THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY SECOND APPEAL NO :962 of 2010 ORDER: This appeal is directed against the Decree and Judgment dated 16.07.2010 made in A.S.No.3 of 2009 by the learned Senior Civil Juge, Nandigama, Krishna District, whereby and whereunder, the Decree & Judgment dated 4.02.2009 made by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandigama, Krishna District, in O.S.No:260 of 2002 was confirmed. The appellants herein are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. Originally, the plaintiff filed the above suit seeking eviction of the defendants from the schedule premises and for recovery of arrears of rent. The case of the plaintiff is as follows: He is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule shop and he leased out the same in the month of December, 1985 to the 1st defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.725/- for a period of three years i.e., from 13.12.1985 to 12.12.1988. The 1st defendant-tenant started a footwear business in the plaint schedule shop in the name and style of ‘J.J. Footwear’ and continued his business. After expiry of three years, the lease period was extended and the rent was also enhanced from time to time. The lease period was extended from 13.12.1997 to 12.12.2000 on a monthly rent of Rs.1925/-. The 1st defendant-tenant paid rent upto September, 1999 and thereafter he committed default and fell in due of Rs.55,825/- upto the end of February, 2002. On 13.3.2002 the plaintiff went to the shop for collection of the rent and noticed that the 2nd defendant was present in the shop and doing business. When the plaintiff questioned the 2nd defendant, he stated that the 1st defendant leased out the shop to him on a monthly rent of Rs.3000/- and he is running a shoe shop therein and the plaintiff never gave any consent to the 2nd defendant to continue as tenant in plaint schedule shop and then, the plaintiff got issued a notice on 27.3.2002 to defendants 1 and 2 demanding to vacate and handover possession of the premises, for which the defendants gave a reply on 6.4.2002 and set up a plea that the 1st defendant vacated the plaint schedule shop on 31.3.2001 and the plaintiff himself leased out the plaint schedule shop to one Nuthalapati Nagendramma-3rd defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.1050/- to run the shop. In view of the said reply, the 3rd defendant was also shown as party to the suit. The defendants 1 and 3 filed a written statement admitting the lease of shop to the 1st defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.725/- but denying renewal of lease. According to the defendants, the 1st defendant paid Rs.725/- per month and later, the rent was enhanced to Rs.900/- per month and the 1st defendant paid the same till he vacated and he was not the tenant from 1.4.2000 onwards. The plaintiff let out the schedule shop to the 3rd defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.1050/- and delivered the vacant possession of the same to the 3rd defendant on 1.6.2000. The 3rd defendant paid rents to the plaintiff and his brother upto the end of February, 2002. Thereafter, when the brother of the plaintiff refused to receive the rents, the 3rd defendant sent the same by money order to the plaintiff. But the plaintiff refused to receive the same. Thereafter, the 3rd defendant got issued a notice to the plaintiff and filed R.C.C.No.1/2002 under Section 8(5) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act and the matter is pending. The 2nd defendant filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by defendants 1 and 3. On the above pleadings, the Court below after framing the issues, went into trial. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and examined one more witness as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A19 and Exs.X1 to X3. The 1st defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and 3rd defendant examined himself as D.W.2 and got Exs.B1 to B4 marked. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Court below observed that the admission made by defendants 1 and 3 jointly that the rent was Rs.1050/- p.m., from 1.6.2000 onwards, itself goes to show that the suit is maintainable and that there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff gave the schedule shop to the 3rd defendant on lease and admittedly, 3rd defendant is in possession of the suit premises and that the 1st defendant failed to prove that he vacated the suit premises and delivered possession to the plaintiff and therefore, it can be inferred that the 3rd defendant was in occupation of suit premises by virtue of sub-lease from the 1st defendant. Further it is observed that the plaintiff got issued a quit notice under Section 106 of the TP Act and they received the same and the validity or otherwise of the said notice has not been disputed. It is also observed that the plaintiff did not issue any notice to the 1st defendant demanding rent for the period, during which the 1st defendant is alleged to have fell in due of arrears, and that the plaintiff failed to prove that the 1st defendant fell in due of arrears of rent. Accordingly, the Court below partly decreed ordering eviction only. Hence, the defendants carried the matter in appeal. The lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the Court below. Hence, the present appeal is preferred by the defendants. Heard. Perused the material available on record. Learned Counsel for the petitioners-defendants submitted that when the Court below gave a finding at paragraph No.27 that the plaintiff failed to establish that the monthly rent is at the rate of more than Rs.1000/- and the Civil Court will not have any jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the Court below ought not to have entertained the suit basing on the admission made by the defendants that the rent is more than Rs.1,000/- per month and that the Court below ought to have decided the suit on the material adduced by the plaintiff, but not on the weakness of the defence. It is further submitted that the Courts below decreed the suit only basing on mere surmises and conjectures and therefore, the judgments under appeal are liable to be set aside. The grounds raised in this appeal as to the quantum of rent and sublease of the premises, are factual aspects which are discussed at length by both the Courts below. As regards the notice is concerned, the validity of the said notice has not been disputed by the defendants. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the concurrent findings of both the Courts below and in view of the fact that the grounds of appeal do not constitute any substantial question of law, I feel that the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, do not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. But, however, time granted by the Courts below for vacating the premises is extended till the end of February, 2011, subject to payment of rents till then. ________________________ Justice A. Gopal Reddy Dated:10.12.2010 Nn. HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI SECOND APPEAL No:962 OF 2010 10.12.2010