Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 931
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
V.Gopala Krishna Rao, J.
Wasim Ahmed Khan – Appellant
Versus
P.A. Jay Kumar – Respondent
Second Appeal No. 563 of 2024
Decided On : 05-05-2025
A tenant's failure to pay rent after notice justifies eviction under Order XV-A of CPC, emphasizing the necessity for substantial questions of law for appeal.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XV-A - Recovery of possession - Second appeal against concurrent judgments of eviction and recovery of arrears of rent - Legal representative of deceased plaintiff brought on record - Appellant (defendant) committed default in rent payments and neglected to respond to legal notice under Section 106 - Courts affirmed relationship of landlord-tenant and justified eviction. (Paras 1-24)
(B) Substantial question of law - Explained that under Section 100 of CPC, no appeal is maintainable unless a substantial question of law arises - Ruling affirms that failure to comply with arrears is valid grounds for striking off defense. (Paras 13, 24)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession and arrears of rent from the defendant who defaulted payments and wrongfully occupied premises. The lease expired, and the plaintiff's attempts to recover possession and rent were unsuccessful, resulting in litigation.
Findings of Court:
The trial court decreed the suit for possession and recovery of rent; the appellate court affirmed this decision without error.
Issues: The primary issues included the relationship of landlord and tenant, entitlement to eviction, and whether judgments were sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court elaborated that a tenant's failure to pay rent—especially following legal notice—justifies eviction, and reinstated the principle that concurrent findings warrant deference.
Result: Second appeal dismissed, granting three months for delivery of possession.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. second appeal process and initial judgments. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. plaintiff's claims and defendant's obligations. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. issues addressed during the trial. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. right to appeal and standards of review. (Para 12) |
| 5. criteria for admission of second appeal. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 6. unquestioned facts and responsibilities of the tenant. (Para 15 , 16 , 22) |
| 7. consequences of non-compliance with court orders. (Para 17 , 19) |
| 8. precedent related to striking off defenses. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 9. final judgment and dismissal of the appeal. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT :
V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 19.06.2024 in A.S.No.157 of 2020 on the file of the XII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam (“First Appellate Court” for short), confirming the Judgment and decree dated 04.02.2020 in O.S.No.1038 of 2015 on the file of the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam (“Trial Court” for short).
2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the 1st respondent herein is the sole plaintiff in O.S.No.1038 of 2015 on the file of the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. During the pendency of the appeal suit, the plaintiff died and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondent Nos.2 to 5.
3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.1038 of 2015 on the file of the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, with a prayer for recovery of vacant possession of schedule premises from the defendant and for recovery of arrears of rents and damages.
4. The learned trial Judge decreed the suit. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendant in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Judge dismissed the first appeal by confirming the judgment and decree 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 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 O.S.No.1038 of 2015, is as follows:
The plaintiff is the absolute owner of suit schedule premises. The defendant approached the plaintiff and requested to let out the ground floor portion for doing readymade garments business during 1997. The plaintiff have accepted the request of the defendant and leased out the ground floor to the defendant for running a readymade garments business in the name and style of 'ADAMS DEN' on a monthly rent of Rs.5,000/- by executing an agreement of lease on 01.12.1997 for a period of 11 months and rent has to pay on or before 5th of every succeeding month. Accordingly, the defendant used to pay rents and acknowledged the same by passing receipts in total of the same. The lease agreement was expired by 01.11.1998. Subsequently, the defendant used to pay rents irregularly and committed default in paying the rents and as such the plaintiff is not intended to extend the lease period and demanded the defendant to vacate the premises. The plaintiff went to USA. Taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiff, the defendant with a malafide intention changed the business and started furnishing business in the name and style of 'Royal Furnishings' in the name of the defendant's wife Smt. Seema Khan and also nature of business and contrary to the terms and conditions of the lease agreement. After returning from USA, the plaintiff questioned the defendant and demanded for payment of rents. The defendant taking advantage of his licence from November, 1999 have committed default in payment of rents and in spite of demands the defendant issued 4 cheques i.e., on 25.12.2002 for an amount of Rs.5,000/-, on 25.01.2003 for an amount of Rs.5,000/-, on 25.02.2003 for an amount of Rs.5,000/- and on 25.03.2003 for an amount of Rs.5,000/-, drawn on Andhra Bank, Dabagar
