THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED SECOND APPEAL No.831 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 16.06.2010, passed in A.S.No.112 of 2009 by the learned Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 31.03.2009, passed in O.S.No.1804 of 2007 by the learned V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. 2. The respondent/plaintiff/landlord filed O.S.No.1804 of 2007 for eviction of the appellant/defendant/tenant from the plaint schedule premises and for recovery of arrears of rent from September, 2006 to August, 2007 to a tune of Rs.40,800/- and for future damages @ 6,000/-per month. The trial Court, after consideration of the material on record, decreed the same directing the tenant to vacate the plaint schedule premises within two months from the date of the decree and hand over the vacant possession to the landlord, in default, the landlord is entitled to additional damages of Rs.6,000/-from the date of the decree and to remove the tenant with due process of law. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant carried the matter in appeal, being A.S.No.112 of 2005 before the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The lower appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the entire evidence and perusal of the material available on record, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court and granted two months time to the tenant to vacate the plaint schedule premises and shall pay a sum of Rs.5,801/- to the landlord towards costs of the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant filed the present second appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/tenant contended that both the Courts below should have seen that the tenant paid an additional amount of Rs.51,000/- towards advance as demanded by the landlord after expiry of the lease period. 4. The said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted on the ground that the tenant has not produced any evidence to show that the landlord received the said additional advance from him after expiry of the lease period and that Ex.A1- quit notice issued by the landlord is valid and binding on the tenant and therefore, the landlord is entitled to evict the defendant from the plaint schedule premises. 5. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in the second appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, this Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings arrived at by the Courts below, which are based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the grounds mentioned in the memorandum of this appeal, this Court is of the view that no question of law, much less substantial question of law is involved in this Second Appeal, warranting interference by this Court, under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code. 7. The Second Appeal is devoid of merit, and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:13.08.2010 sj