THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR C.C.C.A.No.263 of 2004 JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 28.06.2004 passed by the Court of II Member Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings-cum-VII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S.No.559 of 1999, whereby the suit of the plaintiff for eviction, recovery of arrears of rents, and mesne profits has been decreed. 2. The admitted facts, which gave rise to the filing of the suit, are that the suit schedule premises was initially leased out by the father of the plaintiff to the first defendant-bank for a period of 10 years commencing from 16.06.1976 under a registered lease deed dated 16.06.1976. On allotting the suit schedule premises to the share of the plaintiff in partition, the defendants accepted the plaintiff as landlord and continued to deposit the rents in his account. After expiry of lease period by 15.06.1986, the first defendant bank did not exercise the option to extend the lease. Thereafter, a negotiation took place between the plaintiff and the first defendant bank and in the said negotiation the bank agreed to enhance the rent @ Rs.3/- per square feet per month till 15.06.1991 and thereafter @ Rs.3.75 ps. per square feet per month for the second term of five years with effect from 16.06.1991 till the end of lease period i.e., 15.06.1996. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.14,962/- per month was paid as per letter dated 20.02.1992 addressed by the bank to the plaintiff. On expiry of five years lease period on 15.06.1996, the plaintiff demanded the first defendant bank to vacate the suit schedule premises. Thereafter, the second defendant addressed a letter dated 23.03.1999 (Ex.A.10) seeking consent of the plaintiff for renewal of lease for a period of three years i.e., from 16.06.1996 to 15.06.1999 on payment of rent @ Rs.9/- per square feet per month for three years with an increase of 15% after three years, with option for extension of one year from 16.06.1999. The plaintiff by his letter dated 30.03.1999 (Ex.A.11) agreed to extend the lease period for three years as sought for by the bank i.e., from 16.06.1996 to 15.06.1999 and also agreed for the option of one year i.e., from 16.06.1999 to 15.06.2000, by which date the bank should vacate the schedule premises. Since the defendants were not paying the rents regularly, the suit was filed. 3. The second defendant, the Manager of the first defendant bank, filed written statement stating that they never agreed for payment of rents @ Rs.9/- per square feet per month. Therefore, the notice dated 30.07.1999 purported to have been issued under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act is not valid. He also stated that after obtaining an eviction order against a tenant in upstair portion of the building, the plaintiff demolished the said portion and also parapet walls thereby causing damage to the flooring of the upstair portion. Therefore, the first defendant bank filed O.S.No.873 of 1999 on the file of VIII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction not to dig pits in rear side portion of the suit building and obtained status quo order and as a counter-blast to the said suit, the plaintiff filed the present suit. He also admitted that he came to know that the suit property was allotted to the plaintiff in partition decree dated 23.07.1987. He further stated that since the first defendant bank is a Government of India undertaking and dealing with the public funds, the funds of the bank have to be utilised with a jealous guard and with utmost care and attention. 4. Defendant No.1 filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by defendant No.2. 5 . In view of the rival submissions, the Court below settled the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of eviction against the defendants from the suit premises and for vacant possession as prayed for? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs.8,16,952- 50 ps. towards arrears of rent? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits of Rs.69,080/- together with future and mesne profits at Rs.20/- per square feet per month as prayed for? 4. Whether there is no valid quit notice under Section 106 of T.P.Act as pleaded in the written statement? 5. Whether the Court fee paid is not correct? 6. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable under law as pleaded in the written statement? 7. To what relief?” 6 . During the pendency of the suit, the first defendant bank vacated the suit premises on 30.06.2000 and the same was acknowledged by the plaintiff. 7. To prove the case, on behalf of the plaintiff, he was examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.19. On behalf of the defendants, though D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, no documents were marked. 8 . The lower Court, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, on issue No.6 held that the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable, but answered issue No.4 in favour of the plaintiff. While answering issue Nos.1, 2 and 3, it was held that once the defendant bank agreed to pay rent @ Rs.9/- per square feet per month by its letter dated 22.03.1999 and the same was accepted by the plaintiff by letter dated 30.03.1999–Ex.A.11, and as the defendant bank paid rent @ Rs.14,962.50 ps per month from 16.06.1996 to 16.06.1999, it has to pay the difference of rent. Accepting Ex.A.10, under which the Manager of the first defendant Bank agreed to enhance the rent @ 15% after three years i.e., from 16.06.1999, the lower Court decreed the suit awarding mesne profits @ Rs.10/- per square feet per month from 17.09.1999 to 31.10.2000. Questioning the correctness of the same, the defendants preferred this appeal. 9 . Heard Sri K.Vijayamukar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Malla Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent. 10. Sri K.Vijayakumar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants contends that Ex.A.10-letter addressed by the Manager of the first defendant bank is contrary to the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. Admittedly, when the earlier rents were paid @ Rs.3.75 ps. per square feet per month, the bank was not authorised to pay rents nearly 3/4th for renewal of the rent. Therefore, the same has to be ignored. Further the said letter has not been approved by the head office of the first defendant bank and that there is no concluded contract. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to rent @ Rs.9/- per square feet per month. 11. Admittedly, no evidence was let in by the first defendant bank that its Manager was not authorised to send letter under Ex.A.10 nor any guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India are filed to substantiate the said plea and the same is pleaded for the first time in the appeal. Further, there is no evidence whether any action was taken against the Manager of the bank, who addressed the letter –Ex.A.10, which according to the bank is detrimental to its interest. In the absence of the same, we are not prepared to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that Ex.A.10, the letter addressed by the Manager of the bank should not bind the bank. In the offer made by the bank it is clearly mentioned that the rent would be @ Rs.9/- per square feet per month w.e.f. 16.06.1996 and the same was accepted by the plaintiff under Ex.A.11. Further, the bank has already vacated the premises on 31.10.2000. The Manager of the first defendant bank, who was examined as D.W.1, also accepted the issuance of Ex.A.10. In view of the same, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for arrears of rent @ Rs.9/- per square feet from 16.06.1996 to 15.06.1999 and 15% increase on the said rent from 16.0.1999 till the date of vacating the premises. Therefore, the lower Court rightly calculated the amount payable towards arrears of rent and mesne profits as offered by the bank in its letter dated 22.03.1999 as accepted by the plaintiff in his letter dated 30.03.1999. 12. Therefore, we do not see any merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J __________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 05.10.2009 va