HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI SECOND APPEAL No.332 of 2010 Dated: 29.4.2010 Between: Mohd. Moinuddin ..Appellant and Mohd. Riazuddin .. Respondent. This Court made the following: HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI SECOND APPEAL No.332 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the decree & judgment, dated 03.02.2010 made in A.S.No.63 of 2008 on the file of the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 31.12.2007 made in O.S.No.643 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal Rent Controller-cum-XII Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad. The appellant herein is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord. Originally, the respondent-landlord filed the suit in O.S.No.643 of 2004 seeking eviction of the appellant- tenant from the plaint schedule property on the ground that the defendant-tenant took the property on rent and the tenancy is oral and month to month and that the defendant has been causing nuisance by obstructing him to go to the first floor; that on 6.12.2003, though the plaintiff got issued a notice terminating the tenancy, the defendant failed to vacate the premises. Before the Court below, on behalf of the landlord, the landlord got himself examined as P.W.1and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the tenant, D.Ws.1 & 2 were examined and Ex.B1 is marked. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Court below decreed the suit ordering eviction of the appellant-tenant from the plaint schedule premises. Hence, the tenant carried the matter in appeal. On re- appreciation of the evidence and considering the rival contentions, the lower appellate Court concurred with the reasoning and the findings arrived at by the Court below and dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. The scope for interference with the concurrent findings of fact while exercising jurisdiction under section 100 C.P.C. is very limited. Admittedly, the relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The tenancy is oral. In view of the nature of the tenancy, Ex.A1 notice is valid. In this regard, the findings of both the Courts below, which are in consonance with the evidence on record, are in proper perspective. Apart from that, the grounds raised in the appeal, do not constitute any substantial question of law. In the above circumstances and in view of the concurrent findings of the Courts below, I see no merits in this second appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this second appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. However, the appellant-tenant is directed to vacate the schedule premises within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ______________________ Justice T.Meenakumari Date: 29th April, 2010. Nn HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI Second Appeal No.332 of 2010 29.4.2010