Sri V. Narayana Reddy vs Smt. Rukminiyamma

A.S. Bopanna

The appellant herein is the defendant in G.S. No. 2540/2009. The suit in question was filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein seeking to eject the defendant/appellant from the suit premises. The Court below after considering the rival contentions had decreed the suit by its judgment dated 5.02.2012. The defendant claiming to be aggrieved is before this Court in this appeal. The parties are referred to in the same rank as assigned to them before the Court below for the purpose of convenience and clarity.

The tact relating to jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant is not in dispute. The plaintiff therefore instituted the suit after having issued a notice as contemplated u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff contends that, the rent in respect of the premises is in a sum of Rs.13,200/- per month. Since, the defendant did not choose to vacate the premises, despite service of notice, the suit was instituted.

The defendant on being served with the suit summons appeared and contested the case. As noticed, the ielationship was not in dispute. However, the defendant contended that, the quit notice issued is not in accordance with law inasmuch as the notice issued is in respect of one premises only. It is the contention of the defendant that, there are two shop premises hearitg No. 24/A and 24/B and each being a separate tenancy, the quit notice should have been issued in respect of each of the tenancy and only then there could have been termination in respect of the said tenancy. Hence, it is contended that, the suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

The Court below on taking note of the rival contentions framed as many as five issues for its consideration and on holding the material issue in favour of the plaintiff and negativing the issues raised with regard to the contention of the defendant has decreed the suit and directed the defendant to vacate and hand over possession of the premises before 31.05.2012. The same contention which had been putforth before the Court below is urged in this appeal. having noticed the contention, a perusal of the judgment would indicate that, the Court below has in fact referred to this aspect in detail as Issue No. 2 had been raised in this regard and the said issue was considered along with Issue No. 1. While taking note of the said contention, the Court below has referred to the agreement between the parties, which was marked as Ex. P4 dated 91.05,1996. On noticing the said agreement, a conclusion has been reached that, it was a single agreement in respect of both the premises and the advance paid was also in one lump sum in respect of the said premises. Further, the receipt issued in respect of rentals which had been paid by the defendant was also acknowledged in one receipt for the entire amount of Rs.13,200/-

Therefore, keeping the said aspects in view, it was considered that, a single quit notice in respect of the said premises was sufficient. In that regard, the Court below has referred to the notice dated 20.01.2009, which was marked as Ex. P1 to arrive at a conclusion that, the said notice had been issued as contemplated u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The fact that the defendant has issued a reply as at Ex. P2 would indicate that, the notice had been received by the defendant and in any case, the postal acknowledgment was marked as Ex. P3.

Therefore, considering this aspect of the matter, I am of the opinion that, the Court below has referred to the evidence available before it and has arrived at a conclusion on the matter. The reappreciation of the evidence in any event would indicate that, the Court below was justified in its conclusion and the judgment and decree does not call for interference.

At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant would state that, the defendant would accept the finality of the litigation in terms of this judgment, if some time is granted to the defendant to vacate from the suit schedule property. The learned counsel for the defendant would state that, even if some time is being granted, it could be to a maximum of six months from this date. Having kept the said aspect in view, a perusal of the papers and the contention raised would indicate that, the premises is being used for commercial purpose more particularly for liquor shop. T1-iff! license granted in respect of the shop would come to an end 011 30th June of every year before it is renewed. Hence, I am of the opinion, it would be just and equitable to grant time to the appellant/defendant to vacate the suit schedule premises on or before 30.06.2013.

The defendant small accordingly file an undertaking in the registry of this Court within fops weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, undertaking therein that the defendant would voluntarily vacate from the suit schedule premises on or before the date indicated above and that the defendant shall not induct any other person to the premises. The rents during the said period shall also be regularly paid by the defendant, failing which the time granted would not enure to the benefit of the appellant. Subject to the above, the appeal stands disposed of confirming the order of the trial Court, however, modifying the portion by which time had been granted in the manner as stated above. Parties to bear their own costs.