THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD C.C.C.A.NO.113 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: {Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao} Appellants-defendants 1 and 2 filed this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to assail the correctness of the judgment and decree dated 06.06.2009 in O.S.No.196 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in decreeing the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs, inter alia, seeking to deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule premises and for arrears of rents apart from damages. The facts, in brief, which are necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that, in the present suit, it has been claimed that the suit property was leased out to the first defendant on 13.03.2000 for the purpose of installing, erecting and maintaining at its own cost the petroleum tanks and delivery pumps etc., on a monthly rent of Rs.1,00,000/-. Initially, it was only Rs.80,000/-, but subsequently, on demand, it has been enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. However, as per the covenants of the lease agreement, the first defendant shall pay monthly rent by 5th of the succeeding month. There has been default since July 2007. Even on demand, there was failure to pay the rent within one month from the date of such demand and even till the date of filing of the suit. Hence, the defendants violated the terms of the lease agreement dated 13.03.2000. The plaintisffs got issued a legal notice dated 13.03.2008 to the defendants 1 and 2-appellants, which was served on them. Having received the said notice on 18.03.2008 and 14.03.2008 respectively, neither of the appellants acted upon the said notice nor delivered the possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs. The defendants-appellants fell due an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- {Rupees ten lakh only} towards arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- {Rupees one lakh only} per month from July 2007 till the date of institution of the suit along with interest and also liable for damages. Hence, the suit. Contesting the claim, the case of the appellants was that of total denial in regard to the correctness of the notice issued and determination of loss. They have also raised a specific plea that having regard to merger of the first defendant-company to that of the second defendant- company, there have been some lapses, which cannot be constituted as default nor it constitute grounds for determination of loss. That apart, issuance of notice is not correct and hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit. On these and other allegations contained in the respective pleadings, the Court below framed the following issues. 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of possession of the suit schedule premises from the defendants? 2. Whether the defendants are liable to pay Rs.1,00,000/- per month towards rent from the month of July 2007 till the date of suit? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the damages from the date of suit till the date of delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property? 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to claim interest at the rate 24% p.a. on arrears of lease amount and damages from the date of default till the date of payment? 5. To what relief? Later, both the parties went into trial, where P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked on behalf of the plaintiffs. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked. Considering the entire evidence on record, the Court below has held all the issues in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs holding that the determination of liability is perfectly valid and the appellants are liable for loss and damages. Hence, the appeal. On a perusal of the material available on record together with the grounds of appeal and also on a consideration of the submissions made, the only point that arises for consideration is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants are liable to be evicted and liable to pay the amounts as claimed by the plaintiffs. There is no dispute to the aforesaid chequered events or even with regard to the basic relationship between the parties. The fact remains that the plaintiffs are the landlords whereas the defendants are the lessees in pursuance of the lease agreement dated 13.03.2000, marked as Ex.A1. On behalf of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 was examined who narrated the entire case and submitted that in regard to payment of rents regularly by 5th of the succeeding month, there has been default from July 2007 and accordingly, a notice was issued on 13.03.2008, which is marked as Ex.A2. The appellants received the said notice on 18.03.2008 and 14.03.2008 respectively. In the said notice, rents and arrears were also determined but still there was no compliance. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the present suit. In rebuttal, the case of the appellants was in total denial. D.W.1 was examined on their behalf, who stated about the merger of the first defendant with that of the second and stated that there has been lapse in payment of rents, which has been unintentional. That apart, learned counsel also sought to place reliance on clause (3) of Ex.A1-lease deed, which reads as under. “The monthly rent as payable hereunder shall be paid by the 5th days of the month succeeding that for which it shall become due and if the lessee shall fail to pay any rent overdue within one month after written demand by Registered letter made upon them, the lessor may determine this demise and re-enter and take possession of the premises provided always that if the lessees shall pay the rent due within the said 30 days period provided for the second notice, the said second notice shall be deemed to be a nullity and of no force.” From the above, it is sought to be interpreted that in spite of existence of arrears and action in consent for continuity there of, it would give raise to imposition of any costs rather than straight away terminating the existing lease. We have considered these submissions and also the grounds of appeal. We do not find any merits especially there being no dispute to the fact that the appellants are lessees and liable to pay rents and further, there has been default. No valid reason is shown as to why such notice is in any way incorrect. Further, the appellants cannot deny their liability merely on the ground that there is merger, which cannot be a ground nor constitute sufficient reason to the default committed by them. Whatever arrangement occurred between the first defendant and the second defendant, it is between themselves but certainly that would not absolve from payment of rents or otherwise. In the circumstances, we do not find any merits in the appeal and the lease has been validly terminated. Further, the appellants are liable to pay the arrears. The CCCA is, accordingly, dismissed and the appellants are granted two {2} months time from today for vacating the premises. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) __________________ (P.DURGA PRASAD, J) 16th March 2011 RRB