THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.1578 OF 1988 JUDGMENT:- The defendant in O.S.No.25 of 1983 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Chodavaram is the appellant herein. The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.32,400/- being the arrears of rent from 01-05- 1980 to 30-04-1983 @ 900/- per month. The allegations in the plaint go to show that the suit building bearing No.4-42 situated in Narsipatnam, originally belongs to the husband of the plaintiff and conveyed it to the same to the plaintiff under a will dated 11-10-1970. During the life time, the husband of the plaintiff leased out the suit schedule property to the defendant for running a lodge for a period of seven years effective from 01-07-1972. The defendant has to make the necessary renovation. The lease has come to an end by 30-06-1979. When the plaintiff demanded the defendant to deliver the possession, he requested time till 31-10-1979 and the defendant also agreed to pay a sum of Rs.800/- for the main building and a sum of Rs.100/- for the sheds till he vacates. But the defendant did not vacate the same and application for eviction was filed and the present suit was filed for recovery of arrears. The defendant filed a written statement contending that the monthly rent originally fixed was Rs.180/- per month and all house taxes and other taxes have to be paid by the husband of the plaintiff and in case the defendant paid the same, it should be adjusted. At the time of said lease, a sum of Rs.19440/- was paid as an advance of rent and it was also agreed that a sum of Rs,10,000/- has to be adjusted which was spent towards renovation and therefore the total rent due after 30-06-1981 was paid. The suit is therefore not maintainable and the defendant also paid taxes of Rs.3,997-29 paise and there is no agreement to pay monthly rent @ 900/-. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial. 1. Whether the plaintiff has title in the suit building and whether she has got right to collect rents of the suit building? 2. Whether the husband of plaintiff leased out the suit building to the defendant for a period of seven years? 3. Whether the oral agreement that the defendant should make renovations to this building and then put up sheds for running a lodging house is true? 4. Whether there was agreement that the defendant should pay rent of Rs.800/- for the main building of the plaintiff and Rs.100/- for the sheds till 31-12-1979? 5. Whether the monthly rent is only Rs.180/- as contended by the defendant? 6. Whether the defendant is liable to pay the suit amount? 7. Whether the discharge of pleaded by defendant is true? 8. Whether the plaintiff can maintain the suit without succession certificate? 9. Whether the suit is not maintainable? 10. To what relief? The plaintiff has also filed another suit O.S.No.4 of 1985 for arrears of rent from 01-05-1983 to 31-03-1985 at the same rate. Both the suits were tried together and a common judgment was passed decreeing both the suits. Evidently, the judgment in O.S.No.4 of 1985 in which the similar pleas were raised has become final. Now the points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether the defendant is liable to pay the rent @ 900/- per month? 2. Whether the plea of the defendant about the adjustment of the amounts pleaded by him is true and tenable? POINTS:- Evidently, there is no dispute about the fact that the defendant is a tenant of the suit schedule property and has continued to be in possession of the property. Though there was a feeble attempt to dispute the Ex.A-2 will in favour of the plaintiff there is not much of the material to discredit the Ex.A-2 will and therefore the plaintiff became the owner of the property. The fact that the property was taken on lease for seven years commencing from 01-07-1972 is not in dispute. According to the case of the plaintiff, after expiry of seven years period, the defendant requested time for vacating the premises and he agreed to pay a sum of Rs.900/- per month. When the father-in-law of the plaintiff went to the shop of PW.3 and called the defendant, at that time the defendant is said to have agreed to pay Rs.900/-. PW.3 spoke about the above fact of calling the defendant to his shop and PW.4 also spoke about the above fact. Even in the cross-examination, the defendant has accepted that he was getting sufficient income from the business and there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 who are the independent witnesses. Therefore, the lower court has rightly accepted the evidence and the rent as being Rs.900/- per month. In fact, the above issue cannot further need be decided as the judgment in O.S.No.4 of 1985 has become final granting the same amount as a rent. So far as the adjustment of Rs.10,000/- which was said to have been invested for renovation and the payment of Rs.9442/- to the husband of the plaintiff is concerned, evidently there is absolutely no documentary evidence. When the defendant was doing business and if he has paid any such amounts, he would not have failed to take necessary receipts. When the lease agreement was executed, there is no mention of any such terms as pleaded by the defendant. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the lower court has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff and there are no merits and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed with costs. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 07-09-2011 TSNR