Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 338
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, TIRUMALA DEVI, JJ.
State Bank of India - Appellant
Versus
Sikh Gurudwara Prabhandh Committee - Respondent
City Civil Court Appeal Nos.345 Of 2007 And 35 Of 2008
Decided On : 02-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : PEARL LAW ASSOCIATES
The absence of a registered lease deed does not invalidate an oral tenancy, but the terms must be strictly followed as agreed by the parties.
Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 106 - Eviction of tenant - The plaintiff, a registered committee, sought eviction of the defendant tenant for non-payment of rent and bonafide requirement of the premises - The trial court awarded damages of Rs.25,000/- per month from the date of termination of tenancy until vacation - The defendant's claim of a five-year lease renewal was rejected as unsubstantiated. (Paras 3, 5, 12, 13)
(B) Tenancy - Oral tenancy - The absence of a registered lease deed does not negate the existence of an oral tenancy, but the terms must be adhered to as agreed upon by the parties. (Paras 3, 12)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a registered committee, claimed the defendant was a tenant under an oral agreement, defaulting on rent since August 1998. The plaintiff issued a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act for eviction due to personal requirement. The defendant acknowledged the tenancy but disputed the terms.
Findings of Court:
The trial court found the plaintiff entitled to damages of Rs.25,000/- per month for the period of unlawful occupation, affirming the need for the premises for its operations.
Issues: The court addressed whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages and if the trial court's decree was sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the trial court's findings, emphasizing that the damages awarded were justified based on the evidence presented, and the plaintiff's need for the premises was legitimate.
Result: Both appeals are dismissed, upholding the trial court's judgment.
JUDGMENT :
(Tirumala Devi Eada, J.)
These two appeals are filed by the appellant(s) aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2007 passed in O.S.No.60 of 2001 by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’).
2. The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity.
3. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that the plaintiff committee is a registered Board under the Joint Stock Companies Act and it is the owner of the cellar, ground and first floor forming part of premises bearing M.No.9-4-67, situated at St.Mary’s Road, Secunderabad and that the defendant was the tenant of the plaintiff in the ground floor covering an area of 3400 Sft, a locker admeasuring an area of 600 Sft and parking space of 500 sft. The monthly rent for the said premises was Rs.25,000/- along with exclusive electricity and water consumption charges and that the plaintiff has leased out the said premises on oral tenancy and that there is no registered lease deed between the plaintiff and the defendant. That the defendant used to pay monthly rents on or before 10th of every month in advance. The plaintiff instructed the defendant bank to credit the monthly rent in plaintiff’s account and that on reconciliation of the pass book, they noticed that the rent of August, 1998 was not credited and it was brought to the notice of the defendant for violating the terms and conditions of oral tenancy. Thus, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant and that the defendant failed to comply with the demand inspite of several requests and that the defendant was continuing in the said premises holding over from month to month tenancy ever since August, 1998. Plaintiff is the owner of the building and it is managed by Sikh Gurudwara Prabhandh Committee and that the plaintiff also has a dispensary in the said premises and free medicines are being given to patients along with a school being run for the benefit of poor students. It is their case that they are doing yeoman services to the society and that number of pilgrims from several places visit Gurudwara and that the plaintiff has to provide accommodation to the pilgrims and that the plaintiff wants to open a diagnostic centre in the portion of the suit property and it is also causing hardship to the plaintiff while holding meetings and for carrying on day to day administration, thereby it has informed the defendant about its personal requirement and requested the defendant to vacate the premises but the defendant failed to do so, as such, the plaintiff issued a legal notice for termination of tenancy on 01.05.2001 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to handover the vacant possession by 01.07.2001. It was also brought to the notice of the defendant that in case it disputes their tenancy month, it may vacate the premises on the corresponding date. The defendant has acknowledged the notice but has not vacated the premises instead it has issued a reply notice dated 23.05.2000 alleging that the lease was for a period of five years with a further renewal for another five years at an enhancement of 20% over the existing rent and that the said pleas of the defendant are false and after issuance of legal notice, the defendant credited the rent for the month of August, 1998 to the plaintiff’s account. Thus, getting vexed with the attitude of the defendant, the plaintiff has tentatively claimed damages @ Rs.1,00,000/- per month and that it has a bonafide requirement of the premises and thus, the suit is filed.
4. The defendant has filed its written statement admitting the tenancy and also the rate of monthly rent and also admitted that there is no registered lease deed but at the same time the defendant denies the allegation of plaintiff that the tenancy is oral. He further admitted the monthly rent to be payable on or before 10th of every mon
