JUDGMENT - HALBE A.A., J.:---Three salient questions have been raised in this appeal on behalf of the appellants-defendants and they are that, firstly the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the claim in the suit because that claim relates to eviction of the tenant from the house and plot, the same falls exclusively in the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller under Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 (to be referred hereinafter as "Hyderabad Rent Act"), secondly that the so called notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act given by the landlord to the tenant is illegal and invalid and incapable of terminating the tenancy of the tenants and thirdly that the claim for mesne profits allowed by the first Appellate Court is contrary to provisions of law inasmuch as the same was not claimed before the trial Court but for the first time in the first appeal.

2. In order to answer these questions it may not be out of place to traverse through the facts of the case of the landlord against the tenant. This appeal is filed by the tenant who has been aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court evicting him from the suit premises and the judgment of the Appellate Court confirming his eviction.

3. In the Suit No. 912 of 1984 the case of the plaintiff was that the plaintiff Abdul Gani Khan had purchased an open plot bearing House No. 4-4-45 situated at Moti Karanja, Aurangabad from one Aminabee wd/o Bashir Ahmed under the registered sale-deed dated 4th March, 1983. The description of this property is not disputed in between the parties except the fact that according to the present appellant-defendant the leasehold property comprised of two rooms constructed by him. The defendant had executed the rent note in favour of Shaikh Bashir in writing dated 9th February, 1963 in regard to the suit plot specifically agreeing that he would pay the rent of Rs. 8/- from month to month. However, it is alleged that the defendant-tenant did not pay the agreed rent since June, 1980. In order to recover arrears of rent the previous owner Aminabee widow of original owner Shaikh Bashir filed Suit No. 315 of 1983 for recovery of rent of 29 months. In that suit, the defendant was made known about the sale transaction by Aminabee wd/o Shaikh Bashir in favour of the present landlord Abdul Gani Khan Nawaz Khan. Even after this sale it is alleged that the defendant-tenant did not pay the rent from March, 1983. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the present suit No. 912 of 1984 for recovery of the rent from the month commencing from 4th March, 1983 to 3rd October, 1984 comprising the period of 19 months. It is alleged that the defendant thus contravened the terms of the lease and was liable to be evicted. The defendant, after taking the open plot on lease constructed two rooms thereon for his personal occupation. On account of the default in payment of rent the plaintiff has filed suit for possession of the open plot and for recovery of the arrears of rent. The further prayer is that defendant should be directed to remove the super-structure constructed on the open plot and the possession of the open plot should be handed over to the plaintiff-landlord. Prior to filing the suit the plaintiff-landlord has given the requisite notice terminating the tenancy of the defendant and thus had complied with all the requirements entitling him to recover possession and the arrears or rent. The plaintiff further claimed compensatory costs of Rs. 500/-.

4. The defendant-tenant contested the suit by filing written statement of Exhibit 14 which has been amended vide Exhibit 36, contending that the suit was not tenable. The original defendant Sattar expired during the pendency of the suit and his legal representative are brought on record. They have also adopted the same stand taken by defendant Abdul Sattar. The defendant, original tenant denied the arrears of rent but had admitted that the previous suit filed by Aminabee was decreed against him

Click Here to Read the rest of this document