The Plaintiff submits that the Plaintiff committee representing the

Madeena Masjid Mosque and the Madeena Masjid is the owner and

possessor of the shop bearing Nos. 6-2-1680, 6-2-1681, 6-2-1682 and

6-2-1683 ground floor and part and parcel of Madina Masjid, Opp.

D.C.C. Bank, Nalgonda, Near Clock tower, Nalgonda Town and

District which is more particularly described in the schedule annexed

to the plaint and herein after called as suit schedule property and the

suit schedule property may be read as part of this plaint. The Plaintiffs

submit that originally there is an open land available for construction

of shops beside the Madeena Masjid and the Madeena Masjid is the

owner of the said open land and the then Madeena Masjid Managing

Committee decided to lease out the said open land to who come

forward to construct the shops and after the construction of the shops

agreed to lease out the same to the persons who constructed the shops

according to the norms fixed by the Madeena Masjid Managing

Committee. The Plaintiff submits that the Defendant came forward to

construct the shops in the said open land accordingly the Madeena

Masjid Managing Committee also agreed to give the open land to the

Defendant to construct four mulgies, cellar+1, in the open land

situated by side of the Madeena Masjid in an extent of 140 Sq. yards

and accordingly to the then Madeena Masjid Managing Committee

and the Defendant entered into a lease agreement on 03-04-2016 and

to that extent a resolution was also passed in the committee on 03-04-

2016. The Plaintiff submits that according to the terms of lease

agreement the Madeena Masjid Managing Committee agreed to lease

out any shop according to his choice to run his existing business and

to carry on any other business as per his choice for a period of 10

years with a monthly rent of Rs. 7,000/-. The Plaintiff further submits

that accordingly the Defendant has to complete the construction work

in the open land within one year and the Defendant alone has to bear

the expenditure for the construction work and further it is agreed that

the Plaintiff committee has to pay the construction expenditure to the

Defendant within one year after the completion of the work. The

Plaintiff submits that the Defendant completed the cellar portion as

well as the ground floor, four shops within one year after the

agreement and he chosen to carry out his business in the suit schedule

premises and the Defendant has been running computer sales office

under the name and style of Hameeda Systems and the Defendant used

to pay an amount of Rs. 7,000/- per month. The Plaintiff submits that

after completion of the work, the Plaintiff committee insisted the

Defendant to furnish the construction expenditure but the Defendant

on one pretext or the other postponed to furnish the construction

expenditure to the Plaintiff committee and further the Defendant used

to demand the Plaintiff committee to pay an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/-

towards the construction expenses of the suit schedule premises. The

Plaintiff submits that the Plaintiff committee estimated the cost of the

construction work of the suit schedule premises in or about

Rs. 12,00,000/- but the Defendant insisted the Plaintiff committee to

pay an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- towards cost of the construction

work of the suit schedule premises and the Defendant also failed to

furnish the bills and the cost of the construction work of the suit

schedule premises as he incurred an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- for the

construction of the suit schedule premises as such the Plaintiff

committee referred the matter to the common elder i.e. Mounala Syed

Ahasanuddin, President and the Executive Officer, District Waqf

Board, Nalgonda. The Plaintiff submits that subsequently the said

common elder summoned the Defendant and admonished him by

stating that the Defendant is trying to commit fraud on religious

institution as such the common elder settled the matter amicably as

such the entire construction cost of suit schedule premises has been

fixed at Rs. 17,00,000/- and further the Defendant failed to submit

construction expenditure as such the common elder advised the

Defendant to vacate the suit schedule premises as the Defendant

committed fraud on religious institution.

The Plaintiff submits that accordingly the Plaintiff committee

demanded the Defendant to vacate the suit schedule premises but the

Defendant the approached the Plaintiff committee and requested to

stay further for a period of two years and agreed to pay the monthly

rent of Rs. 14,000/- per month as such the Defendant executed a

document in favor of the Plaintiff committee on 10-09-2018 stating

that he received and amount of Rs. 17,00,000/- towards the entire cost

of the construction work and he does not have any future claim in

respect of the suit schedule premises against the Plaintiff committee

and from the month of September 2018 onwards the Defendant has

been paying the monthly rent of Rs. 14,000/- and a new tenancy came

into existence in between the Plaintiff committee and the Defendant

from the month of September 2018 onwards as such the agreement Dt.

03-04-2016 which was executed by the Plaintiff committee in favor of

Defendant came to an end and according to the agreed terms, the

Defendant is liable to be vacated in the month on October 2020. The

Plaintiff submits that from the month of October 2020 the Plaintiff

committee insisted the Defendant to vacate the suit schedule premises

but the Defendant used to postpone the same on one pretext or the

other however, during the month of March 2020 only due to pandemic

lockdown was imposed by the Government of India and after

relaxations of lockdown the Plaintiff committee insisted the Defendant

to vacate the suit schedule premises or else pay the rent according to

the prevailing market at present the monthly rent is at Rs. 20,000/-to

each shop out of suit schedule premises as the suit schedule premises

located in the prime locality of Nalgonda Town. The Plaintiff further

submits that the Plaintiff committee has to undertake several

charitable organizations with the income derived from the shopping

complex attached to the Madeena Masjid Mosque and the Plaintiff

committee has to maintain schools therefore the Plaintiff committee

insisted the Defendant to pay the monthly rent according to the

prevailing market @ Rs. 70,000/- per month for the suit schedule

premises or else vacate the premises but the Defendant took time to

vacate the premises. The Plaintiff submits that on 21-01-2021 the

Defendant got issued a legal notice to the Plaintiff duly mentioning

that the suit schedule premises was leased out to him vide agreement

Dt. 16-04-2016 and the previous committee requested the Defendant

to enhance the monthly rentals from Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 14,000/- and

accordingly the Defendant has been paying the said rentals since last

24 months. The Plaintiff submits that the Plaintiff committee issued a

reply notice on 22-01-2021 to the counsel for the Defendant calling

upon him to furnish the copy of the agreement Dt. 16-04-2016 and the

said notice served on the counsel for the Defendant on 24-01-2021 but

no such reply notice was given by the Defendant. The Plaintiff

submits that on 27-01-2021the Defendant filed a suit for the relief of

injunction in respect of the suit schedule premises against the Plaintiff

committee before the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda vide O.S.

No. 24 of 2021 and the said suit is pending for consideration. The

Plaintiff further submits that the suit filed by the Defendant against the

Plaintiff committee with all false allegations and further claimed that

the Defendant has been undertaking the construction work in the cellar

portion of the suit schedule portion and the Hon'ble Senior Civil

Judge, Nalgonda while disposing the petition of injunction filed by the

Defendant against the Plaintiff committee vide I.A. No. 100 of 2021

and order Dt. 01-05-2021 the relief of claiming construction work in

the cellar portion of the suit schedule premises is dismissed by the

Hon'ble court. The Plaintiff submits that from the month of November

2020 onwards, the Defendant did not pay the rent @ Rs. 14,000/- per

month and the Defendant is liable to pay the arrears of rent from

November 2020 onwards as such the Plaintiff committee got issued a

legal notice on 15-06-2021 calling upon the Defendant to pay the

arrears of rent from the month of November 2020 @ Rs. 14,000/- per

month and the Defendant being the rank defaulter and failed to pay the

rent and its arrears of rent as such the notice was issued u/s 106 of

Transfer of Property Act calling upon the Defendant to vacate the suit

schedule premises within 15 days of receipt of the legal notice. The

Plaintiff submits that due to oversight the shop No. 6-2-183 out of suit

schedule premises was not mentioned in the legal notice Dt. 15-06-

2021 as such an errata of legal notice sent on Dt. 22-01-2022 calling

upon the Defendant to vacate the premises as he is the rank defaulter

of the suit schedule premises. The Plaintiff submits that the legal

notice Dt. 15-06-2021 was received by the Defendant and gave an

evasive reply stating that he is not due any arrears of rent to the suit

schedule premises and he has been paying the future rents @ Rs.

14,000/- per month instead of paying Rs. 7,000/- as such he already

paid the future rent up to the month of April 2023. The Plaintiff

submits that all the allegations stated in the reply notice are false and

contrary to the plaint pleadings in O.S. No. 21 of 2021 and also

contrary to the contents of the legal notice Dt. ______ issued by the

Defendant prior to the filing of the suit to the Plaintiff committee.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the arrears of rent to an

amount of Rs. 14,000/- per month from the month of November 2020

to till date. The Plaintiff submits that legal notice Dt. 28-12-2021 sent

to the Defendant to the shop address i.e. address of the suit schedule

premises and to his residence address were returned un-served and the

Defendant managed the postal authorities got an endorsement that he

left the said address. The Plaintiff submits that however the Plaintiff

has been running the shop in the suit schedule premises and the legal
notice sent to the address of the suit schedule premises were returned

which shows that the Defendant managed the postal authorities and

got a false endorsement.