IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that silence in response to demands can imply acceptance of terms in a lease agreement, particularly when no evidence is presented to the contrary.

JUDGMENT :

Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J.

This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short "the C.P.C."], is filed by the Appellants/Defendants, challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 21.04.2003 in O.S.No.289 of 1996 passed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada [for short "the Trial Court"]. The appellants herein are the defendants and the Respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff, who died during the pendency of appeal, his legal representatives are already on record as respondent Nos.2 to 6.

2. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the Suit for recovery of enhanced rent and also cost of repairs from the lessee.

3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Trial Court.

4. The brief averments in the plaint in O.S. No.289 of 1996 are as under :

(i) The 1st defendant, representing the 5th defendant-Corporation, has taken on lease six godowns belonging to the plaintiff firm from 16.01.1991 on a monthly rent of 65 paise per sq. foot. The lease period is two years. Godown 1, 3 to 6 were given possession on 13.03.1991 and the 6th godown bearing No.2 was given on 05.04.1991.

(ii) The plaintiff further pleaded that on 15.01.1993, plaintiff met 1st defendant personally at Hyderabad as lease period is completed and demanded for enhancement of rent from 65 paise to Rs.2/- per sq. foot as the prevailing rent at that time was Rs.2.50 per sq. foot per month. The 1st defendant promised to take necessary steps but he failed to pay the same. Therefore, plaintiff gave a reminder on 15.02.1993 and another reminder on 13.05.1993 and personally approached 1st defendant several times. Again, the plaintiff also gave reminders on 04.05.1994, 02.11.1994 and 28.07.1995, but the defendants neither gave any reply nor paid the enhanced rent as demanded in notices.

(iii) The plaintiff further pleaded that as per the oral agreement between the plaintiff and defendants, the expenditure for repairs of roads and flooring which was effected during the business transaction shall be met by the defendants. As demanded by the defendants in their letters, dated 07.10.1994, 04.12.1995 and 20.12.1996 roads and flooring were repaired. Plaintiff spent Rs.22,900/- and demanded the defendants to pay the same by letter, dated 04.11.1994, but the defendants failed to pay the same. Finally, the plaintiff got issued a notice, dated 19.08.1996 to the defendants under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, requesting the defendants to vacate the premises and pay the enhanced rent. Defendants received the notices, dated 19.08.1996 and 20.08.1996, but they did not give any reply and that the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

5. The brief averments in the written statement filed by the 2nd defendant which was adopted by the defendant Nos.1, 3 to 5 is that they never accepted for the enhancement of rent. Without accepting the enhanced rent by the defendants, plaintiff is not entitled to the same. The allegation of sub-lease is concoction. The oral agreement wherein defendants agreed to pay the cost of repairs to the roads and flooring is utterly false. The plaintiff has to keep his godowns in proper condition and the suit is premature and may be dismissed.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues :

(i) Whether there is concluded and binding contract between both parties for enhancement of rent and collect the same at Rs.2/- per sq. foot per month from 65 paise?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount as difference of rent due as prayed for?

(iii) Whether there is contract between both parties to bear the repair amount from tenant?

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount as arrears of bills for repairs as prayed for?

(v) To what relief?

7. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiff, PW1 was examined and Ex.A1 and Ex.A21 were marked. On behalf of the Defendants Ex.B1 to Ex.B8 were marked during the cro