HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA APPEAL SUITS No. 492 AND 627 OF 2010

COMMON JUDGMENT :

Since both the Appeals arise against the decree and judgment dated 24.02.2010 in O.S. No. 167 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the V Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, they, the consent of both the parties, are taken up for disposal by this common judgment.

2. Parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

3. Admitted facts in both the Appeals are: originally, one S. Hanumanth Reddy and his sons S. Narayan Reddy and S. Ranjith Reddy filed suit against M/s IBP Company Limited showing themselves as Plaintiffs 1, 2 and 3. During pendency of the suit, the 1st plaintiff - S. Hanumanth Reddy died. In addition to his sons, who are Plaintiffs 2 and 3, two more Legal heirs were added as Plaintiffs 4 and 5. Further, by order dated 11.02.2009 in IA No. 80 of 2009, nomenclature of defendant was changed as M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Plaintiffs are owners and possessors of suit schedule property in Survey Nos. 55 to 58 situated at Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District.

Defendants approached plaintiffs for taking portion of the land on lease for establishing their outlet. A lease agreement was executed on 28.04.2004 between the parties, wherein it was agreed to let out the schedule property of 1863 Square Yards, after road widening, to the defendants on a monthly rent of Rs. 20,000/-, for period of 20 years. It is agreed that rent shall be payable by 10th of every month and if the lessee commits default, within one month after written demand made by a registered letter, the lessor may re-enter and take possession of property and it is further provided that if lessee pays rent due within 30 days, the period provided for the second notice, the second notice shall be deemed to be a nullity and have no force. The defendant-Company committed default in payment of rent till September 2004 and it paid for the first time in October 2004 i.e., after lapse of nine months, at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- though the agreed rent is Rs. 20,000/- pm. Plaintiffs addressed letter dated 06.10.2004 demanding payment of balance rent of Rs. 98,589/-, to which a reply dated 17.11.2004 was given stating that though land leased out was stated to be 2279 Square Yards, in fact, it is 1432.9 Square Yards, hence, rent was paid in proportion. Plaintiffs got issued registered notice dated 21.12.2004 demanding payment of balance rent, to which defendants gave reply dated 12.01.2005 with false and untenable pleas. Hence, suit was filed for eviction of defendants, for payment of arrears of rent, for mesne profits and costs.

4. The original defendant filed written statement pleading that plaintiffs agreed to lease out 1863 out of 2279 Square yards, at the monthly rent of Rs. 20,000/-, but the land leased out, when measured comes to 1432.9 Square Yards. Therefore, rent was settled at Rs. 12,575/-pm. Defendants invested Rupees 30 lakhs for the arrangements since the lease is for a period of 20 years. If it is terminated, defendants will suffer irreparable loss.

5. On appreciation of evidence – oral and documentary, available on record, the trial Court held that the lease agreement in question which was marked as Ex. A1 shows that the area agreed to be leased out is 1863 Square yards, after road widening and the monthly rent agreed was Rs. 20,000/-. Defendants did not file any document or adduce any oral evidence to establish that plaintiffs have agreed to lease out 2270 Square yards and rent was fixed for the said area @ Rs. 20,000/- p.m. DW-1 admitted in cross-examination that road for ingress and egress is part of the leased area at the time of lease. He further admitted that suit schedule property was verified by this Company and on being satisfied with the marketable title of plaintiffs over 1864 Square Yards, lease deed was executed fixing the rent @ Rs. 20,000/-p.m. In view of the categorical admission of the defendant as DW-1 coupled wi