THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.156 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appellant is the tenant in respect of the premises owned by the respondent, situated at Bowenpally, Secunderabad. The respondent filed O.S.No.409 of 2004 in the Court of the III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad against the appellant for eviction. It was pleaded that initially, the brother of the appellant by name, Narsimha was the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.1500/- about ten years prior to the filing of the suit and after he vacated, the appellant was inducted into possession in October, 2001 on a rent of Rs.3,000/- per month, exclusive of electricity and water changes, and municipal tax. He got issued a notice on 03.08.2003 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (For short ‘the Act’). It was also alleged that there is outstanding arrears of Rs.86,490/-. With these allegations, he prayed for eviction and recovery of mesne profits. The appellant opposed the suit by filing a written statement. He admitted that he is the tenant of the premises. However, he denied the allegation that there are arrears. He also denied the service of notice under Section 106 of the Act. The trial Court passed an order in I.A.No.1552 of 2004 under Order 15-A C.P.C. Stating that the appellant did not comply with the directions issued therein, the trial Court forfeited the defence of the appellant. The suit was decreed on merits on 07.12.2006. Thereupon, the appellant filed A.S.No.9 of 2007 in the Court of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. The appeal was dismissed on 22.11.2010. Hence, this second appeal. Heard Sri Parsa Anantha Nageswar Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A.L.Raju, learned counsel for the respondent. The appellant did not dispute the fact that he is the tenant of the respondent. On the basis of the pleadings before it, the trial Court framed the following two issues for its consideration: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for vacant possession of the suit schedule property, arrears of rent from the defendant as prayed for? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits? The respondent deposed as P.W.1 and filed Exs.A1 to A4. The appellant deposed as D.W1 and no documentary evidence was adduced. The suit was decreed and the appeal was dismissed. Some miscellaneous proceedings ensued between the parties in the context of payment of rent. Coming to the merits of the matter, though the appellant disputed the receipt of notice under Section 106 of the Act, it ultimately proved that he received the notice. He has also issued a reply. Once the notice is issued, the tenancy stands terminated. Even if the appellant was prompt in payment of rents, he cannot prevent eviction. It is not his case that there is any subsisting tenancy in his favour. The trial Court and the lower appellate Court have taken the correct view of the matter. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. Hence, second appeal is dismissed. However, the appellant is granted time till the end of March 2012, subject to payment of rents regularly. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 30.11.2011. kdl