THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI APPEAL SUIT No.139 of 2024

JUDGMENT:

This Appeal is filed by the appellant – defendant aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2023 passed in O.S.No.1254 of 2016 by the VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kukatpally, Rangareddy District.

2. The respondent – plaintiff filed the suit for eviction of the defendant from the suit schedule premises and for mesne profits @ Rs.1,10,400/- per month with effect from 01.09.2015 till the recovery of possession.

3. The case of the plaintiff was that she was the owner of the premises bearing Plot No.G5 on Ground Floor admeasuring 1766 square feet in Survey No.55/E (part) situated at Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District by virtue of registered sale deed document No.8661 of 2005 dated 18.06.2005. The defendant was a tenant in the suit schedule premises under an agreement dated 11.05.2005. As per the terms of the said agreement, the monthly rent was fixed at Rs.20,700/-. The defendant sanctioned a loan of Rs.4.00 lakhs with interest @ 11.5% per annum in favor of the plaintiff subject to the condition that the said loan had to be repaid by adjusting a sum of Rs.6,955/- per month out of the monthly rent. No registered lease deed was executed by the defendant. Initially, the tenancy was fixed for five (05) years, which was renewable for another five (05) years with 25% enhancement in rent. The tenancy was renewed after the completion of initial five years period and the rent was enhanced to Rs.25,875/- per month. The tenancy was from month to month under oral agreement up to 10.07.2015. Since the agreed period of tenancy came to an end, the plaintiff issued a notice dated 05.01.2015 terminating the tenancy and calling upon the defendant to vacate and handover the possession on or before 31.08.2015. Inspite of receiving the notice, the defendant did not vacate. None of the officials of Andhra Bank were responding. The plaintiff ran from pillar to post between Kondapur and Koti requesting them to vacate the premises. The defendant dragged on stating that they were looking for the premises and that they would shift. The plaintiff believed their words and waited for them to vacate. Since, they failed to vacate, the plaintiff again issued a notice dated 25.08.2016 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 calling upon the defendant to vacate and handover the suit premises by 30.09.2016. Again the defendant did not comply with the demand of the plaintiff. On a personal visit to the Bank, the defendant handed over a copy of reply notice dated 18.10.2016 claiming to have been sent by their counsel that they needed the premises up to March, 2017, as they were looking for new premises. The plaintiff contended that the defendant had no intention to vacate the premises and that she needed the premises for her own occupation. Inspite of the plaintiff terminated the tenancy by notice dated 05.01.2015, the defendant without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff kept on depositing the monthly rent of Rs.25,875/- into the account of the plaintiff. The prevailing rent in Kondapur area is Rs.80/- per square feet. As such, the defendant was liable to pay Rs.1,10,400/- per month with effect from 01.09.2015 until vacating the premises.

4. The defendant filed his written statement contending that the notices dated 05.01.2015 and 25.08.2016 were invalid. The tenancy was not legally terminated by the said notices. It was orally agreed in between the parties to renew the agreement. Hence, even after expiration of notice period, the plaintiff accepted the rent from the defendant Bank without any protest. Therefore, the tenancy was still in subsistence. The plaintiff filed this suit to pressurize and annoy the defendant for fulfilling her unreasonable demand for exorbitant enhancement of rent. The suit was barred under Section 113 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. Basing on the said pleadings, t