Restraining anybody from interfering in any other’s peaceful possession and enjoyment in their private space: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Section 107, of the Transfer of Property Act i.e lease of immovable property, has a major role in this case, this was held in the judgment passed by a single bench judge comprising Hon’ble Sri justice M. Venkata Raman, in the matter SECOND APPEAL Nos. 312 and 334 of 2021, State of Andhra Pradesh, dealt with an issue where the respondent expelling the appellant from the property leased by them.
Appellant was a tenant of the Respondent, where they were running ‘ Divya cell point and gifts and fancy stores’ in that building. There was a false report created by the respondent and submitted to the police against the other party, stating that, they are responsible to Pay 10,00,000 RS for violating the terms and conditions mentioned in the lease agreement (01.04.21). The appellant denying the claim of the respondent while admitting the relationship B/W them and the rent for their shop rooms because the respondent gave a promise to the appellant to continue to stay as a tenant up to the year 2026, So the Appellant also mentions that he can’t vacate this place for next 15 years because he has invested all the money by believing the respondent words.
So, as already mentioned above about the lease agreement (under EX BI) “ effect of its non-registration and its effect on termination of tenancy in terms of section of the Transfer of Property Act”. Accordingly, the lease deed was inadmissible which was railed on by the appellant against the respondent stated by both the courts, and Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act was observed for further notice.
The lease document was allowed and exhibited at the trial after necessary stamp duty and penalty was paid thereon. There was no defence to hold on to the property in question, which is purely a question of fact itself. Therefore, in these circumstances, finding no reason or justification to interfere with the concurrent and consistent findings, the second appeals did not survive consideration, and they were dismissed.
The court perused the facts and arguments presented, it was of the opinion that – “both these second appeals are dismissed confirming the decrees and judgments of both the courts below. The appellant is granted three (03) months time to vacate from now. If the appellant does not vacate within the time so granted, the execution proceedings initiated by the respondent shall continue to their logical end. The appellant shall pay costs to the respondent in both these matters and shall bear his own costs throughout.” Dated on 31st August 2021.