Mere Payment Of Advance At Time Of Entering Into Lease Would Not Inure To The Benefit Of Tenant: Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently dismissed the Second Appeal filed by the tenant as it did not find any need to interfere in the finding of the trial Court, passing the order of eviction over non-payment of rent. The court ruled that mere payment of advance amount at the time of entering into lease would not inure to the benefit of tenant. Tenant at the most is entitled to recover...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently dismissed the Second Appeal filed by the tenant as it did not find any need to interfere in the finding of the trial Court, passing the order of eviction over non-payment of rent.
The court ruled that mere payment of advance amount at the time of entering into lease would not inure to the benefit of tenant. Tenant at the most is entitled to recover the amount.
Brief Facts of the case
The plaintiff filed the suit seeking eviction of the defendant and for delivery of vacant possession of the schedule property to pay arrears of rent of Rs. 74,550/- and for future damages.
The plaintiff contended that he was the absolute owner of the shop in Vishakapatnam. The defendant was inducted into the schedule premises as tenant in 2006 on a monthly rent of Rs. 5,325/-. The defendant committed default in payment of rents from 2014 and even after issue of quit notice, the defendant neither vacated the premises not paid the arrears of rent and hence filed the suit.
The defendant contended that an advance amount of Rs. 70,000/- was paid which was refundable and hence he was not liable to be removed from tenancy.
The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant filed the first appeal against this decision which was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present second appeal is filed.
Mr. S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, counsel for appellant (defendant) contended that rents had been regularly paid to the landlord and the appellant did not commit any default.
Mr. V.V. Ravi Prasad, counsel for the respondent (plaintiff) argued that no substantial questions of law arose for consideration in the second appeal and therefore should be dismissed.
Finding of the Court
The court observed from the record that the tenant entered into premises pursuant to the oral lease and the jural relationship cannot be denied. The tenancy was month to month and the tenancy was validly terminated by the plaintiff by issuing notice.
It rejected the appellant's argument that the respondent is not owner of the schedule property. Lessee cannot deny the title of lessor/landlord, it held.
The court also held that mere payment of advance amount at the time of entering into lease would not inure to the benefit of tenant. Tenant at the most is entitled to recover the amount. In Chittajallu Srinivasa Rao Vs Narmada Joshi, 2017, it was held that "even if payment of advance is proved, lessee would at the most be entitled to recover it, but cannot plead that lease stands extended for corresponding period".
The second appeal under Section 100 CPC was dismissed as the findings of the Court below did not call for interference.
Case Title : M/s. Mobile and Movie World, Versus Sri Ghulam Abbas Khurasani
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 67