JUDGEMENT

The present Second Appeal is filed questioning the judgment and decree, dated 19.09.2023, passed by I Additional District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda in AS.No.231 of 2022 (Old AS.No.159 of 2017), whereunder and whereby the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2017 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in O.S.No.309 of 2009 was confirmed.

2. The appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The brief facts of the case, which led to filing of the present Second Appeal, are that the plaintiff is owner of the suit schedule mulgi apart from other mulgies and a three room portion shed at the said premises. A rental agreement was entered between the plaintiff and the defendant on 16.09.2004, for a period of eleven months only, and as per the terms of said agreement, the defendant has to pay Rs.20,000/- as advance, but, he has paid Rs.16,300/- only, that too, in three instalments. The rent is being enhanced from time to time and the present rent is Rs.5,000 per month. Since the said agreement is an unregistered one, the lease is to be treated as a lease from month to month. As the plaintiff required the suit schedule mulgi for his personal use, in the month of January, 2017, he requested the defendant to vacate the muligi, but the defendant avoided to vacate the said mulgi by giving evasive replies. The defendant did not even pay rents from May, 2008. On the other hand, the defendant filed a suit-OS.No.1363 of 2008 on the file of the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District seeking injunction restraining the plaintiff from evicting him from the suit schedule mulgi. The plaintiff, therefore, got issued a legal notice dated 05.01.2009 calling upon the defendant to vacate the suit schedule mulgi by 01.02.2009, failing which, to pay the mense profits, but, the defendant got issued a reply with false and baseless allegations.

3.1. In the first week of January, 2009, the defendant sent money order for a paltry sum, instead of paying Rs.5,000/- per month, and therefore, the plaintiff has refused to receive the same.

Hence, the defendant is liable to pay the arrears of rent at Rs.5,000/- per month for the period from May, 2008 to 31.01.2009, amounting to Rs.45,000/-, and to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule mulgi to the plaintiff and also to pay future mesne profits at Rs.10,000/- per month from 01.02.2009 till the date of handing over the vacant possession of the suit schedule mulgi to the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.

4. The defendant filed written statement inter alia stating that he paid Rs.20,000/- as advance to the plaintiff, but, not Rs.16,000/- as alleged by the plaintiff. It was further stated that as per the terms of lease, dated 16.09.2004, the rent has to be enhanced at 10% per annum over and above the existing rent and by the date of filing of the suit, the rent of the suit schedule mulgi was Rs.1,464/- per month only, but not Rs.5,000/- per month, as alleged by the plaintiff. It was further stated though he was willing to pay the rent regularly, the plaintiff himself has refused to receive the rent from December, 2008 and that the plaintiff has even refused to receive the money sent through money order and therefore, he is not due any amount towards arrears of rent and is also not liable to pay any amount towards future mesne profits.

5. On the basis of above rival pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial:

“(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of the defendant from the suit schedule property and entitled vacant possession as prayed for? (2) Whether the rent claimed by the plaintiff at Rs.5,000/- in respect of the suit schedule property is true and correct? (3) Whether the defendant committed default in paying the rent to