M/S. Sri Mouli Tiffins vs. Smt. Lalita Devi Hisariya

Facts

The appellants, M/s. Sri Mouli Tiffins, are challenging a judgment and decree dated February 17, 2023, passed by the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in OS No. 772 of 2018. The suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff, Smt. Lalita Devi Hisariya, seeking eviction of the appellants from a suit schedule shop, recovery of arrears of rent, and mesne profits. The trial court decreed the suit, directing the appellants to vacate the premises and pay arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 12,03,660/- with 12% per annum interest. The trial court also granted liberty to the respondent to file a separate petition for mesne profits. The appellants resisted the suit, and their defense was struck off by the trial court due to non-compliance with an order to deposit arrears of rent.

Held

The High Court held that the appeal was liable to be dismissed. The court noted that the appellants, in their written statement, had categorically admitted to running a Tiffin center in the suit schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,70,000/- plus GST (totaling Rs. 2,00,000/-) and had entered into an agreement with the respondent on 01-11-2017. This admission proved the jural relationship of landlord and tenant, rendering further evidence on this point unnecessary. The court also highlighted that the appellants did not dispute the filing of the interlocutory application (IA.No.816 of 2019) for recovery of arrears of rent and their subsequent failure to comply, which resulted in their defense being struck off. Since the order striking off the defense was not challenged, it became final and binding. The court found no grounds to set aside the trial court's judgment, which was based on the admitted facts and the unchallenged evidence of PW.2, and therefore dismissed the appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether there was a valid notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, for the termination of tenancy, as argued by the appellants who claimed the trial court passed a decree without an appropriate issue on this validity and gave erroneous findings. 2. Whether the respondent/plaintiff substantiated their claim and was entitled to seek eviction of the appellants, a point contested by the appellants who alleged the trial court committed errors regarding the rental agreement and striking off their defense. 3. Whether the respondent/plaintiff proved the jural relationship between the parties, which the appellants challenged by claiming the trial court gave a wrong finding on this aspect. 4. Whether the trial court erred in granting a decree for the recovery of arrears of rent, as the appellants contended their defense was wrongly struck off. Appellants' Arguments: The appellants argued that the trial court erred by passing a decree without a proper issue on the validity of the notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act and provided erroneous findings. They also claimed the trial court erred by striking off their defense for failing to deposit arrears of rent and gave a wrong finding regarding the jural relationship. They further contended the trial court committed an error by not marking the rental agreement dated 01-11-2017, which they considered a crucial document. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue or state, as this is a civil appeal between private parties. However, the respondent/plaintiff's case, as presented in the judgment, was that the appellants admitted their tenancy and the quantum of rent in their written statement, and that their failure to comply with the court's order for rent deposit led to the striking off of their defense.