THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.61 of 2004 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy This Appeal is filed by the appellant/defendant against the Judgment and Decree dated 13.10.2003 in O.S. No. 425 of 1999 (hereinafter will be referred as ‘impugned judgment’) on the file of IX Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter will be referred as ‘trial court’), wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of money was partly decreed while dismissing the counter claim filed by the defendant.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be arrayed as per their status before the trial Court.

I. BRIEF FACTS

3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the available record are that the plaintiff alleged to have taken an extent of 7033 square feet in the second floor in Door No.6-3-862/A in sy.No.193 and 194 of Ameerpet, Hyderabad consisting of room numbers 15 to 18 on lease under lease deed dated 27.02.1996 from its original owner i.e., defendant for carrying on its projects relating to Gas Power to establish Godavari – I gas project office and for establishing Hyderabad Liason office initially for a period of three years commencing from 15.10.1996, which is renewable at the option of the plaintiff for a further period of two years subject to increase of 20% of the rent. The mutual rent agreed was Rs.59,077/- for Godavri – I Gas power project office and Rs.25,319/- for Hyderabad Lisason office. Besides the same, the plaintiff also agreed to pay a maximum charge of 60 paise per square feet towards the security, lift maintenance, lighting in common areas, cleanliness of common areas etc. The plaintiff paid a refundable deposit of Rs.16,87,920/- under an agreement dated 27.02.1996. It was agreed that in case of delay in refund of the deposit, it shall carry 18% interest thereon. The plaintiff also deposited a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for the purpose of providing additional power requirement by a cheque on 28.08.1996. Thereafter disputes arose between the parties and defendant failed to execute the registered sale deed as per the understanding. Thus, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 09.10.1996 under Ex.A1 stating that the tenancy is terminated by the end of the tenancy month. Subsequently, notices dated 15.02.1996 and 06.11.1996 under Exs.A2 and A3 respectively were issued. The defendant got issued reply under Ex.A5. After considering Ex.A5, the plaintiff got issued reply along with a demand draft for Rs.5,00,000/- towards the deposit for providing the electricity charges. In Ex.A5, the defendant gave permission to affect the repairs as mentioned therein. However, the differences continued between the parties leading to issuance of notices and reply notices between the parties. The plaintiff made some changes in the premises as per their requirement and got the expenditure estimated to be incurred for bringing the building to the original position. The plaintiff was prepared to pay the same and expect that the same shall be deducted out of the deposit amount and remaining may be paid to them.

4. In reply to the plaint averments, the defendant filed written statement along with counter claim by contending that the defendant is entitled for recovery of the rent over the premises as agreed and since they did not pay the same, defendant is entitled for adjusting the same from the deposit amount. Thus, the contention of the defendant is that the plaintiff is liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,87,781/-.

II. ISSUES FRAMED BY THE TRIAL COURT

5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.21,07,527.99 paise from the defendant with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation?

2) Whether there is no cause of action to file the suit?

3) Whether this court h