THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA S.A. Nos. 1104 and 1106 of 2010 Common Judgment: These two second appeals are directed against the common judgment and decree dated 21.07.2010 passed by the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing the appeals in A.S. Nos. 57 and 58 of 2009 filed by the appellants against the judgments dated 22.12.2008, passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, partly decreeing the suits in O.S. No.2146 of 2003 and 1752 of 2004, and directing the appellants to deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the respondent herein and further directing them to pay the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.1,600/- per month from January, 2004 till delivery of the vacant possession to the respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the judgments under appeal. The appellants are the tenants, while the respondent is the landlord. The appellants did not dispute the relationship of tenant and landlord between them and the respondent. Though before the first appellate Court, the appellants assailed the validity of the quit notice, the fact remains, both the first appellate Court and the trial Court, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed by the respective parties, concurrently found that that respondent-landlord had sent the quit notice dated 09.12.2003 to the appellants-tenants under Ex. A2, calling upon them to vacate the suit schedule mulgies by the end of the tenancy month of December, 2003, that the appellants, refused to receive the said notice, which is evident from Ex. A4-returned postal cover and Ex. A3- certificate of posting, and that the appellants having not disputed the address mentioned on Exs. A3 and A4, held that the quit notice is deemed to have been served on the appellants and the same is valid and after expiry of 15 days notice, the tenancy stood determined, and more so when the appellants have not pleaded that the quit notice is invalid, and failed to prove that the quite notices were sent to the incorrect address and that the respondent received the rents from January, 2004 i.e. after the tenancy stood determined, an no exception an be taken thereto. The rent of the mulgies in question was Rs.1,600/- per month. As the rent of the mulgies, obviously was above the limit of Rs.1,000/-, prescribed in A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, the Court below have held that the leases governed by the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, but not A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. Further even though the appellants contended that A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 was amended, enhancing the rent limit to Rs.3,500/-, and the benefit thereof, is even applicable to the pending suits, the fact remains, both the Courts below, have concurrently found that the amendment, which came into force w.e.f. 20.05.2005, is only prospective, and therefore, the amendment would not apply to the suits filed much prior to the amendment. Thus, both the Courts below held that the leases are covered by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and not the provisions of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. Holding as above, both the Courts below directed the appellants to vacate the suit schedule mulgies and hand over the vacant possession thereof to the respondent and also pay the arrears of rent from January, 2004 till delivery of vacant possession, and no exception can be taken thereto. For the foregoing reasons, I find no question of law, much less substantial question of law involved in the second appeals, warranting its admission or interference with the judgments under appeal in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The second appeals are bereft of merit, and they are accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 26th November, 2010 KSR