*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY + Second Appeal No.250 of 2007 %18-11-2011 # Gurram Nagaiah ..appellant And Koduru Radhakrishnaiah (died) Per LRs ..Respondents !Counsel for the appellant: Sri P.V. Rama Sarma ^Counsel for respondent . : Sri Ambadipudi Satyanarayana < Gist: > Head Note: Citations: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.250 of 2007 JUDGMENT: The Second Appeal is ﬁled against the sole respondent, by name, Koduru Radha Krishnaiah. He died during the pendency of the Second Appeal, and his legal representatives were brought on record. He ﬁled O.S.No.3116 of 2003 in the Court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, against the appellant for eviction, from the suit schedule property. He pleaded that he is the owner of the property in premises bearing No.27-43-7/B, Vijayawada, and that the appellant is his tenant. An agreement was said to have been entered into on 01-10- 1998, providing for lease of the premises for three years on a monthly rent of Rs.1,500/-. According to him, there existed a clause in the agreement, requiring the appellant to hand over the possession on expiry of three years, and in spite of repeated demands, the appellant did not vacate the premises. A notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short ‘the T.P. Act’) was said to have been issued. He also complained that the arrears of rent of the premises, ever since 01-08-2003 at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month are due. Reference was made to O.S.No.2757 of 2002 ﬁled by the appellant herein for injunction. The appellant ﬁled a written-statement, admitting the fact that he is the tenant of the premises. However, he stated that he was inducted into possession by the State Bank of Hyderabad (SBH), which took possession of the property from the respondent, on account of non-payment of loan. He pleaded that though there existed an agreement for a period of three years, the respondent orally agreed to extend the tenancy for a period of 20 years, and that the quit notice issued by him was untenable in law. The circumstances under which he ﬁled O.S.No.2757 of 2002 were also narrated. The trial Court dismissed the suit through judgment dated 24-01-2006 on the ground that the agreement dated 15-10- 1998 marked as Ex.A-4 is not valid and binding on the parties and that the quit notice dated 27-08-2003 is contrary to law. The respondent ﬁled A.S.No.94 of 2006 in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. The appeal was allowed on 02-01-2007. Hence, this Second Appeal. Sri P.V. Rama Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has taken correct view of the matter, both as regards the admissibility of Ex.A-4, the lease agreement, and the legality of the quit notice, Ex.A-3, and the lower Appellate Court committed error in reversing the said ﬁndings. He contends that the lease agreement, Ex.A-4, was for a period of three years, and admittedly, it was not registered, and accordingly, it was not liable to be received in evidence. It is also pleaded that the quit notice, Ex.A-3 was defective in several respects. Learned counsel further submits that the lease cannot be treated as the one, from month to month and the suit itself was not maintainable. Sri Ambadipudi Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that even while admitting to be the tenant of the respondent, the appellant had made every eﬀort to create a situation of uncertainty by pleading that he was inducted into possession by the SBH, or that there was an oral agreement, providing for lease, for a period of 20 years. Before the respondent ﬁled O.S.No.3116 of 2003, seeking eviction of the appellant, the latter ﬁled a suit, being O.S.No.2757 of 2002, for injunction against the former. In that suit, the appellant clearly admitted that he is the tenant of the premises, but his complaint was that the respondent was trying to evict him forcibly. By noticing the fact that the respondent has issued a quit notice dated 27-08-2003, under Section 106 of the T.P. Act, the trial Court decreed O.S.No.2757 of 2002 on 04-09-2003. In O.S.No.3116 of 2003, the trial Court framed the following issues for consideration: 1. Whether the quit notice dt.11.6.03 is true, valid and binding on the defendant? 2. Whether the agreement dt.15.10.98 is true, valid and binding on the defendant? 3. Whether the plaintiﬀ is entitled to the relief of eviction of the defendant from the schedule premises and for delivery of vacant possession thereof to him? 4. Whether the plaintiﬀ is entitled to recover damages as prayed for? On behalf of the respondent, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A- to A-5 were ﬁled. On behalf of the appellant, DWs 1 to 3 were examined and no documentary evidence was ﬁled. The suit was dismissed. In the appeal preferred by the respondent, the lower Appellate Court framed only one point for consideration, viz., there existed any grounds to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, and allowed the appeal. Though the appellant sought to paint a picture, as though he is not the tenant at all, he was not clear in his approach. On the one hand, he pleaded that he was inducted into possession of the premises by the SBH, and on the other hand, he stated that there existed a lease agreement between himself and the respondent, marked as Ex.A-4. The very basis for the respondent in filing Ex.A-4 was the existence of relationship of lessor and lessee. That fact was admitted by the appellant himself, in all respects, including the quantum of rent in the agreement of lease. Strictly speaking, there was no necessity for the respondent at all, to ﬁle any document in this regard. However, the trial Court devoted most of its discussion to the admissibility of the lease agreement and dismissed the suit. It is not necessary that there must exist a lease deed, to establish the lease. The very fact that a person who is not the owner of the premises is in possession of the same and that he is paying the rent from month to month is suﬃcient to establish such relationship. The dismissal of the suit by the trial Court mainly on the ground that Ex.A-4 is inadmissible, is perverse. The other ground on which the trial Court dismissed the suit was that the quit notice Ex.A-3, does not accord with law. It did not take into account, the amendment, brought to Section 106 of the T.P. Act, by the Parliament. The suit was instituted after notice was issued. Any defect in the notice cannot defeat the right of the respondent. The lower Appellate Court has taken the correct view, and has set aside the judgment of the trial Court. As a result, the suit was decreed. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, the appellant is granted time till 31-03- 2012 to vacate the premises, subject to deposit of arrears of rent within two months from today, and payment of future rents on or before 10th of every month. In case the appellant fails to comply with the condition, it shall be open to the respondent to seek execution of the decree, and the appellant shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees ﬁfty thousand) per month from the date of non-compliance with the condition, or from 01-04-2012, as the case may be. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.18-11-2011. Note: LR copy to be marked. (B/O) KO