IMPORTANT POINT
The amended Section 32(c) of the Rent Control Act restricts civil court jurisdiction over eviction suits for tenants paying rent below specified thresholds.

JUDGMENT :

(V. Gopala Krishna Rao, J.) :

This Second Appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree in A.S.No.113 of 2009 on the file of District Judge, Srikakulam, dated 18.09.2012, confirming the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.187 of 2006 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, dated 30.07.2009.

2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the Original Suit No.187 of 2006 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.187 of 2006 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, with a prayer to vacate the defendant from the suit schedule shop and for recovery of arrears of rent.

4. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, decreed the suit by ordering (i) the defendant to vacate the plant schedule property and to deliver the vacant possession to the plaintiff within three months from the date of decree, failing which plaintiff is at liberty to recover the possession through process of law; (ii) the defendant is directed to pay Rs.8,500/- to the plaintiff towards the arrears of rent from October, 2005 to February, 2006; and (iii) the defendant is directed to pay sum of Rs.1700/- per month towards damages for use and occupation from the date of suit to till May, 2008 and Rs.800/- per month from June, 2008 to till the date of delivery of possession. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendant in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned District Judge, Srikakulam, dismissed the first appeal and confirmed the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendant/appellant approached this Court by way of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in OS.No.187 of 2006, is as follows:

The plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule shop, she gave the suit schedule shop to the defendant on lease for 3 years from 12.11.2002 under a registered lease deed for use as a pan shop. It is agreed that the monthly rent for the period from 01.11.2002 to 31.10.2003 is Rs.1,400/-; for the next year at the rate of Rs.1,550/- and thereafter for the period of one year at the rate of Rs.1,700/-. The defendant has to pay monthly rent on the first day of every month and shall take receipt on payment of the same and that the defendant shall pay the electricity bills. The defendant never paid the monthly rents in time. He paid the rents in every month with abnormal delay. The defendant did not pay the rent from October, 2005 till date. The lease expired on 01.11.2005. The defendant neither paid the rents nor vacated the shop. The plaintiff herself and through her husband requested the defendant several times to vacate the shop after expiry of the lease time. The plaintiff got issued a notice to the defendant on 13.09.2005. The defendant received the notice, but neither give reply nor vacate the shop after expiry of the lease period. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrear rents and future rents.

7. The brief facts of the written statement, filed by the defendant, are as follows :-

The defendant is the tenant under the plaintiff for the suit schedule shop. He took the shop under a registered rent deed dated 06.10.1999 executed by both the parties agreeing to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month. He paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- as advance. Except the suit schedule shop, the defendant has no other source of livelihood. With an evil idea to vacate the defendant from the shop, the plaintiff hiked the monthly rent from Rs.1,700/- per month to Rs.2,500/- per month and demanded the same or else to vacate the shop without giving any opportunity to the defendant, as there is recent road widening programme. The s