THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY S.A.No. 1181 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The defendant is in appeal assailing the correctness of the judgment and decree dated 30-07-2011 in A.S No. 146 of 2010 on the file of the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada wherein the learned Judge set aside the judgment and decree dated 08.03.2010 in O.S.No.485 of 2008 passed by the learned IV Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada and allowed the appeal filed by the respondent – plaintiff directing the appellant – defendant to vacate the suit premises within three months and to pay Rs.8000/- per month for use and occupation of the plaint schedule building from 01.05.2008 till delivery and rejected the claim of the respondent/plaintiff for Rs.30,000/- towards damages for unauthorised demolition of the suit building. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court. There is no dispute that the plaintiff is the owner of the plaint schedule property and she leased out the said property to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.4000/- for carrying on business in the name and style of Krishna Agencies and the defendant agreed to deposit the rents to the credit of the Savings Bank Account of the plaintiff. When the tenancy was in force, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation intended to widen the M.G. Road where the plaint schedule property is situated and addressed a letter to the plaintiff informing the proposed demolition of the plaint schedule property to the extent of marked portion. The plaintiff expressed her consent for such demolition and agreed to hand over the property, which is likely to be affected under the proposed road widening and requested the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule property for enabling her to handover the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the Municipal Corporation. The defendant agreed to vacate the plaint schedule property but postponed the same from time to time on one pretext or the other. Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to issue legal notice on 26.03.2008 terminating the tenancy of the defendant ending with the month of April, 2008 and demanding to handover the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property stating that on his failure to handover the same, he would be liable to pay damages to a tune of Rs.25,000/- per month from 01.05.2008 for unauthorised use and occupation of the property. The defendant received the notice and got issued reply with untenable pleas and failed to vacate the plaint schedule property. In view of the same, the above suit came to be filed for eviction. The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement denying the material averments in the plaint and stating that at the time of his induction into the tenanted premises, the rent was Rs.1000/- per month which has been enhanced from time to time and on the date of filing of the written statement, the rent was Rs.4000/- per month and that he is very regular in payment of rent and municipal taxes etc as per the terms and conditions. It is stated that the plaintiff demanded to enhance the rent from Rs.4000/- to Rs.9000/- per month and as he did not accede to abnormal increase of rent, the plaintiff is demanding to vacate the premises. Meanwhile, the Municipal Corporation issued a notice stating that the plaintiff has given her consent for handing over the plaint schedule property for widening of the road. It is his contention that the plaintiff gave her consent with ulterior motive so as to evict him from the tenanted premises to cause loss to his property and business. Thereafter, the defendant addressed a letter to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation stating that he will remove the marked portion with his own costs to save the other structure of the building, its strength and appearance in the course of demolition by the Municipal Corporation Demolition Squad and accordingly, removed the marked portion by spending huge amounts. The damages claimed by the plaintiff are abnormal and are not prevalent in the locality. On such pleadings, the following two issues were settled for trial: 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of plaint schedule property from defendant? 2) To what relief? The plaintiff herself was examined as PW1 and Exs. A1 to A5 were marked. Apart from defendant one more witness was examined and Exs. B1 to B14 were marked. The trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence held that the defendant himself removed the marked portion of the plaint schedule property without causing damage to the building as admitted by the plaintiff and that the schedule premises was in a good condition. The requirement of the plaintiff is not bona fide and she failed to substantiate her case for recovery of possession of plaint schedule property from the defendant. In view of the defendant spending extraordinary expenditure and investing lakhs of rupees for running his business, he is not liable for eviction and accordingly, dismissed the suit. On an appeal being filed, the lower appellate Court rightly held that it is a month to month tenancy and the defendant is liable to vacate the schedule premises as and when the quit notice is served as per the procedure laid down under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and that the defendant also did not dispute the service of quit notice and whether the requirement of landlord is bona fide or not cannot be a circumstance to deprive the landlord from seeking eviction. Therefore, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Questioning the same, the present second appeal is filed. Heard Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel for the appellant/defendant and also learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. Since there is no finding recorded by the trial Court that the notice issued by the plaintiff terminating the tenancy is not valid and that the plaintiff waived her right by accepting the tenancy, the finding recorded by the lower Court that the plaintiff’s requirement is not bona fide cannot be sustained. When the plaintiff proved valid termination of tenancy, she is entitled to evict the defendant. No substantial question of law as such arises for consideration in the second appeal. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed and the tenant is granted time till the end of May 2012 for vacating and handing over the possession subject to paying the rents as directed by the lower appellate Court for use and occupation of the plaint schedule property from 01.05.2008 till the end of October, 2011 and continues to pay the rents on or before 10th of every succeeding month. No costs. A.GOPAL REDDY,J Dt. 28.10.2011 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY S.A.No. 1181 of 2011 Dt. 28.10.2011