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.

Common Judgment:

VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

S.A.No.184 of 2024 is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 09-8-2013 in A.S.No.144 of 2019 on the file of the Judge, Family Court cum III Additional District and Sessions Court, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 16-9-2019 in O.S.No.57 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam; whereas, S.A.No.265 of 2024 is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 09-8-2013 in A.S.No.6 of 2020 on the file of the Judge, Family Court cum III Additional District and Sessions Court, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 16-9-2019 in O.S.No.312 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam.

2. The appellant in S.A.No.184 of 2024 is the 2^nd defendant, the 1^st respondent is plaintiff and the 2^nd respondent is 1^st defendant in O.S.No.57 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam; whereas, the appellant in S.A.No.265 of 2024 is defendant and the respondent is plaintiff in O.S.No.312 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.57 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, with a prayer to direct the 2^nd defendant to vacate the plaint schedule property and handover the same to her by paying the monthly rent from July, 2012, to pay the arrears of rent of Rs.14,800/- and to pay fair rent by way of damages of Rs.33,000/- per month for his unauthorized occupation from November, 2011 till he vacates the premises together with monthly rent of Rs.7,400/- and for costs of the cost; and the plaintiff also initiated action in O.S.No.312 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, with a prayer to direct the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule property and handover the same to her by paying the monthly rent from June, 2013, to pay the arrears of rents of Rs.27,300/- for the months of March, 2013 to May, 2013 and for costs of the suit.

4. The trial Court conducted common trial in both the suits in O.S.Nos.57 of 2012 and 312 of 2013 and pronounced a common judgment. Both the second appeals are filed against the common judgment and decrees pronounced by the learned trial Judge, which was confirmed by the learned first appellate Judge. Therefore, a common judgment is being pronounced by this Court in both the second appeals.

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

6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.57 of 2012, is as follows:

It is pleaded that the 1^st defendant is husband of the plaintiff and the 2^nd defendant is sub-lessee under the 1^st defendant and that the plaintiff is absolute owner of the suit schedule property and she let out the same to the 1^st defendant for a period of five years commencing from 06-12-2006 to 05-12-2011 under a registered lease deed, dated 06-12-2006 and as per the said lease deed, the 1^st defendant can sub-let the suit schedule premises for a period of 4 years and 11 months and accordingly, the 1^st defendant sub-let the suit schedule premises to the 2^nd defendant and the defendants 1 and 2 executed a registered lease deed for a period of 4 years and 11 months commencing from 08-12-2006 to 07-11-2011 and at present, the 2^nd defendant is running business in the suit schedule property even after lapse of the stipulated lease period and the lease period between the plaintiff and 1^st defendant lapsed on 05-12-2011 and the plaintiff in bona fide requirement of the premises, got issued a legal notice (quit notice) to the defendants 1 and 2 on 10-11-2011 requesting them to vacate the suit schedule property from 05-12-2011 and handover the same to her and the legal notice was served on the defendants and the 2^nd defendant neither chose to vacate the premises nor issued