THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.912 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The respondent filed O.S.No.1616 of 2004 in the Court of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, against the appellant, for eviction, by serving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short ‘the Act’). The trial Court dismissed the suit, through its judgment, dated 26.10.2006. Thereupon, the respondent filed A.S.No.61 of 2007 in the Court of VIII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada. The appeal was allowed on 19.06.2010. Hence, this Second Appeal. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent, who filed caveat. Taking the pleadings of the parties into account, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to ask for a direction to evict the defendant from the suit schedule property and deliver vacant possession to him as prayed for? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for arrears of rents as prayed for?” The respondent deposed as PW.1 and he field Ex.A.1-office copy of notice, issued under Section 106 of the Act, and Ex.A.2 –reply issued by the appellant. The appellant deposed as DW.1 and he did not file any documentary evidence. The suit was dismissed and the appeal, filed against it, was allowed. The Second Appeal arises out of a reversing judgment passed by the lower Appellate Court. Therefore, a careful examination of the matter is warranted. The appellant did not dispute that he is lessee of the respondent. The suit was preceded by a notice, under Section 106 of the Act. The judgment of the trial Court is very brief. The only ground on which the suit was dismissed was that, the intention of the respondent is to enhance the rent, and the averment in Ex.A.1 that he needs the premises for his requirement, is not bona fide. The trial Court took the view that since the respondent is a resident of Hyderabad, the requirement pleaded by him is not bona fide. The approach of the trial Court is wholly untenable. The question, as to whether the requirement pleaded by a landlord is bona fide, or not, would arise, only when the proceedings are instituted under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. In a suit, based on a notice under Section 106 of the Act, a lessor is not at all under obligation to prove any fact, be it arrears of rent, or bona fide requirement. No defect was pointed out in Ex.A.1. Once a valid notice under Section 106 of the Act was issued, the respondent is entitled to seek eviction of the lessee i.e. the appellant. The lower Appellate Court has corrected the patent mistake committed by the trial Court. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this Second Appeal. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that his client may be granted reasonable time for vacating the premises. This request is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, time is granted to the appellant till 31st May, 2011, for vacating the premises, subject to regular payment of rents and clearance of arrears, if any, within four weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:03.09.2010 GJ