IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENNTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR SECOND APPEAL No.1513 OF 2010 Between: M/s.Ad-Age, Outdoor Advertising Pvt. Ltd., Having its office at Plot No.181/A, MLA Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Director, Sri Syed Iftequar Mehdi, S/o. Late S.Y. Nawab, Aged about 45 Years, Business, R/o.138/A, MLA Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. - - - Appellant/ Appellant/ Plaintiff. AND M/s. Lady Hydari Club, 3-6-361, Basheerbagh,Hyderabad, Rep. by its Honarary Secretary. - - - Respondent/ Respondent/ Defendant. The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR SECOND APPEAL No.1513 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: The Second Appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “C.P.C.”) is directed against the Judgment and Decree in A.S. No.136 of 2009, dated 29-10-2010, on the file of the learned XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court (Fast Track Court) Hyderabad, where under and whereby the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No.1565 of 2006, dated 03-03-2009 passed by the learned Additional Judge, City Small Causes Court-cum-VI Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, have been confirmed. 2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondent herein is the defendant in the original suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court. 3. The brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present Second Appeal, may be stated as follows : The Plaintiff which is a partnership firm dealing in outdoor advertising has obtained two sites from the defendant to erect and display two hoardings under the Hoardings Site Agreement, dated 16- 07-1994 on a yearly rent of Rs.37,500/- for each hoarding. It was agreed that the rent shall be increased by 10% for every two years. The said agreement was renewed on 13-12-2000. The ground rent was increased to Rs.1,50,000/- per annum and it was agreed that the rent shall be increased by 15% for every three years. So, according to the plaintiff the tenancy is perpetual one and that it has been paying rents up to date. The plaintiff’s further case is that the defendant issued a termination notice dated 22-04-2006 contrary to the terms of agreement entered into between the parties and that the said notice is invalid. The defendant in its written statement though agreed that the plaintiff entered into an agreement on 16-07-1994 to erect and display two hoardings in the premises but their case is that the agreement expired long back. Their specific case is that the agreement covered by the land is improperly stamped and un- registered and cannot be received in evidence. It is also their case that the subsequent agreement is also not properly stamped, un-registered and no reliance can be placed on such document. The defendant has specifically denied that the lease is perpetual one. The defendant however agreed that they have issued a letter on 22-04-2006 calling upon the plaintiff to remove the hoardings. 4. The trial Court framed the necessary issues and on behalf of the Plaintiff PW.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-8 were marked. On behalf of the defendant DW.1 was examined and no documents have been marked. The Trial Court holding that the lease of immovable property from year to year or for any term exceeding one year requires registration and that Ex. A-3 agreement is un-registered document and no valid lease is created there under and as such the lease has to be construed as monthly tenancy terminable by issuing a valid quite notice and that the defendant has issued a notice terminating the tenancy and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled for any declaration or injunction. Holding so, the suit filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff carried the matter in Appeal. The Appellate Court also confirmed the judgment of the trial Court holding that the agreement of sale relied upon by the plaintiff is not registered one and that the defendant has issued a notice terminating the lease and that the plaintiff can not seek declaration as well as the injunction. 6. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that admittedly the plaintiff had erected hoardings as per the lease agreement entered into between the parties and that the appellant has been paying the rents regularly and that the appellant can not be evicted without following due process of law and that even if it is held that the appellant is not entitled for declaration, the lower Court ought to have granted injunction in favour of the appellant by holding that the appellant can not be evicted without following the due process of law. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-defendant submitted that the declaration sought in the suit is only to declare that the plaintiff is entitled to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the two sites obtained on lease on which the plaintiff erected the hoardings and consequently to grant injunction and that no relief was sought by the appellant-plaintiff that it can not be evicted without following the due process of law and the scope of the suit can not be enlarged in the second appeal. His main submission is that both the Courts below have concurrently held that the agreement of the sale relied upon by the plaintiff is invalid and can not be looked into. It is further argued that the defendant has issued a notice and requested the appellant to remove the hoardings which reveals that he has been following the due process of law and therefore there are no merits in the Appeal and the Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. Admittedly, the plaintiff has filed the suit seeking a declaration that it is entitled to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of two sites obtained on lease on which it erected hoardings. The factum of the plaintiff erecting hoardings and taking the sites on lease is not in dispute. Admittedly lease deed is not registered one. Therefore, it is hit by Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which mandates that the lease of immovable property exceeding for a period of one year is compulsorily registrable. Therefore, there can not be any doubt to say that the findings of the Courts below that the lease deed is not valid and that Ex.A-3 is invalid agreement needs no interference. It is also not in dispute that the defendant has issued a notice terminating the lease on 22-04-2006 and demanded the plaintiff to evict the premises by removing the hoardings. Therefore, it can not be said that the defendant had done any high handed act of taking law into his hands or tried to evict the plaintiff without following the due process of law. Once the defendant has issued a notice to the plaintiff directing the plaintiff to remove the hoardings, it is clear that the plaintiff is not entitled to any injunction. Moreover, when the relief of injunction is based on the declaration of title and when the plaintiff has failed to establish his case and when it is not entitled for the declaration relief, a relief consequent to the main relief, can not be granted to the plaintiff, more so, when there is no specific prayer in the plaint. Admittedly the scope of suit cannot be enlarged at the stage of Second Appeal. Hence, I do not see any reason to interfere with the well reasoned findings of the Courts below. I do not see any substantial questions of law in this Appeal and therefore the Appeal is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 15-03-2011. DSH.