The numberice was stated to be issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
The defendants companytested the suit.
Hence, the appeal by the defendants.
It is relevant to state here that the appellants also filed a suit against the respondents, O.S.No.461/98 for issuance of a permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from proceeding to interfere in their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
The dispute raised in the case relates to eviction of the tenants from the premises described as Central Studio, Door No.3 6 356/8, Basheer Bagh Road, Hyderabad and Door No.119/A, WhiteHall, Sardar Patel Road, Hyderabad.
99 and 100/99 before the High Court assailing the judgment.
The appellants, who were travelers of the Central Studio, were tenants of the premises under the respondent Nagarjuna Travels and Hotels Pvt.
Thereafter on 10th October, 1995 the plaintiff issued a numberice to the defendants of termination of the lease by giving 15 days numberice expiring on 31st October, 1995.
The Trial Court summed up its findings in these words Therefore, on a careful perusal of evidence adduced by the plaintiff together with the documents, I am of the opinion that defendants are number entitled for companynter claim as sought for.
On the plaintiffs claim of damages for use and occupation of the premises, the trial Court was of the opinion that a sum of Rs.20,000/ will meet the ends of justice and accordingly awarded Rs.20,000/ as damages for the period 1.11.1995 to 30.4.1996, i.e. the period from the date of filing the suit till the date of delivery of possession.
Both the suits were tried together with companysent of the companynsel appearing for the parties and disposed of by the Trial Court in a companymon judgment.
The trial Court on the pleadings of the parties framed several issues including the issue whether the plea of the defendants that there was a renewal of lease for a further period of 25 years on the same terms and companyditions is true and whether the defendants are entitled to make such a claim under law?
Since the defendants did number vacate the premises in companypliance with the numberice and companytinued to remain in possession of the premises, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking reliefs numbered earlier.
They asserted that there was numberright of renewal vested in the lessee under the lease deed, and after the expiry of the lease period they had numberright to remain in possession of the property, particularly after the numberice of termination of lease issued by the landlord was received by them.
On the other hand, the plaintiff is entitled for the direction directing the defendants to be evicted from the schedule premises Regarding the stand taken by the defendants that there was a reduction of the area in their occupation, the trial Court held that from 1.11.1995 to 13.10.1998 the defendants were in occupation of 2734 sq.ft.
Therein they had reiterated the case set up by them in the written statement in the suit filed by the respondents.
Ltd., which is the owner of the plot.
Their case, shortly stated, was that it was stipulated in the lease deed that on expiry of the period of lease in the first instance 25 years the lessee shall have the right of renewal under the said companyenant the defendants exercised the right of renewal, paid rent for the months of August and September, 1995 and companytinued to remain in possession of the property though the plaintiff initially accepted the rent but subsequently declined to do so.
Arrears of rent i.e. 2,600/ p.m. for the months of September, 1995 and October, 1995 be awarded from the defendants jointly and severally.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court the defendants filed CCCA Nos.
In the written statement filed by the respondents in the said suit they also reiterated the stand taken in the suit filed by them.
The defendants also questioned the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit and companytended that the proceeding for eviction companyld be filed only before the Rent Controller since the proportionate rent payable by them, for the premises after the area was reduced on a portion of it being taken over for the purpose of the widening of the road, was less than Rs.1000/ .
They claimed to be in possession of the suit property in exercise of the option of renewal of lease as stipulated in the registered document.
The trial Court held inter alia that the suit was maintainable in Civil Court that the defendants were number entitled for renewal of the lease for a like period on the same terms and companyditions that the defendants failed to establish the entitlement of renewal and that the plaintiff had every right to issue termination of numberice.
In the suit the following reliefs were sought by the plaintiff Plaintiff companypany be put in possession of the suit premises by evicting the defendants therefrom.
In the said suit one of the issues framed by the Trial Court was whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?
and subsequently they were in occupation of 2008 sq.ft.
And whether the Court has jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the plea raised by the defendants vide Andhra Pradesh Building, Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act?
The said period of 25 years expired on 1.8.1995.
The High Court, on companysideration of the case of the parties, companyfirmed the judgment decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit.
This appeal, filed by the defendants of O.S.No.778 of 1996 on the file of the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in City Civil Court Appeal CCCA Nos.99 and 100 of 1999 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants and companyfirming the judgment decree passed by the Trial Court.
P.MOHAPATRA, J. Leave granted.
The respondent filed the aforementioned suit against the appellants seeking the decree of eviction from the suit premises.
Per companytra, Shri P.P.Rao, learned senior companynsel for the respondent, companytended that the renewal clause in the lease deed is vague and unspecific and, therefore, number binding on the parties.
Pendente lite and post decreetal companypensation damages be awarded from the defendants jointly and severally at the rate of Rs.40,000/ per month for the use and occupation of the suit premises The case of the plaintiff was that in pursuance of the registered lease dated 3.8.1970 executed between the parties, the suit premises were given on lease by the plaintiff to the defendants for a period of 25 years on payment of rent of Rs.1300/ p.m. with effect from 1.8.1970.
An amount of Rs.2,40,000/ be awarded towards companypensation and damages for the use and occupation of the suit premises for the period between 1.11.1995 and 30.4.1996 from the defendants jointly and severally.
The defendants were required to handover vacant possession of the premises on expiry of the numberice period.
