HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NOs.345 OF 2007 AND

35 OF 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice Tirumala Devi Eada) These two appeals are filed by the appellant(s) aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2007 passed in O.S.No.60 of 2001 by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’).

2. 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 before the trial Court is that the plaintiff committee is a registered Board under the Joint Stock Companies Act and it is the owner of the cellar, ground and first floor forming part of premises bearing M.No.9-4-67, situated at St.Mary’s Road, Secunderabad and that the defendant was the tenant of the plaintiff in the ground floor covering an area of 3400 Sft, a locker admeasuring an area of 600 Sft and parking space of 500 sft. The monthly rent for the said premises was Rs.25,000/- along with exclusive electricity and water consumption charges and that the plaintiff has leased out the said premises on oral tenancy and that there is no registered lease deed between the plaintiff and the defendant. That the defendant used to pay monthly rents on or before 10th of every month in advance. The plaintiff instructed the defendant bank to credit the monthly rent in plaintiff’s account and that on reconciliation of the pass book, they noticed that the rent of August, 1998 was not credited and it was brought to the notice of the defendant for violating the terms and conditions of oral tenancy. Thus, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant and that the defendant failed to comply with the demand inspite of several requests and that the defendant was continuing in the said premises holding over from month to month tenancy ever since August, 1998. Plaintiff is the owner of the building and it is managed by Sikh Gurudwara Prabhandh Committee and that the plaintiff also has a dispensary in the said premises and free medicines are being given to patients along with a school being run for the benefit of poor students. It is their case that they are doing yeoman services to the society and that number of pilgrims from several places visit Gurudwara and that the plaintiff has to provide accommodation to the pilgrims and that the plaintiff wants to open a diagnostic centre in the portion of the suit property and it is also causing hardship to the plaintiff while holding meetings and for carrying on day to day administration, thereby it has informed the defendant about its personal requirement and requested the defendant to vacate the premises but the defendant failed to do so, as such, the plaintiff issued a legal notice for termination of tenancy on 01.05.2001 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to handover the vacant possession by 01.07.2001. It was also brought to the notice of the defendant that in case it disputes their tenancy month, it may vacate the premises on the corresponding date. The defendant has acknowledged the notice but has not vacated the premises instead it has issued a reply notice dated 23.05.2000 alleging that the lease was for a period of five years with a further renewal for another five years at an enhancement of 20% over the existing rent and that the said pleas of the defendant are false and after issuance of legal notice, the defendant credited the rent for the month of August, 1998 to the plaintiff’s account. Thus, getting vexed with the attitude of the defendant, the plaintiff has tentatively claimed damages @ Rs.1,00,000/- per month and that it has a bonafide requirement of the premises and thus, the suit is filed.

4. The defendant has filed its written statement admitting the tenancy and also the rate of monthly rent and also admitted that there is no registered lease deed but a