THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice Tirumala Devi Eada)

This is an appeal filed by the appellants – defendants, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 17.02.2020 passed in O.S.No.1417 of 2016 by the learned III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short “the trial Court”).

2. The parties are addressed herein as they were arrayed in the suit before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that she is the absolute owner of an industrial shed bearing Municipal No.1- 1/1, Uppal Baghayat, admeasuring 13,000 Sq.feet and that defendant Nos.2 and 3 obtained the same under a lease dated 27.03.2004 to run their business in the name and style of M/s.Variety Automotives Pvt., Ltd., for a monthly rent of Rs.60,000/- to be enhanced from time to time for a period of five years. After expiry of lease period, the defendants were required to vacate the same but have not vacated and have continued to be in possession of the same as tenant holding over. It is the case of the plaintiff that the lease was from month to month and that the defendants have been paying the monthly rents through cheques drawn on the account of defendant No.1 but they were dishonoured on several occasions. After repeated requests the defendants paid arrears of rent for Rs.1,50,000/- through three cheques and another Rs.1,00,000/- through another three cheques but they were dishonoured and as such she initiated legal proceedings against the defendants under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 vide C.C.No.499 of 2015 on the file of XIV Special Magistrate, Erramanzil, Hyderabad, which is pending.

4. It is her case that as per the lease deed, the last monthly rent in respect of the suit schedule property is Rs.1,04,940/- excluding the electricity charges and other out goings. The plaintiff has repeatedly requested the defendants to vacate the suit schedule property but in vain. Instead of vacating, the defendants have filed a suit in O.S.No.923 of 2015 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District seeking injunction and the same is pending. The plaintiff further submits that the defendants concocted a story in the said suit that the suit schedule property belongs to Government and sought perpetual injunction against the plaintiff and that as per the lease deed the parties have to approach an Arbitrator in case of disputes but the defendants filed a civil suit suppressing the said fact. In the said suit they have obtained a temporary injunction and the defendants have been dragging the matter and taking advantage of the temporary injunction order, they have not been paying the rent and are squatting on the property without any legal right, thus, the plaintiff was constrained to terminate the lease and accordingly, got issued a notice to that effect. Further, the plaintiff has terminated the lease on the said property by the end of 15 days from the date of service of notice. The plaintiff has averred that the rents were paid by the defendants only till 2013. The said notice was served on the defendant No.1 on 21.06.2016 and the notice sent to defendant Nos.2 and 3 were returned with endorsements as refused and left. The defendant No.1 got issued a reply notice through an advocate taking all false and baseless pleas.

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that the lease of the defendants got terminated by 08.07.2016 and that they are liable to vacate the same and that he is entitled to claim and recover mesne profits as the defendants have not vacated the property and that they are liable to pay the minimum rent as per the lease deed @ Rs.2,00,000/- per month. Thus, the plaintiff has filed the suit seeking eviction of the suit schedule property by the defendants and to deliver physical and vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and als