1. M/s Variety Automotivee (p) Ltd. and 2 Others v. that the

... RespondenURespondent M/s Variety Automotives (p) Ltd. and 2 Others, Office at 1-1l't, Uppal Bagh.ayat, Uppal-Nagole Road, Hyderabad, rep by its M.D Sri.'K. Shtya Reddy. ... RespondenUl "t Appellant (R-2/First Appellant not necessary party to this apptication) Petition under Article '141 of constitution of lndia r/w Section 1Sl CpC praying that in the circurnstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order referring the subject Appeal to a larger Bench as per the ratio of the Judgement reported in A I R 200'l SC at page No 83. Counsel for the Appellants : SRI RAKESH SANGHI Counsel for the Respondents : Sri Shyam S.Agrawal The Court made the following : JUDGMENT ) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA APPEAL SUIT No.182 OF 2020 JUDGMENT: eer Hon'ble Smt. Justice Tirumata Deui Eada) This is an appeal Iiled by the appellants - defendants, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 1Z .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 arra),ed in the suit before the trial Court for the sake o[ conr.enience and clarity.

3. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is Lhat she is the absolute owner of an industrial shed bearing Municipal No.1_ 1/ 1, Uppal Baghayat, admeasuring 13,O0O Sq.l.ect and that defendant Nos.2 and 3 obtained the same under a lease dated 27 .O3.2OO4 to run their business in the name and sty[s .1 M/s.Variet5r Automotives Pvt., Ltd., for a monthly rent of \ Rs.60,0OO/- 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 conLinued to be 2 AKs,I & ETD,J As No.182 2020 in possession of the same as tcnant holding over. It is the case of the plaintiff that the lease was lrom 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.1,50,00O/- through three cheques and another ns. t,bO,ooo/ - 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' It is her case that as per the lease deed, the last monthly 4. 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 2O15 on the fiie 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 / // ;i -/ 3 AKs,J & ETD.J AS No 182 2020 parties have to approach an Arbitrator in case of disputes but the defendants filed a civil suit suppressing the said facr. In the said suit they havr: obtained a temporary injunction and the defendants havc 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 plaintifl has terminated the 1ease 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 20 13. The said notice rvas served on the defendant No.1 on 2I.06.2016 and the notice sent to defendant Nos.2 and 3 were returned with endorsements as refused and left. The defendant No. l. got issued a reply notice through an advocate taking all false and baseless pleas.

5. lt 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 rr:cover 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 4 AKS,I & EID,I AS No.182 2020 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 also to recover an amount Rs.45,12,42O/ - towards arrears of rent from the defendants' The plaintiff has also sought mesne profits for unauthorized occupation and usage of the suit property from August, 2016 till the date of delivery of vacant possesslon'

6. The defendants have filed written statement and counter claim for rendition of accoants. The defendants have admitted the relationship with the plaintiff as tenant and landlord but denied the title of the plaintiff. They stated that they have paid monthly rents @ Rs.60,0O0/- during the subsistence of lease period to the plaintiff under a misconception and that aftcr determination of the lease period, their tenancy continued on an oral basis and the monthly rent was escalated to Rs. 1,04,94O/- from 01'O1'2011 and that the defendants have paid around Rs 1,5O,00,OOO/- in excess over and above the contracted rents under the threat and intimidation of the plaintifls husband who is the former MLA of Gudivada Town. It is their contention that the plaintiff and her husband are land grabbers and that they planned to grab the Government land and when the defendants came to know of their intention, the defendants denied the Jural relationship and -7/ 5 AKs,.' & ETO,J AS No.182 2020 refused to acknowledge the plaintiff as landlord and that they denied the title of the landlord which stands extinguished during the period of tenancy.

7. It is further contended by the defendants th.rt the plaintiff has illegally misused and tampered with the blank cheques which were delivered b1, the 2"a defendant to the plaintiff as a goodwill gesture under all pervasive influence of plaintiffs husband in December, 2074 and have filed C.C.No.499 of 2015 against them. The defendants have submitted that they have filed O.S.No.923 of 20 15 on the file of the II,Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy Disrrict, L.B.Nagar and that it is still pending and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to comment on the proceedings in the said civil suit. I[ is contended by the defendants that they are iegitimately refusing to pay the rents to the plaintiff as they are refusing to acknowledge her as the lawfui owner of the suit schedule property and thus, denied the jural relationship of the landlorcl and tenant. The defendants have further denied that they have paid rents only till 20 13 and that the statement of accounts filed by the defendants would disclose that the rent and security deposit and additional rent were paid by the defendants till December, 2014. The defendants admitted to have issued reply notice dated

23.06.2016. 5 AKs,I & ETD,J AS No.182-2020

8. The defendants submitted that the plaintiff is neither the lawful owner nor a possessor o[ the suit schedule premises. [t is further allegcd by the defendants that the plaintiff's husband created various benamidars and filed a bogus application illegally claiming the ownership of the land in Uppal Baghayath Village admeasuring around Ac.04-00 gts and that the plaintiff herself is falsely claiming title to the cliling surplus land on the basis of fabricated sale deeds. They further submitted that they have gathered information that four gift deeds were created by the husband of the plaintiff and his father-in-law by utilizing the services of their be.t"Lida." and are illegally claiming title on the aforesaid land on the basis of fictitious registered sale deeds vide document Nos. 14731 1997, dated 03.03' 1997, 3847 I 1997 dated

29.O5.2OO7, lO23l1997 dated' 18.01.1997, i061/ 1997 dated 20.Ol.tgg7, g5ll1997 dated 04.01.1997, 38461 1997, dated 04.06.1997 and, 752011997 dated 05.03.1997. It is their case that the said land is further transferred to the other relatives of plaintifls husband. It is further averred by the defendants that with their highhandedness, the plaintif{'s husband after grabbing a vast extent of land, got issued a G.O.Ms.No.661, dated

03.06.2006 illegally and the beneficiaries under the said G.O' are the benamidars of the plaintiffs husband. a/ ') 7 AKS,.J & ETD,.' AS No.182 2020

9. That the cntire issue of the title and ownership of the suit schedule property is sub-judice before the High Court as W.P.No.32242 ot 2Ol4 is still pending and that in the said writ petition, the plarntiffls daughter and father are claiming title over the suit schedule property and that in the said proceedings the Government of Telangana is claiming that the land in survey Nos.455 and 453 of Uppal Baghhyat is the Government land. It is contended by the defendants that the plaintiff is a land grabber and thus, cannot seek recovery of possession from them. It is contended by the defendants that the suit woulcl arso fail on account of non joinder crf Ravi Swetha and M.Venkat Rao who are the daughter and father of the plaintiff respectively and are necessary parties to the suit and that they have also filed an application seeking to implead both of them along with some revenue olficials.

10. The defenclants have hled counter claim stating that from 01.04.2010 till I)ecember, 2014, the defendants paid to the plaintiff a sum ol' Rs. 1,32,93,35O1_ and, out of the said amount, the contracted and admitted rent for the said period amounts to Rs.53,87,28Ol- and thus, the plaintiff is illegally retaining a balance of Rs.78,96,O70/_ since January, 2015 and that even if the annual rent for the years 2OlS, 2016 and for a period of five 8 AKS,J & ETD,] AS No 182 2020 \ months in 2Ol7 are taken into consideration @ Rs. 1,04,940/- p.m. totaling to Rs.27,32,700/-, the plaintiff is still illegally retaining their excess amount of Rs.51,63,370 I -. Til,e defendants denied the jural relationship of the landlord and tenant with the plaintiff from December, 2Ol4 onwards and that the plaintiff is liable to repay the aforesaid excess amount of Rs.78,96,O7O / - illegally collected from the defendants. Thus, the defendants filed counter claim for rendition of account and repayment of excess amount alleged to have been collected by the plaintiff and they have also claimed alternative relief of set off if the Court concludes that the jural relationship is still subsisting. Wherebv, the plaintiff is entitled to the rental arrears w.e.f. 01.01.2O15 and in such an event the hnal amount which may be adjudged in final decree proceedings may be adjusted against the plaintifls claim for rental arrears by way of a set off. 1 1 Based on the above pleadings, the trial court has framed the following issue for trial. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of the defendants from the suit schedule property as prayed for?

2. To what relief.z" l 9 AKS,] & ETD.J AS No.182 2020

12. At the time of trial, the plaintiff got examinecl pWl and got marked Exs.Al to 47. On behalf of the defendants, no evidence was adduced.

13. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has decreed the suit directing the defendants to vacate the suit schedule property and hand over the possession to the plaintiff and further directed to pay arrears of rent i.e., Rs.45,12 ,42O l_. Aggrieved by the said decree, the present appeai is frled by the defendan ts.

14. Heard the submission of Sri Rakesh Sanghi, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Shyam S.Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent.

15. The learned appelrants counser has submitted that the judgment and decree of the triar court are perverse a,,d are opposed to the facts of the case. He further submitted that the trial Judge has committed a grave error in ailowing i.A.No.964 of 2016 imposing a condition for payment of rents to defend the suit. He further argued that the plaintiff is virtually a benamidar of the real owners namely M.Venkat Rao and R.Swetha, as per the registered sale deeds marked by them in I.A.No.964 of 2016 during the pendency of the suit. He further submitted that the 10 AKS,I & ETD,J AS No.182 2020 suit schedule property constitutes ceiling surplus land under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 which was taken over by the State and handed over to HMDA for Musi River beatihcation project and that the above named real owners have hled two writ petitions which are pending before the High Court. It is further contended by the counsel that the learned trial Judge ought not to have dismissed their I.A.No.964 of 2016 and that the trial Court has not considered the documents hled by them in the said I.A. He further argued that the evidence of the plaintiff before the trial Court as pWl amounts to perjury as she falsely denied the authenticity of the signature of her husband and GPA holder in the certihed copy of the evidence aflidavit recorded in C.C.No.499 of 2015 which was confronted to her in the course of cross examination. He further argued that the trial Court has committed an error in not marking the certihed copy of the writ petition as an exhibit in the suit and that the learned trial Court ought to have held that the Government is claiming the surpius iand and that the said land has been taken over by the Government and handedover to HMDA for Musi River beautihcation project and that the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of Government and also M.Venkat Rao and R.Swetha. He further submitted that the trial Court has committed error in holding that the lease under Ex.Al was obtained by 1st appellant a'/ I 11 AXS,J & ETD,,] AS No.182 2020 company but in fact the lease was obtained by the f,na appellant alone and thus, arraying the first appellant as lst defendant in O.S.No.1417 ol 2016 constitutes a case of Misjoinder. Thus, he argued that the trial Court has given an erroneous judgment and therefore, prayed to set aside the same by allowing this appeal.

16. The learned respondent counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the trial Court has appreciated the evidence on record in a proper perspective and that though the defendant has raised many contentions through his written statement, they have not put forth any evidence on record in proof of their contentions. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence, the case of piaintifl's stood proved and therefore, the trial Court was right in allowing his suit. Therefore, he prayed to uphold the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 17 . Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the foliowing points for consideration: 1) Whether the plaintiff is defendants vacated from property? entitied to the suit get the schedule 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim arrears of rent? 3) Whether an amount of Rs.78,96,070/- was paid in excess by the defendants to the plaintifP If so, whether the defendant is entitled to ciaim it from the piaintifP AK5,J & ETD,J AS No.182-2020 4) Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court is sustainable in law and under the facts? 5) To what relieP

18. POINT NOs.1 AND 2 a) The contention of the plaintiff is that in pursuance of lease deed, the defendants were inducted into the suit schedule premises as a tenant and that the defendants failed to vacate the same after the expiry of lease period, and also has not paid the enhanced rent and has committed default in paying rents' therefore, the plaintiff is claiming eviction and arrears of rent' PWl asserted the said fact in his evidence' In support of her contention,shehasfiledEx.Althecertilredcopyofleasedeed. b) A perusal of the said document/Ex'Al reveals that it ts a lease deed d,ated 27.O3.2004 entered into between the plaintiff as the lessor and defendant No'2 and one Kandi Prabhakar Reddy werelessees,overanareaofl30oosq.ftforgodownpurpose.It isalsomentionedinthetermsofleasethatmonthlyrentshallbe enhanced @ l5o/o w.e.f Ol'O7 '2006' The lease holds good for five years. Therefore, it makes out the case of the plaintiff that there was a lease deed dated 27 'O3 2OO4 and that it was agreed upon to increase the rent @ l5%o w e'f' 01 07'20O6' Clause No'4 says it shall be enhanced by 5%o for every three years to which lessee has 7 13 AKS,I & EID,] AS No.182 2020 given its consent. However, another Clause No.4(i) is added specifying that the rent sha.ll be enhanced @)157o w.e.f. Ol.O7 .2006. The lease deed establishes the jural relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants as the lessor and the lessees. c) The plaintiff as PW1 has arlmitted that as per the plaint, the last paid rent is Rs.1,03,000/- per month and he h:rs not sought the relief of escalzition of rent in the plaint. When the witness was confronted with the certified copy of evidence affidavit filed in C.C.No.499 of 2015,, which was hled by her husband R.Venkateshwara Rao as GPA holder. PW1 has statecl that it does not bear her husband's signature. The learned appcllant counsel has argued that the PWl has spoken false on oath and that it speaks the conduct of the plaintiff. Though the counsel argued that the trial Court has not considered the documents marked by them in I.A.No.964 of 2016, no documents are marked in the suit and no evidence is adduced by the defendant ir-r the suit. Therefore, there is nothing on record in support of defendants' CASC. d) Once the lease deed is proved, the tenant i.e. lessee has to pay the rents at the agreed rate and at the expiry o1'Jease period either it has to be renewed or they have to vacate the premises. \ L4 AKS,J & ETD,J AS No.182 2020 The case of the plaintiff is that PWl has deposed in the chief examination that the defendant committed default in paying the rents and also has not vacated the suit schedule property after the expiry of lease period. Nothing material was elicited during the cross examination of PWi to dislodge her evidence. e) Ex.A2 shows that she has issued legal notice on 20.06.2016 asking the defendants to vacate the suit schedule property, the postal receipts hled under Ex.A3 and also the postal acknowledgment under Ex.A4 shows that the notice was served on defendant No.l on 21.06.2016, while the notices sent to defendant Nos.2 and 3 returned un-served. Exs.AS and ,4.6 are the returned un-served postal covers. It is pertinent to mention in this regard that defendant Nos.2 and 3 are none other than the business partners of defendant No.l The property itself is a 13000 Sq.ft given for godown purpose, wherein the defendants carried on their business. The reply notice is filed under Ex.A7. The contents of which shows that the defendants have admitted that they were inducted as tenants in the suit schedule property and that after the determination of lease period the tenancy continued on an oral basis and the monthly rent was escalated to around Rs. 1,O4,94O/- and that he paid an excess amount of Rs.1;50,00,00O/ - to the plaintiff and has asked for its refund. 7 15 AKS,J & ETD,J AS No.182 2020 0 It is further averred in the reply notice that in December, 2Ol4 he came to know that the plaintiff is not the lawful owner of the suit schedule property and that the plaintiffs husband is a land grabber along with few other relatives and therefore, he is denying the ownership of the plaintiff and thus, has denied the jural relationship between himself and the plaintiff. He therefore, has put forth in his reply notice that the plaintiff is not the lawful owner and hence, she cannot claim eviction of the defendants and that she is also not entitled to claim rents and arrears. PW1 asserted that the defendanti have committed default of paying the rent but the defendants have not put forth any evidence to prove that they have paid rents subsequently also. g) Thus, the defendant has admitted in his written statement that he got inducted as a tenant in the suit schedule premises as per the lease deed under Ex.Al and has been paying rents and that the last.paid rent was Rs. 1,04,94O/-. However, he alleges that the plaintiff is not the lawful owner of the property and that he is learnt about the said fact in December, 2Ol4 and thus, he denies the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and he has further clenies the payment of rents and arrears to her. Once he has admitted the lease deed and the fact that he got inducted as a tenant, he has to stick to the terms of the lease 16 AKs,] & ETD,J AS No.182 2020 deed and has to pay the rents as agreed upon. On the expiry of lease dded there is no other lease deed entered into by the parties' Therefore, as mentioned in the lease deed on the expiry of lease period the defendant has to vacate the suit schedule premises, which is not done. The notice issued by the plaintiff under Ex A2 had to be complied with by the defendants but instead he got issued a reply notice. Though the defendant has leveled several allegations in the reply notice, he has not put forth any evidence nor has disproved the evidence produced by the plaintiff' Therefore, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled for evicting the defendants from the slit schedule property and also is entitled for arrears of rent. Point Nos. 1 and 2 ate answered accordingly'

19. POINT NO.3: The defendants have averred that they have paid excess rent to an extent of Rs.78,96,07O l- to the plaintiff and that they are entitled to recover the same from the plaintiff through their counter claim but they have not produced any evidence in this regard. In the absence of any evidence, it is hard to believe the version of the defendants that they have paid excess amount to the plaintiff towards rents' Thus, it is held that the defendants could not prove the counter claim made by them, hence, they are 7 17 AKS,J & ETD,] A5 No.182 2020 not entitled to any relief made under counter claim. point No.3 is answered accordingly.

20. POINT NO.4: In view of ihe reasoned findings arrived at point Nos.1 to 3, it is held that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court do not need any interference. and the sarne are held to be sustainable under the law and in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2],. POINT NO.S: In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the judgment and decree, dated 17.O2.202O passed in O.S.No. l4l7 of 2016 by the learned III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.I.lagar. No costs. Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY l,DEPUTY REGISTRAR l'uI I\l 'i sEcIoN oFFtcER

1. The lllrd Additional District Judge, R.R District, L B Nagar. 2. One CC to Sri Rakesh Sanghi, Advocate [OPUC] 3 One CC to Sri Shyam S Agrawal, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies To, Svs/gh a HIGH COURT DATED: 1 810612025 JUDGMENT AS.No.182 of 2020 . 1I{E S T4 Cr 16 JUL o T !). 1 DISMISSING THE APPEAL SUIT o