Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.
Duppala Sitamahalakshmi Padmaja - Appellant
Versus
Mahmood Ali Hammami - Respondent
Second Appeal Nos.322 & 323 of 2023
Decided On : 10-04-2024
Eviction - Lease Agreement - Transfer of Property Act - [DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF RENTS, TERMINATION OF LEASE, WAIVER OF RIGHT] - [Transfer of Property Act, Section 112, Section 106] - The court discussed the default in payment of rents by the defendant, the termination of the lease agreement, and the concept of waiver of right. It held that the acceptance of rents irregularly by the landlord does not amount to waiver of the right to terminate the lease, and the provisions of the Rent Control Act do not apply to the case.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought eviction of the defendants from the suit schedule property and for mesne profits, alleging default in payment of rents and termination of the lease agreement. The defendants contested the claims, arguing that they had not defaulted in payment and that the plaintiffs were intentionally avoiding receipt of the rents.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court and first Appellate Court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to eviction of the defendants from the suit schedule property and granted the relief in favor of the plaintiffs. The courts found that the defendant had willfully defaulted in payment of monthly rents and had not fulfilled the terms of the lease agreement, justifying the eviction.
Issues: The issues included whether the plaintiffs were entitled to eviction, recovery of legal notice charges, and mesne profits, as well as whether the plaintiff was entitled to perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit schedule property.
Ratio Decidendi: The courts found that the defendant had willfully defaulted in payment of monthly rents and had not fulfilled the terms of the lease agreement, justifying the eviction. The acceptance of rents once in three to four months by the respondents did not amount to waiver of the right to terminate the lease.
Final Decision: The Second Appeals were dismissed, and the appellant was directed to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the respondents/plaintiffs within a period of six months from the date of the judgment.
COMMON JUDGMENT
Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J. - Second Appeal No.322 is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2022 passed by the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar, in A.S.No.220 of 2018, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2018 passed by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, in O.S.No.1235 of 2015, which is filed for eviction of the defendants from the suit schedule property and for mense profits.
2. Second Appeal No.323 is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2022 passed by the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar, in A.S.No.219 of 2018, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2018 passed by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, in O.S.No.357 of 2016, which is filed for perpetual injunction against the defendants, who are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1235 of 2015.
3. Since the parties and the suit schedule property in both the appeals are one and same, both appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.
O.S.No.1235 of 2015:
4. Brief facts leading to filing of the present Second Appeal are that the plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.1235 of 2015 seeking eviction of the defendants from the suit schedule property and for mesne profits. It is contended that the plaintiff no.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of property bearing no.8-4-52/2 (old No.7-7/5), admeasuring 624 square yards in Sy.No.187/2 sitauted at Bandlaguda Khalsa, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; that plaintiff no.2 is the absolute owner and possessor of property bearing no.l8-4-52/1 (old No.7-7/1), admeasuring 313 square yards in Sy.No.187/2 of the locality; plaintiff no.3 is the absolute owner and possessor of the property bearing no.8-4-52/3/1 (old No.7-12), admeasuring 749 square yards in Sy.No.187/2 of the same locality, in total the plaintiffs own 1686 square yards with a common boundary.
5. It is averred that the defendant no.1 is the tenant of the plaintiffs for the entire extent of 1686 Sq.yds and the present monthly rent is Rs.23,000/- per month exclusive of electricity charges, property tax and other charges; that the defendant no.1 took the above mentioned property(hereinafter referred to as the "suit schedule property") on rent from the plaintiffs in August, 2005 for opening a Petrol Pump on a monthly rent of Rs.20,000/-for a period of 20 years with an enhancement of rent @ 15% for every five years and accordingly, a registered lease deed bearing document no.13986/2007 dated 23.08.2005 was executed; that as per the terms of the lease deed, the monthly rent is payable on or before 5th of every month and as per clause 19 of the lease deed, if the lessee fails to pay the monthly rents, continuously for 3 months, the lessor has the right to terminate the lease.
6. It is averred that since the beginning of tenancy, the defendant no.1 was not prompt in payment of monthly rents and had committed willful default in payment of monthly rents from March 2015 to May 2015 @ Rs.23,000/-; that the defendant no.1 has also defaulted in payment of the municipal taxes. As the defendant no.1 has willfully defaulted in payment of monthly rents, the plaintiffs terminated the tenancy by issuing the notice demanding the defendants to vacate the premises and handover the same to or before 01.09.2015.
7. It is averred that on receipt of the legal notice, the defendant no.1 got issued a reply notice with false and baseless contents and the plaintiffs got issued a rejoinder dated 01.09.2015 contending that the plaintiffs have never furnished their bank account details to the defendants and without any information and without their permission, the defendant no.1 has deposited monthly rents for March, 2015 to July, 2015 in their Bank account through RTGS.
8. It is averred that in sp
The acceptance of rents irregularly by the landlord does not amount to waiver of the right to terminate the lease, and the provisions of the Rent Control Act do not apply to the case.
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.
Point of law: The material on record is clear that the basis for eviction of the appellants from the plaint schedule premises is not on account of default in payment of rents or breach of contractual....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the benefit of first default in payment of rent by a deceased tenant extends to the heirs, and mere enhancement of rent without altering other....
A lessor cannot order the eviction of a lessee based on the forfeiture of a lease under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, unless the lease agreement contains an express covenant s....
Acceptance of rent by a landlord after the issuance of a quit notice does not amount to a waiver of the notice or a renewal of the lease unless there is express or implied consent from the landlord.
Point of law: The effect of Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) CPC was considered in recording such observations. It was not an instance with reference to application of Order XLI Rule 27(1)(aa) CPC. This claus....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
