SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 41779

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Abhinand Kumar Shavili, Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, JJ
SETWIN (Society for Employment Promotion and Training – Appellant
Versus
D.Basava Reddy – Respondent
APPEAL SUIT. No. 731 of 2009



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: []
For the Respondents: []

A tenant cannot claim the surrender of leased premises merely by handing over keys; effective and vacant physical possession must be surrendered to the landlord to terminate the liability for rent and damages under the Transfer of Property Act.

Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 106 - Tenancy - Eviction - Burden of proof regarding surrender of possession - Mere handing over of keys is not equivalent to surrender of vacant possession - A tenant failing to deliver vacant possession remains liable for rent and damages until actual delivery. (Paras 24, 25, 28)

(B) Appeal - Scope - Appellate court's reliance on interim orders and commissioner's reports - Contemporaneous judicial record serves as decisive evidence on factual issues of possession. (Paras 30, 31)

Facts of the case:
The appellant (defendant) was a society that leased properties from the respondents (plaintiffs). The plaintiffs filed for eviction and recovery of arrears after the defendant failed to pay rent. The defendant claimed to have vacated the premises on 15.04.2004 and handed over keys to the landlord's father. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, finding the premises were not surrendered.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the defendant failed to prove legal surrender of the property. Based on a Commissioner's report and an interim order requiring the premises to be broken into and vacated on 31.12.2009, the Court concluded that possession remained with the defendant until that date.

Issues: Whether the defendant legally surrendered the leased premises in April 2004 and whether the plaintiffs are entitled to rent and damages up to the date of actual physical delivery.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere delivery of keys does not constitute surrender of possession. Actual, effective, and continuous control must be yielded to the lessor. The burden lies on the lessee to prove such delivery upon legal determination of the lease under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Result: Appeal partly allowed; rent confirmed up to 31.12.2009, damages modified to Rs. 2,00,000.

Table of Content
1. overview of the parties arguments and findings of the trial court. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. summary of submissions regarding the surrender of lease. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. requirement of physical surrender of possession and burden of proof. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
4. determination of final possession and modification of damages. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)

JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy)

This Appeal Suit is filed by the appellant/defendant against the Judgment and Decree dated 22.07.2009 in O.S. No. 145 of 2005 on the file of Principal District Judge, at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for eviction and recovery of arrears was decreed in favour of the plaintiff.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

I. BRIEF FACTS:

3. The plaintiffs filed the above suit vide O.S. No. 145 of 2005 against the sole defendant for eviction from the suit schedule property; for recovery of arrears for a sum of Rs. 6,74,464/- and further interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of this suit till the date of full and final realization; and for future damages (mesne profits Rs. 1,05,000/- per month) from the date of quit notice till the date of delivery of possession.

4. The case of the Plaintiffs is that they being joint owners of A to C schedule properties situated at Chaitanyapuri, Gaddiannam Municipality, had leased out the said premises to the defendant under different lease deeds executed on 01.11.2001 (schedule C), 01.08.2002 (schedule B), and 01.08.2003 (schedule A), on agreed monthly rents along with refundable caution deposits, besides the liability to pay electricity charges. Each lease was for a period of three years, extendable with enhancement of rent at the end of every eleventh month. However, the defendant failed to comply with the agreed terms, remained irregular in payment of rents, and despite sending the legal notices dated 30.07.2004 and 14.10.2004, it continued to default, except for a part payment for two months made under letter dated 24.07.2004. The defendant remained in arrears of Rs. 6,74,464/- for the period from January 2004 to April 2005, and the tenancy stood validly terminated by legal notice dated 17.03.2005 issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, duly acknowledged on 18.03.2005. Thereafter, from 01.05.2005, the defendant’s occupation of the plaint schedule properties is unlawful and unauthorized, rendering it liable for eviction, recovery of arrears, and damages quantified at Rs. 60,000/-, Rs.15,000/-, and Rs. 30,000/- per month for A to C schedule properties respectively, apart from other incidental charges.

5. The defendant filed written statement and contended that it is a society registered on 04.11.1978 under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli, pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.177 dated 07.07.1978, established to impart training to unemployed youth through Joint Venture Training Centers (JVTCs), and that in partnership with Sahaja Youth Association, the premises of the plaintiffs at H.No.3-1, 3-2, and 3-3, Chaitanyapuri, were taken on lease under deeds dated 01.11.2001, 01.08.2002, and 01.08.2003. The defendant admitted entering into lease deeds for three years with agreed rents, but asserted that rents were regularly paid up to 15.04.2004, including by adjusting caution deposits, and the arrears were cleared by cheques dated 23.07.2004, 18.08.2004, and 04.02.2005. Pursuant to Circular dated 27.03.2004, SETWIN disbanded all JVTCs with effect from 15.04.2004 and converted them into franchise centers, and accordingly, the premises of the plaintiffs were vacated on 15.04.2004. The defendants informed the plaintiffs regarding the same through a notice of vacation dated 03.04.2004.

Thus, the def

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top