants in the suit filed their written statement.
5. During the course of trial, the respondents/plaintiffs had examined PWs. 1 to 4 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.17 and the defendants had examined DWs. 1 and 2 and marked Exs.B.1 and B.2.
6. The trial Court, after completion of trial and after hearing both sides, allowed the suit by way of a judgment and decree dated 06.11.2019. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants 1 and 3 filed the present appeal.
7. The appellants do not dispute the fact that the suit schedule premises had been taken on lease by them. There is also no dispute that a quit notice had been issued by the respondents after which the suit came to be filed. However, it is the contention of the appellants that the appellants had advanced sum of Rs. 10,00,116/- as security deposit and had also extended about Rs. 75,00,000/- for interior decoration, repairs and renovation of the suit schedule premises for running it as a hotel. The appellants contend that they were entitled for recovery of the aforesaid security deposit of Rs. 10,00,116/- and the sum of Rs. 75,00,000/- that had been expended by the appellants.
8. The trail Court, on the basis of these allegations, had framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for delivery of schedule mentioned property as prayed for.
2. To what relief?
9. The trial Court considered the question of whether plaintiffs could not obtain possession without payment of aforesaid two sums of money and held against the appellants.
10. Sri. O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for Sri. A. Jagannadha Rao, the learned counsel for the appellants has taken this Court through the evidence and the exhibits marked in the trial Court.
11. The case of the appellants at paragraph 17 of the written statement is that the firm of the appellants had invested Rs. 75,00,000/- for interior decoration, furniture, fixtures, installation of machinery etc. The details of the expenditure amounting to Rs. 75,00,000/- was also set out in the form of a table in
