HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI SECOND APPEAL NO. 1015 OF 2009 Friday, the Thirty First Day of December, Two Thousand and Nine Between P.Suryamma @ Surya Krumari and another. Appellants AND M/s. Nageshwara Dharma Nilayam Trust, Sajjan Lal Street, Secunderabad, Rep. By its Trustee Matke Lingappa and others Respondents THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI SECOND APPEAL NO. 1015 OF 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is filed assailing the judgment and decree dated 7.8.2009 passed by the learned I Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, in A.S. No. 163 of 2004 whereby the learned Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.06.2004 passed by the learned I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, in O.S. No. 1394 of 1999 granting two months time to the tenants – appellants herein to handover the vacant physical possession of the suit mulgi to the plaintiff – first respondent herein. The first respondent herein is the absolute owner of the mulgi bearing No.7-3-54, situated at Sajjan Lal Street, Hissam Gunj, Monda Market, Secunderabad, while the petitioners herein are the tenant for the last 20 years. While so, the petitioners herein committed willful default in payment of monthly rents from the month of October, 1998. It is also the case of the first respondent that during the lifetime of the father of the petitioners, he sublet the mulgi to the second respondent herein without consent of the landlord, which is contrary to the terms of the agreement. Thereafter, the plaintiff – first respondent herein issued notice dated 17.03.1999 under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy in respect of the suit mulgi with effect from 30.04.1999. The case of the defendants 3 and 4 - petitioners herein is that the first respondent – plaintiff used to collect the rents once in four or five months as per their convenience and, as such, the allegation that they committed default muchless willful default in payment of rents is unfounded. The allegation of subletting by their father is denied but stated that the second respondent herein has joined the petitioners in carrying on the business. It is also submitted that since the suit schedule mulgi is governed by the provisions of A.P. Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1960, the trial court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. On behalf of the plaintiff, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs. A-1 to A-11 while on behalf of the tenants - defendants, DWs 1 and 2 were examined as DWs.1 and 2 and exhibited Exs.B-1 to B-80 postal receipts and Exs. B-81 to B-157 acknowledgments. The trial court on extensive consideration of evidence, both oral and documentary, decreed the suit directing the petitioners herein to vacate the suit mulgi and to deliver peaceful and vacant possession thereof to the first respondent herein within four months and also granted mesne profits at the rate of 15% which has to be increased bi-annually from the date of suit till the date of delivery of possession. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners herein preferred appeal in A.S. No. 163 of 2004 and the learned I Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment passed by the trial court insofar as it relates to eviction of the petitioners herein from the suit mulgi granting one month time to handover vacant possession thereof. Insofar as the judgment of the trial court relating to the aspect of mesne profits, the lower appellate court directed the first respondent herein to file a separate application under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC for ascertainment of the mesne profits. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court, the tenants – defendants 3 and 4 are in further appeal before this court under Sec.100 CPC. Before adverting to the substantial questions of law, be it noted that the scope of this court under Sec. 100 C.P.C. is quite narrow. Therefore, within the ambit of the appellate jurisdiction of this court under Sec. 100 CPC, let us examine whether any interference is warranted, more particularly in view of the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below. As can be seen from judgment of the courts below, the relationship of the petitioners and the first respondent as tenants and landlord is established, by virtue of the overwhelming evidence available on record and also admissions made by the tenants. The lower appellate court has extensively considered as to the non- applicability of the Indian Trust Act and the consequential jurisdiction of the civil court to try the suit. The lower appellate court has al`so dealt with extensively in respect of Ex.A-5 to the effect that the first respondent has terminated the tenancy with effect from 30.04.1999 giving clear 15 days notice. Neither the service of this notice nor its validity is in dispute. Adverting to the aspect of committing default in payment of rents, if the landlord had failed to receive the rents, as sought to be contended before this court, nothing prevented the petitioners from making an attempt to credit the same to the account of the first respondent. Having gone through the entire material available on record and the findings recorded by both the courts below, I am of the considered view that both the courts below have appreciated the evidence, both oral and documentary, in right perspective and the findings arrived at by both the courts below, do not call for any interference. Consequently, I do not find any question of law muchless substantial question of law. The second appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ T. Meena Kumari, J. December 31, 2009 MAS