THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.C.C.A.No. 99 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31-03-2009 in O.S.No.1096 of 2007, on the file of the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the suit filed by the respondents herein for eviction of the appellant was decreed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein after will be referred to as they were arrayed in the original suit. 3. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the absolute owners of the premises bearing No.10-3-12/6 at Asifnagar. The defendant is the tenant of the ground floor of the schedule property, vide registered lease deed, dated 11-08-2004, on a monthly rent of Rs.9240/-. The grievance of the plaintiffs is that though the lease period came to be ended by 31-03-2007, and they issued legal notice to vacate the schedule premises, the defendant did not vacate the schedule property. Hence, they filed a suit for eviction and for delivery of the possession. 4. The defendant filed his written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. It is stated that the plaintiffs promised to continue him as a tenant even after the expiry of lease period by executing a fresh lease deed, but they have failed to stand on their promise. He invested huge amount on the schedule property for its renovation. Suppressing all those facts, the plaintiffs filed the suit without executing a fresh lease deed for a further period of seven years from 01-04-2007. He also filed a counter claim seeking direction to the plaintiffs to execute fresh lease deed. Hence, he prayed to allow his counter claim by dismissing the suit. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit schedule property by eviction as per law? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits at the rate of Rs.37,000/- as prayed for. 3. Whether the defendant is entitled for counter claim of specific performance and lease deed as per law? 4. To what relief? 6. On behalf of the plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff himself was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-10. On the other hand, on behalf of defendant, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Ex.B-1. 7. The trial Court accepting the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of possession and that the defendant is liable to be evicted from the suit schedule premises and accordingly, decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs and perused the record. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant-defendant contended that at the time of Ex.A-1, there was an oral understanding between the parties for renewal of lease; that after expiry of the lease period, the plaintiff did not execute a fresh lease deed for a further period of seven years from 01-04-2007 and therefore, the appellant-defendant is entitled to continue in the premises and that the defendant was permitted to renovate the premises in question and he incurred Rs.7.00 lakhs for the same and that the respondents-plaintiffs promised to reimburse the same at the time of vacating the premises, and that P.W.1 also admitted that some furniture was made and repairs to ceiling were effected to the plaint schedule property; and also the plaint schedule property was fully furnished by the appellant-defendant at his expenses, and hence, she prays to set aside the decree as the appellant-defendant is entitled to continue in the suit premises in pursuance of oral lease for seven years or in the alternative, the appellant-defendant is entitled for refund of the expenses incurred for the renovation of the plaint schedule premises. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents- plaintiffs contended that the plea taken by the appellant-defendant with regard to the oral lease has not been established and if really the respondents-plaintiffs agreed to renew the lease of the premises for seven more years, the same would have been incorporated under Ex.A-1, lease deed, and the trial Court rightly disbelieved the oral evidence with regard to the renewal of lease for a period of seven years and that the appellant-defendant failed to establish that he incurred certain expenditure for the renovation of the building and the same has to be paid by the landlord, and that the lease agreement, Ex.A-1, does not contemplate that the appellant-defendant is entitled from the respondents-plaintiffs for the expenditure incurred for the renovation and that no specific plea with regard to the actual expenditure incurred has been taken in the written statement and also there is no evidence on that aspect, and hence, the trial rightly decreed the suit directing the appellant-defendant to evict the premises and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 11. The factual matrix is not in dispute. Originally, the suit schedule property was given on lease to the appellant-defendant for a period of seven years in pursuance of Ex.A-1, lease agreement, dated 23-03-2001. Ex.A-1 is not in dispute. As per the recitals in Ex.A-1, the appellant-defendant has to vacate the premises after completion of seven years. 12. Now the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant is that even at the time of execution of Ex.A-1, there was an oral understanding between the parties that lease period is to be extended for another period of seven years. If really the case of the appellant-defendant is to be accepted as true and correct, certainly such recital would have been incorporated in Ex.A-1 stating that the lease can be extended by another seven years after the expiry of agreed period. Therefore, the defence taken by the appellant- defendant that there is an oral understanding between the respondents-plaintiffs and the appellant-defendant to extend the lease by another seven years is wholly devoid of merit and untenable. Such a plea cannot be accepted in the absence of any express or implied undertaking given by the respondents-plaintiffs. Therefore, the respondents-plaintiffs got issued Ex.A-2, registered notice, determining the lease as contemplated under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity ‘the Act’). Notice issued by the respondents-plaintiffs is completely in accordance with Section 106 of the Act. Therefore, in terms of the lease agreement, Ex.A-1, the appellant-defendant is bound to vacate the premises. 13. Coming to the counter claim filed by the appellant-defendant before the trial Court, Ex.A-1 does not indicate that the appellant- defendant can incur expenditure for renovation or making alterations of the plaint schedule premises and that the respondents-plaintiffs are liable to reimburse the expenses incurred by the defendant after determination of the lease. In the absence of any specific agreement between the parties that one of the parties has to reimburse the expenses incurred by other party for the renovation of the suit schedule property, the oral evidence of the appellant-defendant cannot be taken into consideration and the same cannot be accepted. For the purpose of his business, the appellant-defendant might have incurred certain expenditure for the purpose of renovation like making repairs to ceiling, purchase furniture etc. Therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the counter claim. Hence, absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 14. The appellant-defendant has been in possession of the petition schedule property for the last ten years by doing commercial business. He has to get an alternative suitable accommodation for the purpose of continuing his business. So a reasonable time can be granted for the appellant-defendant to vacate the premises. 15. Considering all these aspects, six months time can be granted for the appellant-defendant to vacate the premises from today, failing which, the respondents-plaintiffs can execute the decree in accordance with law. 16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. __________________ 16th August 2011 kvr