Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for recovery of possession of vacant land leased out, even if the lessee has constructed a structure on the land, where the lease deed mentions that the shed was constructed by the landlord but the evidence on record shows that it was actually constructed by the tenant.

JUDGMENT

Defendant in the suit filed the above second appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2022 in A.S.No.113 of 2019 on the file of XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narasaraopeta, confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2019 in O.S.No.30 of 2013 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Vinukonda.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this judgment are referred to as per their array in the plaint.

3. Plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.30 of 2013 seeking possession of plaint schedule property by ejecting the defendant; direct the defendant to remove the superstructure lying in the plaint schedule or in case if the defendant failed to remove the same, to permit the plaintiff to remove the structures; recovery of damages at Rs.18,113/- for use and occupation from 24.06.2010 to 12.01.2013 and for enhancement of damages etc.

4. Plaintiff, an Ashramam represented by the President of its Trust Board, filed the above suit. In the plaint it was contended that Ashramam is the owner of plaint schedule site. The defendant’s father Navuluri Rami Reddy initially took the schedule site on lease in March, 1997 from the then Mathadipathi of plaintiff Sri Chevuri Satyanarayana for a period of five years and constructed a semi-permanent iron sheet roofed shed in the schedule site and began to run medical shop business and he agreed to pay rent at Rs.500/- per month. Mathadipathi Sri Chevuri Satyanarayana, who leased out the property to defendant died on 09.06.1999. After death of Mathadipathi, defendant’s father and successor management of plaintiff came to mutual understanding to determine the subsisting lease and to enter into new contract of tenancy. Accordingly, fresh lease deed dated 24.05.2000 was entered into in between President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer of plaintiff and defendant’s father on 24.05.2000 for a period of 10 years. Defendant’s father agreed to pay rent at Rs.500/- per month for first five years and Rs.575/- per month for remaining five years. Though it was mentioned in lease deed that super structures standing in the schedule site belonged to landlord, defendant’s father disputed and claimed that said shed belongs to him. The Trust Board of plaintiff executed a separate deed of acknowledgment in favour of defendant’s father accepting his claim in respect of super structure on the plaint schedule property. Plaintiff Ashramam is having shopping complex of 17 shops on it frontage i.e. Northern side including plaint schedule. The management intended to establish multi specialty hospital utilizing vacant site of Ashramam including the shopping complex site abutting the main road. After expiry of lease period, defendant’s father promised to vacate and handover plaint schedule site to plaintiff, however, he failed to keep up to his word. Legal notice dated 14.08.2010 was issued calling upon the defendant’s father and other tenants to vacate the schedule site. Defendant’s father having received the notice, got issued reply notice dated 31.08.2010 with false allegations. Defendant is also irregular in payment of rents. Tenancy came to an end by 23.05.2010 by afflux of time. Plaintiff is not accepting any rents from defendant after determination of lease and the defendant also not tendered any rent. Defendant is liable to pay damages for use and occupation from 24.05.2010 and hence, the suit was filed for the reliefs stated supra.

5. Defendant filed written statement and admitted that his father took plaint schedule site on lease in the month of March, 1997 from Matadhipati Sri Chevuri Satyanarayana. It was contended that Ashramam has no income till 1997 and in order to generate income to Ashramam management offered the vacant site facing towards Markapur road. Defendant’s father along with 12 others came forward to construct sheds for use of commercial purpose. Defendant’s father entered into lease agreement in the year 1997 itself with Matadhipati for 25 years, which was originally vacant