THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM S.A.No.1154 of 2011 Dated 23-09-2011 Between: Vinjamuri Jawahar Kumar …Petitioner Vs. Saripalli Appalanarasimha Murty …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM S.A.No. 1154 of 2011 Dated: 23-09-2011 ORAL ORDER: This is an unsuccessful tenant’s second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27-07-2011 dismissing A.S.No. 143 of 2009, on the file of the learned IV-Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, confirming in part the judgment and decree of the learned III-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, dated 24-03-2009 allowing O.S.No. 1287 of 2007, and ordering eviction of the appellant from the schedule premises. The respondent filed O.S.No. 1287 of 2007 for eviction; arrears of rent from 01-05-2006 to 30-06-2007 at the rate of Rs.2,500-00 per month and further damages from 01-07-2007, until physical delivery of schedule property to himself. The respondent-plaintiff asserted bona fide requirement of the suit schedule residential premises for his use and also asserted that the tenant defaulted in payment of rents and was in arrears. The suit was substantially decreed and the trial Court ordered eviction; declared entitlement of the plaintiff to recover arrears of rent from September, 2006 to 30-06-2007 i.e, for ten months at Rs.1200-00 per month; but rejected the claim for damages. In A.S.No.143 of 2009 the appellant herein additionally asserted that the civil Court had no jurisdiction since the admitted rent and the rent allowed by the trial Court being Rs.1200-00 per month, the building is covered under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’). While partly allowing the appeal, the lower appellate Court held that the issue as to jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be gone into since there was no plea in the tenant’s written statement in the suit as to jurisdiction nor is any evidence let in on that aspect. Since the plea of want of jurisdiction is raised for the first time in the grounds of appeal, the same cannot be countenanced, observed the lower appellate Court. The appellate Court concurred with the trial Court on the aspect that the plaintiff-landlord requires the suit schedule property for his personal use and occupation which is bona fide. However the plea that the tenant had defaulted or fell in arrears of rent was rejected. Accordingly while setting aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court with regard to the relief pertaining to grant of arrears of rent, the lower appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree insofar as eviction is concerned. The singular ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant-tenant is that the lower appellate Court erred in failing to consider the issue as to the want of jurisdiction to entertain the suit inasmuch as the rent of the premises is Rs.1200-00 per month and since it is a pure question of law, the lower appellate Court ought not to have rejected the same on the ground that there was no plea in his written statement nor any issue framed or evidence recorded on this aspect. This Court finds no substantial question of law arising in this second appeal. The ouster of jurisdiction of the civil Court and vestiture of jurisdiction in the special Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Act arises only where the rent for the premises is up to the specified monetary limit and on the basis of the age of the premises. There is no plea by the appellant herein, either before the trial Court or the lower appellate Court nor is there any evidence on record to substantiate the jurisdictional fact where on account of age of the premises in question, the cause falls to be tried exclusively by the special Tribunal under the provisions of the Act and the jurisdiction of the civil Court is ousted. Sri P. Sri Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the appellant submits that a reasonable time be granted for the appellant to vacate the premises. Though this Court finds no substance in this second appeal and therefore ought not to grant any time to the appellant for vacating the premises since that would amount to variation of the order under appeal, Sri M.S.R. Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord/caveator has fairly agreed for granting a month’s time for vacating the premises as against six months sought on behalf of the appellant. In the circumstances this Court places on record the agreement on behalf of the respondent-landlord orally conveyed by his learned counsel Sri M.S.R. Subrahmanyam, that the appellant is permitted to vacate the schedule premises within a month from today. The second appeal is however dismissed. No costs. __________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Dated: 23-09-2011 KRB/Pvks/*