Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Subba Reddy Satti, J.
Desireddy Raghava Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Pasupuleti Jayaprada & Ors. – Respondents
Second Appeal No. 253 of 2022
Decided On : 01-09-2022
LANDLORD AND TENANT - LEASE - EXPIRATION - NOTICE TO QUIT - WAIVER - ACCEPTANCE OF RENT - TENANT HOLDING OVER - DAMAGES FOR USE AND OCCUPATION - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1881, SECTIONS 106, 111(A), 113.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendant, who was a tenant in the property. The lease expired on 31.05.2002, and the plaintiff issued a quit notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1881 (T.P. Act) on 29.06.2002. The defendant did not vacate the premises, and the plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court and the lower appellate court held that the quit notice was valid and that the defendant was liable to be ejected from the premises. The courts also held that the acceptance of rent by the plaintiff after the issuance of the quit notice did not amount to a waiver of the notice or a renewal of the lease.
Issues: 1) Whether acceptance of rents after issuing of quit notice would amounts to renewal of lease or amount to waiver? 2) Whether the notice issued under Ex. A-1 is valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1) The court held that the acceptance of rent by the plaintiff after the issuance of the quit notice did not amount to a waiver of the notice or a renewal of the lease. The court relied on Section 113 of the T.P. Act, which provides that a notice to quit can be waived only with the express or implied consent of the person to whom it is given, and that mere acceptance of rent does not constitute such consent. 2) The court held that the quit notice issued by the plaintiff was valid. The court noted that the lease had expired on 31.05.2002, and that the defendant had admitted in his written statement that the lease had expired. The court also held that the notice was not defective, as it gave the defendant 30 days to vacate the premises, which was sufficient time.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court were upheld. The court granted the appellant time to vacate the premises until 31.01.2023, subject to the appellant filing an undertaking before the trial court within two weeks from the date of judgment. The court also directed the appellant to pay damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month from 01.09.2022 to 31.01.2023.
JUDGMENT
Subba Reddy Satti, J. - Defendant in suit O.S. No. 373 of 2002 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudur filed the above second appeal, against the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2022 in A.S. No. 19 of 2016 on the file of VII Additional District Judge, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District, confirming the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2010 in O.S. No. 373 of 2022.
2. Parties to this judgment are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.
3. Plaintiff filed suit O.S. No. 373 of 2002 to eject the defendant and recovery of possession of plaint schedule property from the defendant. Plaint schedule property is the house bearing Door No. 19-1, Assessment No. 5302 and site in Gudur Municipality.
4. In the plaint, it was contended inter alia that the plaintiff is the owner of the plaint schedule property. The schedule property and other shops in the complex were leased out to the defendant for two years and lease period of suit schedule property comes to an end by 31.05.2002. The defendant paid advance of Rs. 7,000/-, which must be returned to him without interest at the time of his vacating the schedule property, after making adjustment if any. The rent for the period from 01.06.1994 to 31.05.1996 is Rs. 2,000/-; from 01.06.1996 to 31.05.1998 is Rs. 2,250/-; from 01.06.1998 to 31.05.2000 is Rs. 2,500/- and from 01.06.2000 to 31.05.2002 is Rs. 2,750/-. Defendant even after expiry of lease period by afflux of time by 31.05.2002 did not vacate the premises. Defendant's possession became unlawful, and he is liable to pay damages for use and occupation. Quit notice dated 29-6-2002 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1881 (for short 'T.P. Act') was issued to defendant asking him to vacate the schedule property and instead of vacating, defendant sent a reply with false allegations.
It was further contended in the plaint that the suit schedule property is required for personal occupation of plaintiffs' family and the schedule house is old one and it requires repairs; that the defendant did not pay rent for December, 2001 and committed default; defendant sent demand draft for Rs. 4,600/- against Rs. 5,500/- and hence, paid deficit of Rs. 900/- and hence, filed suit for the reliefs stated supra.
5. Defendant filed written statement and contended inter alia that the defendant has been running a lodging house in the schedule property in the name and style of Vishnu Priya Lodge. He admitted regarding advance of Rs. 7,000/- lying with the plaintiffs. He also admitted that lease was expired by afflux of time by 31.05.2002, however contended that he need not vacate the schedule property without quit notice by the plaintiff under Section 106 of the T.P. Act and his status is tenant holding over. Defendant admits regarding issuance of quit notice and his sending reply. He also contended that on 01.06.2002, defendant handed over vacant possession of one shop room (not the plaint schedule property) and after taking possession of the shop, plaintiffs inducted new tenant. Defendant denied regarding default in payment of rent and further contended that the quit notice issued by defendant is defective and eventually prayed to dismiss the suit.
6. Initially, suit was filed by sole plaintiff P. Jayaprada, represented by General Power of Attorney Holder her husband. Pending suit, after her examination, plaintiff died and hence, the plaintiffs 2 to 4 came on record.
7. On behalf of plaintiffs, initially sole plaintiff examined herself as P.W. 1. Evidence was recorded by the advocate commissioner. 3rd plaintiff was examined as P.W. 2 and got examined P.W. 3. Exs. A-1 to A-9 were marked. On behalf of defendant, sole defendant examined himself as D.W. 1 and got examined D.W. 2. Exs. B-1 to B-4 were marked.
8. Basing on the pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the trial Court:
1) Whether the power of attorney is legal and valid?
2) Whether the suit based on the power of attorney is proper and maintainable?
3) Whether the quit notice
Acceptance of rent by a landlord after the issuance of a quit notice does not amount to a waiver of the notice or a renewal of the lease unless there is express or implied consent from the landlord.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the quit notice issued under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the suit.
A valid notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is mandatory to terminate a tenancy, regardless of original lease terms dispensing with such notice.
The validity of a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is upheld, confirming the landlord's right to evict despite acceptance of rent post-termination.
The court affirmed that a lease is terminated by efflux of time and issuance of quit notices, leading to unauthorized possession by the tenant, with no substantial question of law for appeal.
The statutory tenant retains rights against eviction despite termination of a contractual tenancy without a court order, as established in prior Supreme Court rulings that override lower court interp....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to establish the existence of the oral tenancy and the bonafide requirement o....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, specifically regarding tenant holding ov....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
