IMPORTANT POINT
Receiving of rent after issuing quit notice cannot be said to be a conduct of signifying ‘assent’ to continuance of lease even after expiry of lease period.

B. Chandra Kumar, J. — This appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 03.03.2008 passed in A.S. No.149 of 2006 by the I-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2006 passed in O.S. No.770 of 2004 on the file of the 1-Junior Civil Judger City Civil Court, Secunderabad. The appellant herein is the defendant in the original suit. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. The plaintiff is the owner of the building in which the suit schedule Mulgi is situated. The father of the defendant was inducted as tenant in the suit schedule premises in the year 1952. After his demise the defendant became a tenant. Initially, the monthly rent was at Rs.500/-, but subsequently the same was enhanced to Rs. 1,100/- per month exclusive of electricity consumption charges, from December 2001. The tenancy is month to month commencing from first of the month to end of the month according to English Calendar. The plaintiff issued a quit notice dated 28.05.2004 terminating the tenancy and calling upon the defendant to vacate the premises and handover the vacant possession of the suit premises within 15 days from the date of service of the notice. The said notice was sent through speed post as well as under certificate of posting. Though the registered envelop was returned with an endorsement “as not claimed returned to Sender”, but the plaintiff’s case is that the notice sent under certificate of posting was served on the defendant. Since the defendant failed to vacate the premises, the plaintiff filed the suit for eviction. The plaintiff also averred that the premises under the occupation of the defendant would fetch a rent of Rs. 5000/- and therefore the defendant is liable to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month towards mesne profits/damages for the use and occupation of the property from the date of suit till the date of delivery of vacant possession.

The defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiff and denied that he did not claim the notice sent by the plaintiff. His specific case is that he left for Rajasthan on pilgrimage on 30.05.2004 and returned to Secunderabad only in the night of 20th June 2004 and that he did not receive any notice prior to 30.05.2004 from the plaintiff and that he had learnt about the notice sent under certificate of posting only on 21.06.2004. His main case is that after his return from pilgrimage he tried to contact the plaintiff on 21.06.2004, but he could not contact the plaintiff and at last on 24.06.2004 he met the plaintiff and the plaintiff agreed to talk with him after about one week. Then the defendant again met him on 02.07.2004 and they again met on 06.07.2004 and finally agreed to renew the lease on the following terms.

(a) that the lease shall be for a period of twenty (20) years; commencing from 01.06.2004.

(b) That, the monthly rent shall be Rs. 2,000 (Rupees Two Thousands only) exclusive of electricity consumption charges, to be enhanced by 20% for every five years.

(c) That the monthly rent shall be payable on or before 5th of every month.

(d) That, the premises should not be sub-let or the nature of business be changed, nor any partnership be entered into to carry on the business without prior written permission of the landlord.

(e) That this lease deed should be got registered within 4 months from 06.07.2004; and the stamp and registration charges therefore be shared equally by the Lessor and the Lessee. All the other conditions as are envisaged in the Transfer of Property Act.

2. It is also the specific case of the defendant that the plaintiff did not inform him about the filing of the suit when he met the plaintiff the above mentioned dates. The further case of the defendant is that in compliance of the said arrangement, the plaintiff had been receiving the renewed rent of Rs.2,000/- per month from 01.06.2004 and that on 10.07.2004 the plaintif