A lessee cannot deny the title of the lessor/landlord, and a one-month notice issued under Section 106(1) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is valid for terminating a month-to-month oral lease.

JUDGMENT

1. The above second appeal is filed by the defendant in the suit, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18.03.2021 in A.S.No.145 of 2019 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for SC and ST Cases-cum-XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2019 in O.S.No.1090 of 2015 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the plaint.

3. Plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.1090 of 2015 seeking eviction of the defendant and for delivery of vacant possession of the schedule property; to pay arrears of rent of Rs.74,550/- and for future damages etc.

4. In the plaint it was contended interalia that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the shop in the ground floor bearing Door No.9-14-12/4 in VIP Road, CBM Compound, Visakhapatnam; that defendant was inducted into schedule premises as tenant on 10.09.2006 on a monthly rent of Rs.5,325/- payable on or before first of every succeeding month; that the tenancy is month to month; that defendant is running a mobile, music and movie store under the name and style of M/s Mobile and Movie World; that defendant committed default in payment of rents from August, 2014 till filing of suit; that defendant filed suit O.S.No.129 of 2015 against the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction; that in spite of requests made by the plaintiff, defendant failed to pay the rents; that the plaintiff got issued a quit notice dated 02.10.2015 and terminated the tenancy and further directed the defendant to vacate the premises by 10.11.2015 and also to pay arrears of rents; that defendant having received the said notice, neither vacated the premises nor paid the arrears of rents and hence, filed the suit.

5. Defendant filed written statement and admitted tenancy, however, contended that monthly rent is Rs.3,000/-. He further contended that an advance amount of Rs.70,000/- was paid, which is refundable; that the rent is being enhanced from time to time and the rent at the time of filing of written statement is Rs.5,325/-; that he paid rents upto November, 2014 and later filed suit O.S.No.129 of 2015 seeking permanent injunction, wherein I.A.No.212 of 2015 was filed; that the rents are being deposited from November, 2014 till January, 2016 in the suit and thus, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

6. During the Trial, plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-3. On behalf of defendant, the proprietor of defendant was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.B-1 was marked.

7. The trial Court on consideration of oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit by judgment dated 21.02.2019 and directed the defendant to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property within two months from the date of judgment. Trial Court further held that the plaintiff is at liberty to file separate application claiming future damages.

8. Against the said judgment and decree, the appellant herein (defendant), filed A.S.No.145 of 2019. The Lower Appellate Court being final factfinding Court on consideration of oral and documentary evidence, by framing necessary points for consideration, dismissed the appeal with costs on 18.03.2021. The lower Appellate Court directed the appellant to vacate the schedule premises and handover vacant possession to the plaintiff within a month. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present second appeal is filed.

9. Heard Sri S.V.S.S.Siva Ram, learned counsel appearing for appellant and Sri V.V.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

10. Learned counsel for appellant contended that rents have been regularly paid to the landlord and the appellant did not commit any default. When the landlord tried to dispossess the appellant forcibly, appellant was constrained to file suit for injunction O.S.No.129 of 2015 and, in fact, have been depositing rents in that suit. He also would contend that t