Khushi Doshi
Published on: April 28, 2022, at 17:02 IST
The tenant’s Second Appeal was recently dismissed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which found no reason to interfere with the Trial Court’s decision to evict the tenant for non-payment of rent.
The Court found that the mere payment of an advance amount at the time of the lease’s signing would not benefit the renter. The money is recoverable only if the tenant is at fault.
Plaintiff sought the Defendant’s Eviction and delivery of vacant possession of the scheduled property, as well as payment of rent arrears of Rs. 74,550/- and future damages.
The complainant claimed that he was the Sole Proprietor of the Vishakapatnam store. In 2006, the Defendant was accepted as a tenant of the schedule premises, paying a monthly fee of Rs. 5,325/-.
The Defendant was in default on rent payments since 2014, and even after being served with a quit notice, the Defendant did not remove the premises or pay the rent arrears, prompting the filing of the Lawsuit.
The complainant claimed that he was the sole proprietor of the Vishakapatnam store. In 2006, the Defendant was accepted as a tenant of the scheduled premises, paying a monthly fee of Rs. 5,325/-. The Defendant was in default on rent payments since 2014, and even after being served with a quit Notice, the Defendant did not remove the premises or pay the rent arrears, prompting the filing of the Lawsuit.
The renter entered the premises pursuant to the oral lease, the Court noted, and the jural relationship could not be rejected. The tenancy was month-to-month, and the Plaintiff had the Right to Cancel it by giving Notice.
The Appellant’s claim that the respondent is not the owner of the scheduled property was dismissed. The title of lessor/landlord cannot be denied by the lessee.
The Second Appeal under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code was dismissed because the Lower Court’s conclusions did not warrant interference.