THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.359 OF 2019

JUDGMENT:

This is an appeal filed by the appellants, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 17.04.2019 passed in O.S.No.201 of 2014 by the learned XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short “the trial Court”).

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant before the trial Court. The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. The case of the plaintiff is the he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property i.e. residential house consisting of ground floor + two upper floors of house bearing No.1-3-302 (old No.287) admeasuring 1245 sq.feet constructed on plot admeasuring 66.08 Sq.yards or 55.25 Sq.Meters situated at Comsary Bazar, Bowenpally, Secunderabad, having purchased the same from the defendant through a registered sale deed bearing document No.1469 of 2013 dated 16.09.2013. It is his case that originally the defendant being the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property offered to sell the same to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.14,12,000/- and that the plaintiff agreed to purchase the same and thus paid an amount of Rs.14,07,000/- out of the total sale consideration of Rs.14,12,000/- and that the defendant has executed a registered agreement of sale –cum – GPA vide document No.1487 of 2010, dated 22.07.2010 in favour of the plaintiff having received the said advance amount and also delivered the constructive possession of the suit schedule property and that the balance sale consideration of Rs.5,000/- was also paid by the plaintiff and that the defendant has also acknowledged the same by issuing the receipt. It is his case that while executing the agreement of sale – cum – GPA the defendant has agreed to vacate the suit schedule property and gave it in writing and also that he would get the tenants occupying the other portions in the suit schedule property to vacate the premises within a period of six months. It is his further case that the defendant has undertaken to pay a fixed amount of Rs.20,000/- per month towards the rent of suit schedule property until the same is vacated. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled for rent @ Rs.20,000/- per month from 22.01.2011 and that the defendant did not pay the agreed rent per month. The plaintiff has further averred that exercising his authority granted by the defendant in his favour under registered agreement of Sale – cum – General Power of Attorney, he got executed the registered sale deed bearing document No.1469 of 2013 dated 16.09.2013 in favour of himself, thereby transferring the title of the suit schedule property in his favour and has also informed the defendant about the same. It is his case that on 18.09.2013 he received a legal notice from the defendant contending that the plaintiff has not paid any sale consideration under the registered agreement of Sale-cum-GPA, thereafter, the plaintiff issued a reply notice denying the averments in the said notice issued by the defendant and asked the defendant to vacate the suit schedule property within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the reply notice. But that the defendant has not chosen to vacate the suit schedule property. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.7,60,000/- to the plaintiff towards unpaid rents from 22.01.2011 to 21.03.2014 and also is liable to pay the mesne profits @ Rs.20,000/- from the date of suit till vacating the suit premises. Thus, he filed a suit with the said prayer.

4. The defendant has filed his written statement denying the averments in the plaint and contended that no consideration has been passed to the defendant and that she has not issued any receipt in favour of plaintiff. It is further contended that the defendant is not liable to pay any mesne profits @ Rs.20,000/-

and that the plaintiff is not entit