High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI. R. A. ACHUTHANAND Counsel forthe Respondent: M/s. PEARL LAW ASSOCIATES The Court delivered the following Common Judgment : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NOs.34 5 OF 2OO7 AND 35 0F 2()()a COMMON JUDGMENT: (per llon'ble Srat. Justice Tiumqla Deui Eada) These two appeals are lilecl by the appellant(s) aggrieved b5r the judgment and decrce d^ted 24.o2.2o07 passecr in o.S.No.60 of 2O01 by the learned I Adciirional Chief .Iudge , CiLy Civil Courr, Secunderabad (hereinafter retbrrcd Lo as,the trial CourtJ.

2. The parties herein .rrc rclcrred lo as the-],. were arrayecl in the suit before the lrial Court for thc sake of convenience and clarity.

3. The case of the plain Lifl belore the trierl Cour.t is that thc plaintiff committce is a registercd Board under the Joint srock Companies Ac1: and it is tht. ou,ne r of the cellar, ground and hrst floor forming part of prt.miscs ircaring M No.9_4 _67, situated aL St.Mary's Road, Ser:rtnderab:rcl :rncl that the <lefenclant was tl,re tenant of the plaintifl [n the gro,jnd tloor covering an area oI 340O Sft, a locker admc."asuring a n arcit of COO Slt and parking space of 50O sft. 1'he monthly rent lor thc saicl prcmises was Rs.25,O00/_ along with exclusive electricit' aud waLe r consumption charges ancl that the plaintifl has leasecr ()ut the said premises on oral tenancy arld that thcre is n, rcgisrr:r'ttr rcasc dcccr r-rcru.cen thc plaintiff urnd iE\-- -r AKS,J & ETD,J CCCA Nos.345_2007 & 35-2008 2 the defendant. That the defendant used to Pa)'monlhlv rcnts on or belore lorh ol every month in advance. The plaintiil instrrrcted the defendant bank to credit the monthly rent in plaintiif's accounl and lhat on reconciliation of the pass book, thcl'noLrc(rd thal the rcnt ol August, 1998 was not credited and it was brought Lo lhc notice ol the defendant for vioiating the terms and conditions of oral tenancy' Thus, the plaintifl got issued a legal noticc to the dcfendant and that the defendant failed to comply with thc demand inspite oi several requests and that the defendant was continuitlg in thc said premises holding over from month to month tcrlancy ever since August, 1998. Plaintiff is the owner of the btrilding and il is managed by Sikh Gurudwara Prabhandh Cornmit tce and that the plaintiff also has a dispensary ir-r the said premises and free medicines are being given to patients along u'ith a school berng run for the benefit of poor students lt is Lheir case tilat they are doing ycoman scrvices to the society and thal number ol pilgrims from several places visil Gurudwara and that the plaintrfl has to providc accommodation to the pilgrims and that thc plaintilf u'ants to open a diagnostic centre in the portion of the suit propcrtl,' and it rs also causing hardship to the plaintiff while holding meetings and for carrying on day to day administration, thereby it has informcd the defendant about its personal requiremenL and requested the detendant to vacate the premises but the defendant lailed to do so, - AK5,J & ETD,] CCCA Nos.345 2007 & 35 2008 3 as such, the plaintiff issued a legal notice for termination of tenancy on O1.O5.20O1 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to handover the vacant possession by 01.07.200 l. lt was also brought to the notice of the defendant rhar in case ir disputes their tenancy month, it may vacale the premiscs on thc corrcsponding 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 periocl o[ fivc years wilh a lurther renewal lor anoLher five years at an cnherncement o[ 2O%o over t]ne existing rent and that the said pleas of the defendant are false and after issuance of legal notice, thc defendant credited the rent for the month of Augusl, 1998 to the plzrintill's accounL. Thus, getting vexed with the attitude of the defcndan t, rhe plaintilf has tentatively clain-red damages @ Rs. 1 ,00,000/ - per month and that it has a bonafide requirement of the prernises :rnd thus, the suit is hled.

4. The defendant has filed its written statement admitting the tenancy and aiso the rate of monthll' rent and also admitted that lhere is no regisLered lease deed but at the same time the defendant denies the allegation ol plaintif[ that tl)(r tenancy is oral. He further admitted the monthly rent to be payable on or bclore 10th of every month in advance. With regard to the non paymcnl of rent for Augusl, 1998, the defendant has statcd that due to clerical error, the lapse has occurred and i[ was not pllt to the notice of the bank, I AKS,] & ETD,J CCCA Nos.l'lt 200 / & 35 2008 4 \-1 - \ ti1l they received the legal notice. Therefore, on receipL of legal notice they have remitted the said rent into thc plaintiff,s account. They conLended that thc notice dated 01.05.2000 is not as per lO6 of the TP Act, thus thcy replied. It is their case that the plaintill agreed to renew the lease for another livc ycars u,ith an enhancemenL of rent by 2Oo/o over the existing rent ancl that the existing ren[ was Rs.25,100/- and an increase on 2Otk u.ould be Rs.30,100/ per month and that they have also addressecl :r letter dated 21.03.2O00 about the expiry of initial period of fivc ,vears and requested to execute a fresh lease deed for another fivc vears and that they have also addressed a letter on 23.O4.1994 to the plaintiff stating that the suit premises is offered by thr: plaintill has bcen tentatively accepted by the defendanL subject to the Lcrms and conditions stated therein and the period of lcase u,as specilicaly mentioned in the said letter and that they havc paid an zrdr,ance rent of Rs.75,300/- to the plaintiff and the plaintilf requesred rhat the said amount be allowed to be retained with them as advance rent till the said premises is vacated by the defendant. That the plaintilf never responded to their requests made through their letters dated 27.1O.7995 and 3O. 72.lgg7 to execute the lcase dced extending Iease period and on 05.08.2000 the defendant paid another amount of Rs.29,09 1/- tou'ards electricitl, consumcr deposit for the suit premises and that the present suit claiming AKS,J & ETD,J CCCA Nos 345 2007 & 35 2008 5 damages is imaginary and illusive in nature and thus, needs to be dismissed

5. Based on the above pleadings, thc trial court framed the follou..ing points for consideration: "1) 2) 3) 4) Whether there is valid notice under sec.106 ol Transfer of Property Act? Whether the plaintiff is entitled lbr the relief of eviction of the defendant from thc plaint schedule property and for vacanl possession of the said property? Whether the plaintiff is entitled frlr a Rs- 1O,56,590/ togethcr rrvith ir-rtr.rcst at from the defendant, as being claimed plaintifP sum ol 24oi, p.a. by the Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages at the rate of Rs. 1,O0,000/- p.m. from the date of filing ot the suit? 5) To what relieP"

6. At the time of trial, the plaintiff goL examincd pWs I and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. On behalf of the defendant, DWs I and 2 were examined and Exs. B 1 to BB rl,e rc nt:rr-ke d.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has decreed the suit with costs and held that the plaintilf is entitled for damages @JRs.25,000/- per month lrom Lhe date of tL-rmln.1tion oI lenancy i.e. on 02.07.2OO0 till the vacation of premises i.e. on O5.09.2005 with rnterest @12% p.a. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, AKS,] & TTD'] CCCA Nos.345-2007 & 35,2008 6 CCCA No.345 of 2OO7 is preferred by the defendant seeking to set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court, \'hilc CCCA No 35 of 2OO8 is prelerred by the plaintiff seeking mesne profits'

8. Heard the submissions of Sri R A Achuthanand' learned counsel for rhc plaintitl and M/s Pearl Law Associates' appearing for the defendant g.Thelearnedcounselfortheappellant/defendantinCCCA No.345 ol 2OO7 has submilted lhat thc judgment is devoid of mcrits and the trial Courl failed to observe glaring conlradictions and inconsistencies in the plaintiff's eviclence and tha t the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on proper perspective and has committed a serious error in decreeing the suit The trial court failed to consider the documents filed by the defendant' especiall-v their letters requesting for execution of lease deed and has iust believed the evidence adduced by the plaintiff' He further argued that lhe trial courl has not appreciated that there rvas a rcneu'al of lease under Ex 82 for a furlher period of five years up to

22.o6.2oos.Hetherefore,prayedtosetasidethejudgmenland decree by allowing this aPPeal.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant/ plaintiff in CCCA No-35 2OO8 has submitted that though the plaintiff claimcd Rs.1,OO,OOO/- per month towards damages' the trial Court has - AKS,J & ETD,] CCCA Nos.345 2007 & 35 2008 7 awarded only Rs.2S,OOO/- per month which is ver,,, low and the Court below failed to consider that the premises is situated in a prime locality at st.Mary's Roacl, Secunderabad and has arvarded vcry mcager amount towards damagcs. In [act, their suit was supposed to be decreed as per their claim and that the trial Court has lailed Lo take into consideration the admissions made by DW 1 in his evidence. He therefore, prayed to allow their appeal by au.arding damages @) Rs.l,0O,OOOl_ per monrh by serting aside rhe judgment and decree passed by the trial court, anct lurther prayed to dismiss the CCCA No.345 ol 2OO7. i 1- Bascd on the above rival submissions, this Court frames the following points for consideration: r) 2) Whether the plaintiffs in O. S. No.60 ol 2OO I entitled to claim damagcs from the defendant? so, to what extent? Whelher the judgment and decree of the rrial Court is sustainable under law and in facts? 3) To what reliel?

12. POINT NO.1: a) It is the case of the plaintiff that it is a regrstered commitlee vicle Ex.A I that the del'endant is their tenanl under oral tenancy paying ren[ of Rs.25,O0O/_ per month and committed dclault from August, 1998, thus, they are clarming damages @ Rs. l,OO,O0 O / per AK5,I & ETD,J CCCA Nos.345 2007 & 35 2008 8 't month. The same is reiterated by PW 1 during his chief examination. Though, it is alleged in the plaint that the defendant has committed default from August, 1998, it is brought oul in thc evidence ol PWI that the defendant has credited the said rent for the month of August, i998. lt is also not out of place to mention that the noticc under Section 106 of the TP Act was issued by the plaintiff on 01 .O5.200O, vide Ex.AS. The contention of the defendant is that the non payment of rent for the month of August, 1998 is due lo clcrical error and on receiving the notice from the plaintiff, Lhe defendant rcalized lhe same and deposited the said amount immediately. 'lhe suit is filed only for evicting thc defendant, nou.here the plaintiff claimed for arrears of rent that means the defendant has deposited the rent till the date of filing the b) The plaintilf contended that it had bonafide requirement as iL the Sikh Gurudwara Prabhandh resolvcd by Committec/ plaintilf to ope n a diagnostic centre in the portion of suit property and also that it was facing hardship to manage the alfairs of thc Prabhandh committee including holding of meetings and day to day administration and thus, for its bonafide requirement it has asked the defendant to vacate the suit premises. ln support of [he said contention, it has hled Exs.A7 and A8 which AKS,J & EID,J CCCA Nos.34s-2007 & 3S-2008 9 are the minutes of resolution of the committee expressing the said decision ol operring diagnostic cenlre. c) In support of his case, he got examined pW2 also anci the evidence of PW2 shows that pW2 and his wife are the co_owners of mulgie bearing unit No. 102 in premises No.9_ l- I2T l4 on lhe ground floor of Amsri Classic admeasuring 2,g00 Sft, situated ar S.D.Road, Secunderabad and that they havc jointly leased out the property to Dr.D.Kavita Reddy and Krishna Reddy under a lease deed clated O9.O2.2OO4 on a monthly rent of Rs.SO,OOO/_ and Rs.30,OOO/- tou,ards hire charges for fixtures, fittings, lurniture and other amenities and that the said lease is ior a period of nine years and that the tenants have deposited Rs.7,00,0O0/_ on free of interest towards advance rent and it is also agreed [hat after every two J,'ears, the enhancement will be 5% on the existing rent. Thus, the rate of rent to the said premises is @Rs.2O/_ per sft and it is elicited through him that the suit schedule property is in the adjacent br-rilding of the said premises. Thus, his evidence is thiLt the suit schedule premises also can fetch more than Rs.25/_ per sft and PW2 has also filed bank statement under which the rent for rhe months April to July was encashed. Nothing matcrial could be elicited in the cross examination ol pWs 1 and 2 to discredit their evidence. The defendant, on the other hand, has filed Exs.B1 to Bg in support of its case and admittedly, therc is no lease decd AKS,] & ETD,] CCCA Nos 345 2007 & 35 2008 10 \ between the plaintiff and the defendant. Exs.B I to 88 are the leLters addrcssed between the parties and the legal nolices issued. It is elicitcd from the said exhibirs that thcre was no regislered ieasc deed cxer-utcd belr,,l'cen the part ics. cl) Admittedl-v, thc renL u,as Rs.25,1O0/ per month, but whcrcas the plaintiff herein claims damages to a tune of Rs. 1,00,00O I - per month. PW2 supported thc case of plaintiff by deposing with rcgard to lhe rent that is paid for his premises. However, though the adjaccnL pre mises is let out.on a higher rent, the plaintiff cannot go beyond wha[ is agreed upon betu,ce n himself and his tenant. DW 1 during his cross examination has admitted that the property would fetch a rcnt of Rs.2O/- to 25/- per sft and that after vacating the suit premises, the defendant bank has occupied another premises in the year 2005, n,hich is at a distance of 20O yards from the suit schedule property and is paying a rent of Rs.30/- per sft for the ground and first floor. Thus, the claim of the plaintiff @ Rs. 1,00,000/ per month Lowards damages is without any basis and beyond the scope of rent agreed upon by the defendant. e) Thus, on an overall perusal of thc cvidcnce, it is held that thc damages of Rs.25,000/ per month from the date of termination of tenancy i.e. 02.O7.2OO0 till the defendant has vacated the premises i.e. 05.09.2005 is opined to be justified, in the present case and the AK5,J & ETD,] CCCA Nos.345 2007 & 3s 2008 11 same is awarded by the trial Court. Point No. I is ansrvered accordingly.

13. POINT NO.2: . In vieu. ol the findings arrivcd at point No.1, it is held that thc juclgment and decree passed by the trial Court do not need any interlerence and the same are held to be sustainable in law and under the facts and circumstances of the case.

14. POINT NO.3: In lhe result, the both the appeals are dismissed upholding the ludgment and decree daLed 24.02.2007 passed in O.S.No.60 of 20O I by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Sccunderabad. No costs. Misccllancous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC OFFICER To, 'l . The l Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad (with records) 2. One CC to M/s. PEARL LAW ASSOCIATES' Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. R. A. ACHUTHANAND' Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two CD CoPies kul/PSL W HIGH COURT DATED:02/05/2025 "t s ( ( UIE n 2025 k +COMMON DECREE Common Judgment CCCA.Nos.345 ol 2007 and 35 of 2008 DISMISSING THE BOTI.I THE APPEALS WTTHOUT COSTS G."fd \C+- ffara5 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAV]LI And THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA crrycurL cOURT APPEAL Nos: 345 0F 2007 and 35 of 2008 C.C.C.A. No.34 5 ot 2007 Between: state Bank of lndia. reo by its Branch Manager o/o.st.Mary's Road [g779], portion, pr frgqris^e9 .t!g,9_+-q7, Ground Ftoor, SecindeirbJo. piesenitv-r6lrie<j' ,irr,tcH ll^o.9-1^-199/218t1t2, Ground Ftoor, Sona Arcade, St. Mary,s nodO,-S.tuna"ribrA 500003 AND ...APPELLANT/ Defendant sikh Gurudwara Prabhandh committ?e, rep bv^ its Secretary sri Avatar singh, s/o.sri Jodh singh succeqded by its Secreiary Sri saroar guiuiSing'n,-oz Vears secretary of the Petitioner commi-ftee R/o.H.No:403, sanaJe npi.tm-e"is,'sl.rra-ncis Street, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENT/ Ptaintiff Appeal Under Section 96 Rl/w. Order XLI of C.p.C. aggrieved by the Judgment and.decree dated 24-02-2007 in o.s.No. 60 of 2001 6i ft,e rite 6r tn" Court of the 1"r Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad This Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appears, . the Judgment and Decree of the Lower court and the malerial f,apers in the'case and upon hearing the arguments of M/s. pearl Law Associates, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri R.A.Achuthanand, Advocate for the Respondent. I . l i I I CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO: 35 OF 2008 Between: sikh Gurudwara Prabhand committee, _E"p !y its secretary sri Avatar singh secretary of the Petitioner committee R/o H.No. 403, sanade Apartments, 5t. Francis Street, Secunderabad. AND ...APPELLANT/ pldintiff State Bank of India, .Rep by its Branch Manager. situated St. Marys Road, 8779, Portion of Premises No. 9-4-67, Ground Floor,-Sec-Bad Now at M.N. g_1_1,bgt2l1, Sona Arcade, St. Marrys Road, Secunderabad. ...RESpONDENif OetenOint Appeal Under Section 96 Read with Order 41 Rule 1 of CpC aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 2442-2007 in o.s.No. 60 of 2001 oi-ttre Rl" of the court of the I Additional chief Judge, city civil court, secunderabad. This Appeal coming on ior hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeals, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri R.A. Achuthanand, Advocate for the Appellant and of M/s. Pearl Law Associates, Advocate for the Respondent. This Court doth order and Common decree as follows: '1. That the_ both -appeals be 1nd hereby are dismissed upholding the judgment and decree date:|24-02-2007 passed in O.S.No. dO of ZOdt Oy the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, SecunderaOadi

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in both appeals. /1 7'au6 c$d y / SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUW REGISTRAR S€c oFFt c€L To

1. The I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. 2. Two C.D.Copies kul py HIGH COURT DATED:02/05/2025 +COMMON DECREE CCCA.Nos.345 oI 2007 and 35 of 2008 DISMISSTNG THE BOTH THE APPEALS WITHOUT COSTS "d&4 X^."