THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No. 2846 of 1992 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.1991 in O.S.No.66 of 1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Anakapalli dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.29,500/- and also arrears of rent and damages. The allegations in the plaint go to show that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit building and the 1st defendant for the office of the 2nd defendant has taken it on rent, which is to be fixed by the Roads and Buildings Department. The plaintiff requested the 2nd defendant to vacate the premises before 31.07.1981 and agreed to pay the rent at Rs.1,200/- per month from 01.03.1981 to 31.07.1991. In pursuance of the same, there were discussions and negotiations with the defendant. The 2nd defendant by his letter dated 31.10.1982 agreed to pay the rent at Rs.1,200/- per month from 01.03.1981 to 31.07.1981 and thereafter to pay the rent at the maximum rent from August, 1981. The defendants have failed to pay the same and vacated the premises on 31.10.1982 and during the course of the occupation the defendants have damaged the premises. After repeated requests, the plaintiff has received a sum of Rs.14,000/- and for the balance amount the suit was filed. The 1st defendant filed written statement admitting the tenancy and contending that the rent was paid @ Rs.700/- per month till 31.10.1982 when the premises was vacated. Therefore, there is no liability to pay the rent. The suit is not maintainable. The 2nd defendant filed written statement contending that the fixation of rent is to be finalized by the Board. The Board has not given any sanction for enhancement of the rent. There are no damages as claimed. Unless there is a sanction, the plaintiff is not entitled for the enhanced rent. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial: 1. Whether the defendants vacated the building on 31.12.1982 in pursuance of the notice of the plaintiff? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the rent as prayed for? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the damages as prayed for? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest claimed? 5. To what compensatory costs are the defendants entitled? 6. To what relief? The plaintiff also filed another suit in O.S.No.94 of 1987 for recovery of rents for another building and both the suits were tried together. After consolidation of both the suits, the following issues were consolidated: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the damages as prayed for? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest claimed? 4. Whether the defendants are entitled to compensatory costs? 5. To what relief? On behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-112 and on behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.B-1 to B-5. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Subordinate Judge, Anakapalli dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that there was no concluded contract for enhancement of the rent from Rs.700/- to Rs.1,200/- and, therefore, the plaintiff’s claim is not tenable. Furthermore, the claim for damages is not correct. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed. The points that arise for consideration are: 1) Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to the rent @ Rs.1,200/- per month from 01.03.1981 to 31.07.1981 and subsequently till 31.10.1982? 2) Whether the plaintiff suffered damages as claimed? 3) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge is legal and sustainable? POINT NOS.1 to 3: There is no dispute about the fact that the premises belonging to the plaintiff was originally let out in the year 1971 and the rent fixed was Rs.700/-. Evidently, neither the defendants nor the plaintiff have filed the original agreement about the time at which the premises was let out to the defendants. It is not in dispute that the rent has to be assessed by the Roads and Buildings Department officials and thereafter the rent has to be recommended by the 2nd defendant and approved by the Board. In this connection, the plaintiff refers to Ex.A-1, which is a letter dated 30.10.1982 addressed by the 2nd defendant to the plaintiff stating that as per the calculations by the civil branch, the claim for Rs.2,000/- is not proper and as per the calculations of the Roads & Buildings rates, the proposals were sent to the higher authorities to sanction the rent for the building @ Rs.700/- per month. After the receipt of the sanctioned amount by the Board, the amount of Rs.1,200/- will be paid. This letter clearly goes to show that the Roads and Buildings authorities have assessed the rental value at Rs.1,200/- per month in 1982 and it was also recommended to the Board. Therefore, the reasonable rent, the plaintiff, will be entitled is Rs.1,200/- per month, which was determined by the authorities. The letter Ex.A-9 dated 17.09.1982 clearly goes to show that during the discussions by the landlord and the tenant, it was accepted by the plaintiff to receive Rs.1,200/- per month from 01.03.1981 and a consent letter was requested. Thereafter, when the plaintiff insisted for Rs.2,000/- under Ex.A-10 information was given that they are vacating the premises by 31.10.1982. Therefore, it is quite clear that an understanding has been received for payment of rent at Rs.1,200/- per month and it was a reasonable rent assessed by the departmental authorities. The avoidance of the payment of the said rent was on the ground that the proposals were sent to the Board and that they were not accepted. It is also to be noted that it is not the case of the defendants that the proposals were rejected by the Department and that there is no liability. But, as can be seen from the evidence of D.W.1, the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board has enhanced the monthly rent of the building to Rs.1,200/- and Ex.B-3 is the proceedings and the arrears were paid totalling to a sum of Rs.51,000/- to P.W.1. The plaintiff in his evidence has accepted the receipt of this amount from the defendants. Ex.B-5 proceedings clearly goes to show that as proposed by the 2nd defendant, the rent was enhanced to Rs.1,100/- from 01.03.1981 to 31.07.1981 and at Rs.1,200/- from 01.08.1981 to 28.02.1983. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, as the enhanced rent was paid, the contention of the plaintiff does not survive for consideration. So far as the damages are concerned, evidently, the premises was vacated in the year 1982 and Ex.A-10 letter was received by the appellant but he kept quiet for a period of two years and thereafter claimed the damages at Rs.35,000/-. If really the property was damaged, the plaintiff should have objected at the time of taking delivery or after the delivery of the premises. There is no reason as to why he kept quiet for two years. It is also difficult to believe that without his knowledge and consent the premises would have been vacated by the tenant. Therefore, the lower Court found that this claim is also not correct and there are no merits in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J DATE: 12-08-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No. 2846 of 1992 DATE: 12-08-2011 MR