Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SUBBA REDDY SATTI
Sanisetty Venkata Kasi Viswanadham – Appellant
Versus
Sri Yogananda Ashramam – Respondent
SA/287/2022
LEASE - JURISDICTION - CIVIL COURT - [PLAINTIFF - SRI YOGANANDA ASHRAMAM, A PRIVATE TRUST, REP. BY THE PRESIDENT CHEVURI RADHA KRISHNA] - [DEFENDANT - SANISETTY VENKATA KASI VISWANADHAM] - CIVIL COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN SUIT FOR EVICTION WHERE VACANT LAND WAS LEASED OUT AND TENANT CONSTRUCTED SHED THEREON.
Fact of the Case:
PLAINTIFF, AN ASHRAMAM REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF ITS TRUST BOARD, FILED THE SUIT FOR POSSESSION OF PLAINT SCHEDULE PROPERTY BY EJECTING THE DEFENDANT; DIRECT THE DEFENDANT TO REMOVE THE SUPER STRUCTURES 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.7,245/- FOR USE AND OCCUPATION FROM 24.06.2010 TO 12.02.2013 AND FOR ENHANCEMENT OF DAMAGES ETC.DEFENDANT FILED WRITTEN STATEMENT AND ADMITTED THAT HE TOOK PLAINT SCHEDULE SITE ON LEASE IN THE MONTH OF MARCH, 1997 FROM MATADHIPATI SRI CHEVURI SATYANARAYANA AND STARTED MOTOR SPARE PARTS BUSINESS AND HE AGREED TO PAY RENT AT RS.150/-.AFTER DEMISE OF CHEVURI SATYANARAYANA, PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT ENTERED INTO A REGISTERED LEASE AGREEMENT ON 24.05.2000 AND THE RENT AGREED WAS RS.500/- PER MONTH FOR FIRST FIVE YEARS AND RS.575/- FOR NEXT FIVE YEARS.
Finding of the Court:
PROPERTY LEASED OUT IS ONLY VACANT SITE, BUT NOT SHED. IT IS THE LESSEE AFTER HE CAME INTO POSSESSION, RAISED STRUCTURE. THOUGH IT WAS MENTIONED IN EX.A-1 THAT SHED WAS CONSTRUCTED BY THE LANDLORD, IN VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD, IT IS THE TENANT WHO ACTUALLY CONSTRUCTED THE SHED.PLAINTIFF IN THE PLAINT, IN SO MANY WORDS STATED THAT VACANT SITE WAS LEASED OUT AND THOUGH IT WAS MENTIONED IN THE LEASED DEED ABOUT THE SHED, THE PLAINTIFF IS NOT CLAIMING ANY RIGHT OVER THE SHED AND PRAYER SOUGHT FOR IN THE PLAINT IS ALSO TO REMOVE THE SUPER STRUCTURE AND TO DELIVER VACANT POSSESSION. ON THE OTHER HAND, DEFENDANT IS CONSISTENT IN HIS PLEADINGS REGARDING LEASE OF VACANT SITE AND HE CONSTRUCTED SHED THEREIN.
Issues: 1. WHETHER THE 1ST DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO CONTINUE IN THE PLAINT SCHEDULE PROPERTY TILL 2020 AS A LESSEE IN PURSUANCE OF THE ORAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT?2. WHETHER THIS COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN SUIT FOR EVICTION?3. WHETHER THE 1ST DEFENDANT HAS COMMITTED WILLFUL DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF RENTS TO THE PLAINTIFF ASHRAMAM FOR THE PLAINT SCHEDULE PROPERTY?4. WHETHER THE 1ST DEFENDANT IN VIOLATION OF TERMS OF LEASE, SUBLEASED THE PLAINT SCHEDULE SHOPS TO DEFENDANTS 2 TO 5?5. WHETHER THE 1ST DEFENDANT HAS CONTINUING TO OCCUPY THE PLAINT SCHEDULE PROPERTY WITHOUT ANY TENANCY RIGHTS?6. WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED FOR EVICTION OF THE DEFENDANT FROM THE SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY?7. WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED FOR VACANT POSSESSION OF THE PLAINT SCHEDULE PROPERTY FROM THE 1ST DEFENDANT AS PRAYED FOR?8. WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED FOR RECOVERY OF DAMAGES OF RS.7,245/- FOR USE AND OCCUPATION OF PLAINT SCHEDULE PROPERTY FROM 24.06.2010 TO 12.02.2013?9. WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED FOR ENHANCEMENT OF DAMAGES FROM THE DEFENDANT FOR USE AND OCCUPATION OF PLAINT SCHEDULE SITE @ RS.4,000/- PER MONTH FROM THE DATE OF SUIT?10. TO WHAT RELIEF?
Ratio Decidendi: IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER COGENT EVIDENCE THAT WHAT WAS LEASED OUT IS SHED BUT NOT VACANT LAND, IN THE CONSIDERED OPINION OF THIS COURT, FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE COURTS BELOW THAT ONLY VACANT SITE WAS LEASED OUT AND THE CIVIL COURT GOT JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE SUIT, CANNOT BE DISTURBED.
Final Decision: SECOND APPEAL IS DISMISSED AT ADMISSION STAGE. NO COSTS.
JUDGMENT
Defendant in the suit filed the above second appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2022 in A.S.No.54 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.37 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.37 of 2013 seeking possession of plaint schedule property by ejecting the defendant; direct the defendant to remove the super structures 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.7,245/- for use and occupation from 24.06.2010 to 12.02.2013 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 1st defendant 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 motor spares parts business and he agreed to pay rent at Rs.200/- per month. Mathadipathi Sri Chevuri Satyanarayana, who leased out the property to 1st defendant died on 09.06.1999. After death of Mathadipathi, successor management of plaintiff and 1st defendant 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 1st defendant on 24.05.2000 for a period of 10 years. 1st defendant agreed to pay rent at Rs.200/- for first five years and Rs.230/- for remaining five years. Though it was mentioned in lease deed that super structures standing in the schedule site belonged to landlord, 1st defendant disputed and claimed that said shed belongs to him. The Trust Board of plaintiff executed a separate deed of acknowledgment in favour of 1st defendant accepting his claim in respect of super structure on the plaint schedule property. 1st defendant without consent and knowledge of plaintiff, contrary to the conditions of lease deed dated 24.05.2000 sublet the schedule property to 2nd defendant. 2nd defendant is running a rice retail shop in the suit premises. Since then, 1st defendant is collecting monthly rent of Rs.5,000/- per month from 2nd defendant. 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, 1st defendant 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 and other tenants to vacate the schedule site. 1st Defendant having received the notice, he kept quiet. 1st 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 1st defendant after determination of lease and the defendant also not tendered any rent. Defendants are liable to pay damages for use and occupation from 24.05.2010 and hence, the suit was filed for the reliefs stated supra.
5. 1st Defendant filed written statement and admitted that he took plaint schedule site on lease in the month of March, 1997 from Matadhipati Sri Chevuri Satyanarayana and started motor spare parts business and he agreed to pay rent at Rs.150/-. After demise of Chevuri Satyanarayana, plaintiff and 1st defendant entered into a registered lease agreement on 24.05.
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
