Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
S Sudhakar, Srikakulam Dist vs B Chilkannaidu, Visakhapatnam Dist 1 ... on 18 June, 2024
APHC010548692017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
3364
TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A V RAVINDRA BABU
APPEAL SUIT No.99 OF 2017
Between:
Sampathirao Sudhakar, S/o. Narayana Rao,
Aged about 36 Years, Hindu, Business,
R/o.Door No.16-3-214 by the side of
S.E.T. College in Gujarathipeta,
Srikakulam Town, Srikakulam Municipal
Limits, Mandal and District. --- Appellant
and
1. Bendi Chilkannaidu,
S/o.Chandrasekhara Rao,
Aged about 34 Years,
R/o.Plot No.104, Sai Apartments,
Rednam Gardens, Old Jail Road,
Visakhapatnam Town and District.
2. Bendi Bala Venkata Krishna Rao,
S/o.Chandrasekhara Rao,
Aged about 33 Years,
R/o.Plot No.104, Sai Apartments,
Rednam Gardens, Old Jail Road,
Visakhapatnam Town and District.
(Being represented by mother-cum-Registered
General Power of Attorney Holder
Smt. Bendi Laxmi, W/o.Chandrasekhara
Rao, Aged about 50 Years, Hindu,
Household Duties, Residing at A.P.S.E.B.
Colony at Door No.58-20-30/1 in
Butchirajupalem, Visakhapatnam
City and District). --- Respondents
The Court made the following Judgment:
2AVRB,J AS No.99/2017 Challenge in this Appeal Suit is to the judgment, dated 21.12.2016, in Original Suit No.57 of 2013, on the file of the Court of Special Judge for trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, 1989-cum-IV Additional District Judge at Srikakulam (for short, 'the learned Additional District Judge') whereunder the learned Additional District Judge dealing with a Suit for eviction, recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property and for recovery of monthly rents to a tune of Rs.3,88,000/- and damages decreed the suit of the plaintiffs.
2. The parties to this Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
3. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, according to the averments set out in the plaint, is that the mother of the plaintiffs is their registered General Power of Attorney holder, who stood as lessor in respect of the plaint schedule property i.e., ground floor of RCC slabbed building. The registered GPA was executed by her sons in her favour for managing and supervising the plaint schedule building. Previously, the defendant and his business partner viz., Lomada Rama Siddhareddy, S/o. Anna Reddy together took out the plaint schedule RCC slabbed ground floor building with all amenities such as fixtures of ceiling fans - 30, tube lights - 104, rolling shutters - 2 and entrance glass door etc. They took the plaint schedule property with an intention to carry on hotel business. Both of them entered into a registered lease deed, dated 23.02.2011, bearing No.1070/2011 with the mother of the plaintiffs for a period of three years commencing from 10.03.2011 to 09.03.2014. The 3 AVRB,J AS No.99/2017 purport of the lease was intended only for hotel business. The stipulated monthly rent was fixed at Rs.90,000/- payable by the lessees on or before 10th day of every succeeding month to the lessor i.e., mother of the plaintiffs besides complying other terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement. Accordingly, the mother of the plaintiffs i.e., the lessor surrendered the vacant possession of the schedule property to the defendant and his business partner. Since then the defendant and his business partner used to carry on hotel business in the name and style of 'M/s.Star Alfa'. However, within a short spell of five months, after commencement of the lease, defendant and his partner wound up their joint venture and got the registered lease deed cancelled by executing another registered document, dated 25.08.2011, and surrendered the leased property to the lessor. The registered lease deed, dated 23.02.2011, ceased its entity by virtue of surrender of the leasehold rights to the lessor through the registered document, dated 25.08.2011. In fact, the lessor had an intention not to give consent for cancellation of the registered sale deed at the threshold but on account of the pressure made by the lessees, she gave her consent for cancellation.
4. On 01.09.2011, the defendant again approached the lessor with a request to lease out the plaint schedule ground floor building to him only for the proposed hotel business under the banner of 'Hotel Star Alfa' but the lessor initially refused to lease out the schedule building on the ground that the hotel business would hamper the proposed construction works of first and second floors on the schedule mentioned RCC slabbed ground floor building.
4AVRB,J AS No.99/2017 Defendant assured that the proposed hotel business would not cause any hindrance to the proposed constructions of the lessor and that as and when the lessor makes a demand of the schedule property, he would vacate and surrender vacant possession to her. Ultimately, the defendant impressed upon the lessor i.e., mother of the plaintiffs. Hence, the mother of the plaintiffs again let out the schedule property to the defendant for his hotel business on condition to pay the stipulated rent at the rate of Rs.90,000/- payable to her on or before 10th day of every succeeding month. Further, the lease was oral and the tenancy was from month to month commencing from 01.09.2011. So, the defendant was a tenant from month to month basis. He was bound to pay the monthly rents promptly as agreed. The defendant was habituated in not paying the rents promptly and used to pay the rents in a piecemeal manner. As on 31.03.2013, the defendant fell in arrears of monthly rents to a tune of Rs.4,50,000/-, being the rents due from November, 2012 to March, 2013 at the rate of Rs.90,000/- per month. On oral demands, he could pay only a sum of Rs.80,000/- on 09.02.2013, a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 09.03.2013 and a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 02.04.2013. Thus, he paid piecemeal payments of Rs.1,80,000/- and the said amount was deducted from out of the total outstanding rents of Rs.4,50,000/- and the balance amount due was Rs.2,70,000/- as on 02.04.2013. Later, the defendant made certain part payments towards arrears of monthly rents due. He paid Rs.21,000/- on 21.04.2013 towards part payment of April, 2013 and for the remaining balance rent of Rs.69,000/- for the month of April, 2013 he paid Rs.21,000/- on 28.04.2013 towards part satisfaction of 5 AVRB,J AS No.99/2017 the balance rent amount of Rs.69,000/- for April, 2013. Again, he paid Rs.20,000/- towards part payment of the rent of April, 2013 from out of the due amount of Rs.48,000/- After deducting Rs.20,000/- towards part payment of April, 2013, paid on 08.05.2013, there remains due of Rs.2,98,000/-. In spite of the demands, he failed to pay the arrears amount of rent. Hence, the lessor got issued a legal notice, dated 25.05.2013, through her counsel to the defendant under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act by terminating the monthly tenancy of the defendant over the schedule property by giving 15 days time to quit the schedule premises by 10.06.2013. The defendant having received the notice sent a belated reply on 19.06.2013 with false averments. The defendant with an evil intention already filed O.S. No.101 of 2013 for injunction, which was pending. The contents of the reply are all false. There is valid termination of the tenancy by the defendant by virtue of the legal notice. Hence, the Suit for recovery of possession of the schedule property after ejecting the defendant and for recovery of arrears of monthly rents of Rs.3,88,000/- and for damages.
5. The defendant got filed a written statement denying the averments in the plaint and contending in substance that originally the plaint schedule property belongs to the plaintiffs. The defendant along with one Lomada Rama Siddhareddy took the plaint schedule property on 23.02.2011 under registered lease deed. After execution of the lease agreement, the defendant along with his partner started hotel business under the name and style of 'M/s.
6AVRB,J AS No.99/2017 Star Alfa' by nearly spending Rs.48,00,000/- for equipment and decoration. Subsequently, his partner Lomada Rama Siddhareddy, due to his personal problems, wanted to leave the business after receiving all amounts which were invested by him from the defendant. Defendant also wanted to close the business but at the request of both the plaintiffs, defendant considered their request and agreed to enter into oral lease for a term of 15 years on a monthly rent of Rs.40,000/- and the advance amount made by the defendant and Mr. Reddy was retained as Rs.5,40,000/-. Plaintiffs promised to lease out the second floor to any business other than the defendant's business which would not hamper the defendant's business. Plaintiffs promised that the third floor will be allotted for a functional hall and whose catering business would be given to the defendant. Plaintiffs also assured that if the defendant continue to pay another Rs.50,000/- in addition to Rs.40,000/-, they would consider that as rents to the above function hall. If the defendant intends to run it after its completion, the plaintiffs promised that excess amount of Rs.50,000/- paid during the construction would be adjusted as rents.
6. After completing the construction, the defendant came to know that the plaintiffs violated the oral terms and they let out the second and third floors to some third parties for the same business. When the defendant questioned the plaintiffs, they rashly responded and they made an attempt to evict the defendant from the schedule building by using criminal force. Defendant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The lease period is for a 7 AVRB,J AS No.99/2017 period of 15 years. The defendant filed O.S. No.101 of 2013 to get an injunction. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed the present false suit. The defendant is not a monthly tenant and he is regularly paying the rents as per the lease. Hence, the Suit is liable to be dismissed.
7. Basing on the above pleadings, the learned Additional District Judge settled the following issues for trial:
1) Whether the legal notice dated 25.05.2013 issued under Section 106 of the T.P. Act is true, valid and binding on the defendant?
2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to seek recovery of possession for plaint schedule property?
3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover arrears of rent of Rs.3,88,000/-?
4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to damages as prayed for?
4) To what relief?
8. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs before the trial Court, PWs.1 to PW.3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked. Insofar as the defence evidence is concerned, the defence of the defendant was struck off on 12.07.2016 as per the order in I.A. No.658 of 2015 in O.S. No.57 of 2013.
9. The learned Additional District Judge, after conclusion of trial, on hearing both sides and on considering the evidence available on record decreed the suit of the plaintiffs by granting the relief of 8 AVRB,J AS No.99/2017 recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendant and directed the defendant to hand over vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs within one month from the date of judgment and if the defendant fails to deliver the vacant possession, the plaintiffs are at liberty to take necessary steps and that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the arrears of monthly rents of Rs.3,88,000/- from the defendant with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization. The plaintiffs are also entitled to the rent of Rs.90,000/- p.m. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of delivery of vacant possession of the plaint schedule property and if the defendant fail to pay arrears of rents from the date of filing of the suit till the date of delivery of possession, the plaintiffs are at liberty to take necessary steps as per law.
10. The un-successful defendant, felt aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment and decree, filed the present Appeal.
11. Now, in deciding the present Appeal, the simple question that falls for consideration is:
Whether the judgment and decree, dated 21.12.2016, in O.S. No.57 of 2013, on the file of the Court of Special Judge for trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, 1989-cum-IV Additional District Judge at Srikakulam is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same?9
AVRB,J AS No.99/2017 POINT:
12. Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned counsel, representing Sri P. Chandra Sekhara Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, would canvass a contention that insofar as the fact that previously the defendant along with his business partner entered into a registered lease agreement with the General Power of Attorney Holder of the plaintiffs under Ex.A-2 and later it was cancelled under Ex.A-3 is concerned, there is no dispute. The fact remained is that when the partner of the defendant expressed an intention not to continue the business, both of them conveyed the same to plaintiffs and it is the plaintiffs who insisted the defendant to continue as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.40,000/- for a period of 15 years. So, the quantum of rent as fixed by the plaintiffs was in dispute. The tenancy was not from month to month and it was for a period of 15 years. The defendant filed a detailed written statement putting forth his contentions. The trial Court struck off the defence of the defendant by virtue of an order in I.A. No.658 of 2015 for non- payment of the admitted amounts for which the defendant placed the matter before the Revisional Court by way of Civil Revision Petition and the said Revision Petition was also dismissed for non-compliance of certain conditions. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the grievance of the appellant/defendant is that though the defence of the defendant was struck off, defendant is entitled to cross-examine the plaintiffs witnesses and the trial Court did not give any opportunity to the defendant to cross-examine the plaintiffs witnesses. To contend 10 AVRB,J AS No.99/2017 that the defendant is entitled to cross-examine the plaintiffs' witnesses, he would rely on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Babbar Sewing Machine Company v. Trilok Nath Mahajan1 and Modula India v. Kamakshya Singh Deo2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that had the trial Court allowed the defendant to cross-examine the plaintiffs witnesses, defendant would have agitated about his contention to show that the lease was for a period of 15 years and the quantum of monthly rent was only Rs.40,000/-. With the above submissions, he would contend that it is a fit case to remand the matter to the trial Court so as to give an opportunity to the defendant to cross-examine the plaintiffs' witnesses.
13. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of Sri Karri Murali Krishna, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs, would submit that there was no question of an oral lease between the mother of the plaintiffs i.e., the registered GPA holder and the defendant for the reason that the very registered lease deed under Ex.A-2 was cancelled by virtue of another document under Ex.A-3. If really, the plaintiffs had an intention to continue the defendant and the defendant had an intention to continue as a tenant, these things would have been recorded under Ex.A-3 under which Ex.A-2 was cancelled. It is quite preposterous to contend that the quantum of lease, as mentioned under Ex.A-2, was in dispute. Quantum of the oral lease amount is Rs.90,000/-. Learned Senior Counsel would canvass a 1 (1978) 4 SCC 188 2 (1988) 4 SCC 619 11 AVRB,J AS No.99/2017 contention that even if the defence of the defendant was struck off, appellant was given an opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiffs witnesses but he did not avail that properly and the appellant failed to exhibit his intention whatsoever before the trial Court to get an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The factual scenario in the aforesaid two decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant/defendant obviously stands on a different footing as such they cannot be made applicable to the present case. With the above submissions learned Senior Counsel seeks to dismiss the Appeal.
14. There is no dispute that the plaintiffs are the owners of the plaint schedule property and they executed a Registered General Power of Attorney in favour of their mother to manage and supervise the schedule property. Further, the admitted facts are that the defendant along with his business partner viz., Lomada Rama Siddhareddy entered into a registered lease agreement with the lessor under Ex.A-2 agreeing to pay the monthly rent as that of Rs.90,000/- and the lease period was three years. After completion of five months, the defendant and his partner got cancelled Ex.A-2 by executing another registered document under Ex.A-3. So, the quantum of rent agreed under Ex.A-2 was only Rs.90,000/- p.m.
15. Before going to appreciate further, it is pertinent to refer here certain facts as borne out by the record. The defence of the defendant was struck off by virtue of an order in I.A. No.658 of 2015 against which the defendant filed Civil Revision Petition No.3715 of 2016 before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at 12 AVRB,J AS No.99/2017 Hyderabad and filed an application and volunteered himself to deposit arrears of rent to the credit of the trial Court and accordingly the High Court at Hyderabad granted interim stay on 06.08.2014 in Civil Revision Petition No.3715 of 2016, which is reflected in the proceeding sheet of this Appeal on 27.02.2017, it is also clear that the appellant did not comply the said order and ultimately Civil Revision Petition No.3715 of 2016 came to be dismissed. So, the order in I.A. No.658 of 2015 attained finality.
16. Now the contention of the appellant is that in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon supra, he is entitled to cross-examine the plaintiffs witnesses and he was not given an opportunity to do so and as such it is a fit case to remand the matter to the trial Court.
17. As seen from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Trilok Nath Mahajan (1st supra), the factual scenario was that the plaintiff obtained an order under Order XI Rule 21 CPC against the defendant to produce certain documents and the defendant failed to comply the said order and accordingly the trial Court passed an order on 23.05.1967 under Order XI Rule 21 CPC striking out the defence of the defendant with an observation that he was placed in the same position as if he had not defended the suit and the trial Court posted the matter for examination of remaining witnesses of the plaintiff. On 21.06.1967, the trial Court did not allow the defendant's counsel to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses holding that as the defence was struck off, he had no right to participate as such he could not cross-examine the witnesses. But, 13 AVRB,J AS No.99/2017 above said order was challenged before the High Court and the High Court declined to interfere with the order. Later, the matter was canvassed before the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court looking into the factual background held that there was no willful default on the part of the defendant for non-compliance of the order under Order XI Rule 21 CPC requiring him to produce the documents. So, the Hon'ble Apex Court set-aside the order of the trial Court which was passed under Order XI Rule 21 CPC.
18. Insofar as the right of the defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Trilok Nath Mahajan (1st supra), relied upon its earlier decision in Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal3 and held that if the Court proceeds to deal with the matter ex parte still the defendant is entitled to cross-examine the witnesses. If the plaintiff makes out a prima-facie case, the Court may decree the Suit and if the plaintiff fails to make out a prima-facie case, the Court may dismiss the plaintiff's suit. Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Trilok Nath Mahajan (1st supra), held that as it set-aside the order under Order XI Rule 21 CPC the contention that the defendant is entitled to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses does not survive for their consideration.
19. Turning to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Modula India (2nd supra), it was a case where there was a default on the part of the defendant to make payment of the rents and the trial Court dealing with Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises 3 (1955) 2 SCR 1 = AIR 1955 SC 425 14 AVRB,J AS No.99/2017 Tenancy Act, 1956 struck out the defence of the defendant. When the defendant approached the Hon'ble High Court, he could not get any relief. Hence, the Appeal was filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
20. As evident from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Modula India (2nd supra), the tenant contended before the trial Court that Section 17(3) of the W.B. Tenancy Act could only prevent him from adducing evidence and it does not prevent him to exercise his rights to cross-examine the plaintiffs witnesses. So, what is evident from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Modula India (2nd supra) is that the defendant in that particular case exhibited his intention to cross-examine the plaintiffs witnesses after his defence was struck off.
21. Viewing from the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Trilok Nath Mahajan (1st supra) and Modula India (2nd supra), the defendants therein exhibited their intentions to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses though their defence was struck off under Order XI Rule 21 CPC and Section 17(3) of the W.B. Tenancy Act as the case may be.
22. Now coming to the present case on hand, as seen from the docket sheet of the trial Court, when the matter was coming up for trial on 12.07.2016, according to the orders passed in I.A. No.658 of 2015, the defence of the defendant was struck off and the matter was posted for the evidence of the plaintiffs. On 19.07.2016, learned counsel for the defendant filed a memo stating that the 15 AVRB,J AS No.99/2017 defendant filed Civil Revision Petition (SR) No.20401 of 2016 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and sought time. On 03.08.2016, learned counsel for the defendant filed a Memo stating that the defendant filed Civil Revision Petition No.3715 of 2016 before the High Court of A.P. On 22.08.2016, learned counsel for the defendant filed a Memo stating that he intends to file Second Appeal against the order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and requested adjournment for 30 days. On 22.09.2016, it was brought to the notice of the trial Court that C.R.P. No.3715 of 2016 was dismissed at the admission stage on 16.08.2016. Learned counsel for the defendant filed a Petition to grant adjournment and the matter was adjourned to 30.09.2016. On 17.10.2016, PWs.1 to PW.3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked. On that day, learned counsel for the defendant filed a Memo stating that SLP No.30078 of 2016 was pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court against the order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dismissing the Civil Revision Petition. On 28.11.2016, learned counsel for the defendant filed a Memo stating that the defendant filed C.R.P. M.P. No.34228 of 2016 before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. On 19.12.2016, learned counsel for the defendant represented that the stay was not granted by the Hon'ble High Court. Then, learned counsel for the plaintiffs represented that SLP No.30078 of 2016 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 18.11.2016 and a copy of the said order was also filed on that day. Thereafter, the trial Court heard the arguments of the plaintiffs counsel and delivered the judgment on 21.12.2016.
16AVRB,J AS No.99/2017
23. The docket of the suit discloses that the learned counsel for the defendant never exhibited his intention before the trial Court so as to get an opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiffs' witnesses. Even according to the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, as referred to above, the particular party exhibited intention to cross- examine the plaintiff's witnesses after the defence was struck off. The Suit docket reveals that even after the defence was struck off, trial Court granted several opportunities to the defendant for further progress and the defendant never sought to cross-examine the plaintiffs witnesses. As rightly contended by learned Senior Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs, the factual scenario in the above referred decisions, obviously, stands on a different footing for the reason that the present appellant before the trial Court never exhibited his intention to cross-examine the plaintiffs witnesses. It is no doubt true that the case of the plaintiffs, as set out before the trial Court, is liable for judicial scrutiny. However, the fact remained is that the appellant never exhibited his intention to cross-examine the plaintiffs witnesses. It is not a case where the trial Court declined to grant opportunity when there is a request to cross- examine the plaintiffs' witnesses. Hence, this Court is not convinced to accept the contention of the appellant that the matter needs to be remanded to the trial Court.
24. Now turning to the merits of the claim of the plaintiffs before the trial Court, there was no dispute about the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the mother of the plaintiffs and the defendant. The quantum of monthly rent was Rs.90,000/-, which is 17 AVRB,J AS No.99/2017 evident from Ex.A-2 and later it was cancelled. The contention of the defendant that as he and his business partner did not want to continue the tenancy, plaintiffs insisted him to continue the tenancy on oral lease and the monthly rent was fixed at Rs.40,000/- was negatived by virtue of Ex.A-3 canceling Ex.A-2. If such stipulation was there, it would have been recorded in Ex.A-3 itself. When the monthly rent was Rs.90,000/- p.m. as agreed under Ex.A-2, in the second round of tenancy, the plaintiffs would not have let out the same premises for Rs.40,000/- p.m. In the absence of any agreement to contrary, the tenancy is from month to month. In view of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, for termination of tenancy from month to month is only by way of an advanced notice requiring the tenant to vacate the alleged premises. Here, by virtue of the legal notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, lessor i.e., mother of the plaintiffs gave 15 days time to the defendant to terminate the tenancy and handover the vacant possession of the schedule property. The plaintiffs in support of the contention examined PWs.1 to PW.3, whose evidence is in tune with their pleadings. The defence of the defendant setting up oral lease for a period of 15 years is against the probabilities. The defence of the defendant suffers with any amount of inherent improbabilities. Hence, the trial Court rightly believed the case of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit. Viewing from any angle, this Court is not at all convinced to accept the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the defendant was not given any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and that the plaintiffs are not entitled for a decree of eviction. In the light of the above, 18 AVRB,J AS No.99/2017 there are no merits in the Appeal as such the Appeal Suit is liable to be dismissed.
25. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed with costs confirming the decree and judgment, dated 21.12.2016, in O.S. No.57 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, 1989-cum-IV Additional District Judge at Srikakulam. The time for eviction of the defendant from the plaint schedule property is one month from the date of this judgment, if the defendant had not already vacated the plaint schedule property.
26. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, pending in this Appeal, if any, stands closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU Date: 18.06.2024 DSH