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.

JUDGMENT:

1. The Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908, is filed by the appellant/defendant, challenging the decree and common Judgment dated 24.02.2014 in O.S. No.187 of 2012 and A.S. No.299 of 2011 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada (for short, ‘trial Court’).

2. The present Appeal is filed questioning the decree and Judgment in O.S. No.187 of 2012.

3. The parties will be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The brief averments, of the plaint, in O.S. No.187 of 2012 are as under :

(a) The plaintiffs initiated the suit seeking eviction and damages amounting to Rs.7,500/-per month from the date of suit till the date of delivery of the schedule property. The plaint schedule property originally belonged to one Kota Lakshmikantha Rao, the father of plaintiffs 1 to 3 and 5 to 9 and husband of the 4th plaintiff. He passed away intestate on 14.03.2010 leaving the plaintiffs as his heirs. In the plaint schedule property, the defendant joined as a tenant on 01.07.2003 on a monthly rent of Rs.4,000/-, subsequently, the rent was increased to Rs.4,400/- from 01.07.2008. The defendant paid rent untill December, 2008 but defaulted from 01.01.2009 onwards. Kota Lakshmikantha Rao got issued a quit notice to the defendant on 07.12.2009 directing the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule premises and deliver possession by 31.01.2010 and demanded payment of arrears of rent from 01.01.2009 onwards. In response, the defendant sent a reply notice on 29.12.2009. On 03.01.2010, the defendant sent a Demand Draft for Rs.2,000/- along with a covering letter claiming it to be the rent for December 2009, in reply, Kota Lakshmikantha Rao issued a rejoinder to the defendant stating that the defendant must pay the arrears of rent @ Rs.4,400/-per month from 01.01.2009 to 01.01.2010 totalling Rs.52,800/-. Subsequently, the defendant filed R.C.C.No.13/2010 and deposited rent @ Rs.2,000/-per month into the Court.

(b) The plaintiffs along with Kota Lakshmikantha Rao filed a suit in O.S.No.251 of 2010 against the defendant to recover rent arrears. During the suit's pendency, Kota Lakshmikantha Rao died, leaving the plaintiffs as his legal heirs. On 06.11.2010, the plaintiff s issued a quit notice to the defendant. In respondent, the defendant issued a reply reiterating the baseless allegations.

(c) The plaintiffs also asserted that they demanded the defendant to pay Rs.7,500/-per month as damages for the use and occupation of the plaint schedule property from 01.12.2010 onwards, by contending that the defendant’s tenancy was terminated by 30.11.2010, as the defendant became a tenant holding over from 01.12.2010 onwards. Despite numerous demands made by the plaintiffs to vacate the property, the defendant deliberately chose not to comply.

5. The defendant filed a written statement, denying most of the allegations made in the plaint, contending that the schedule shop was in question was taken on oral lease from the father of plaintiff's 1 to 3 & 5 to 9 in 2003 on a monthly rent of Rs.1,500/-, along with an advance payment of Rs.25,000/-. As per the lease agreement, the rent would be increased every five years with mutual consent, and the lease term was set for twenty years. In 2008, the rent was increased from Rs.1,500/- p.m. to Rs.2,000/- p.m., and the defendant consistently paid the rent until 2009. However, while receiving the rent for November 2009, the landlord's son arbitrarily and unlawfully demanded an exorbitant increase of rent from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. As the plaintiffs refused to receive the rent, the defendant was constrained to file R.C.C. No.13 of 2010, and since then, the defendant has been regularly depositing the rent with the Court. Furthermore, the defendant asserts that she is not liable to pay any amount exceeding Rs.2,000/-per month, much less Rs.7,500/- as claimed by the plaintiffs.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues in O.S. No.187 of