The Hon’ble Smt. Justice Renuka Yara Second Appeal No.338 of 2025

Judgment:

Heard Sri Raja Gopallavan Tayi, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri K. Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent, on the question of admission. Perused the record.

2. This is a Second appeal preferred aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 13.03.2025 in A.S.No.8 of 2024 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 04.08.2023 in O.S.No.1733 of 2022 (Old O.S.No.263 of 2018) on the fie of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed suit for eviction against the appellants/defendants with respect to suit schedule property consisting of shop bearing No.108, situated at Padmavathi Plaza, Opp. Kukatpally Housing Board, Hyderabad with plinth area admeasuring 400 Sft. together with common area bounded by East: Corridor, West: Road, North: Shop No.109, South: Shop No.107. The appellants herein were served with summons and they made appearance before the Trial Court. Thereafter, filed written statement but failed cross examine witness PW1 and also did not adduce either documentary or oral evidence. Thus, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the respondent herein, the suit was decreed directing the appellants herein to vacate the shop within one month from the date of judgment. Aggrieved by the same, the First Appeal is preferred to set aside the judgment of the Trial Court.

4. Upon hearing both the counsel, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of the Trial Court as there was admission of jural relationship of landlord and tenant and execution of Lease Deed dated 20.06.2011. Exception is taken to the fact that the appellants herein did not cross examine PW1 and did not enter the witness box to support their version. The First Appellate Court held that when there is no oral evidence to support the pleadings, when there is evidence on the part of the respondent herein in terms of oral and documentary evidence, when the evidence clinchingly establishes that there is a landlord-tenant relationship on the basis of Lease Deed dated 20.06.2011, the respondent herein is entitled to the relief of granting eviction of the appellants. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the present Second Appeal is filed raising the following substantial questions of law:

1) Whether the decree passed by lower court without affording sufficient opportunity to the defendant to defend and adduce evidence is sustainable and violates principles of natural justice?

2) Whether the courts below were justified in decreeing the suit solely on the basis of unchallenged evidence, without independently verifying the veracity of the plaintiff's claims?

3) Whether, in the absence of a framed issue regarding the validity and service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, amounts to procedural irregularity and render invalid decree and Judgement?

4) Whether the lower court and appellate court erred in holding the appellants responsible for procedural lapses that were entirely due to the negligence of the engaged counsel?

5) Whether the dismissal of the first appeal without appreciating facts and evidence is perverse and contrary to law?

6) That the courts below failed to exercise judicial discretion in a reasonable manner, thereby causing grave miscarriage of justice to the appellant, who has a meritorious defense?

7) That the appellate court failed to frame points for determination as required under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, thereby rendering its judgment unsustainable in law?

8) The Appellants initially filed Copy Application No.1687 of 2025 on 24/03/2025, seeking certified copies of the judgment and decree. However, the certified copy of the judgment was served on 24/04/2025, the decree copy w