A lessee's lawful surrender of demised premises requires the delivery of actual, exclusive physical possession to the lessor; mere delivery of keys or symbolic surrender is insufficient, and the burden of proving such redelivery remains with the tenant to avoid liability for continued rent and occupation charges.

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,