THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Second Appeal No.580 of 2010 Date: 09-7-2010 Between M/s. Manish Foot Wear, Rep. by its Proprietor Manish Peshwani, Vijayawada … Appellant/Appellant /Defendant and Mohd. Sirajudin Khalid … Respondent/Respondent /Plaintiff THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Second Appeal No.580 of 2010 Oral Judgment: Heard both sides. 2. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29-4-2010 in A.S.No.250 of 2009 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna district, allowing in part the judgment and decree dated 17-9-2009 in O.S.No.1181 of 2007 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada confirming the eviction of the defendant from the plaint schedule premises while rejecting the claim of damages. 3. The appellant herein is the defendant-tenant and the respondent is the plaintiff-landlord in the suit before the trial Court. 4. The plaintiff filed the suit for eviction of the defendant-tenant from the plaint schedule premises after issuing a Notice on 24-3-2007 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Learned counsel for the plaintiff tried to make out something in favour of the plaintiff but that is not necessary for this Court to place heavy reliance on. 5. What has been pointed out specifically as a substantial question of law by the learned counsel for the defendant is that the plaintiff, who has been claiming as the owner of the plaint schedule property by virtue of a hiba (gift) Ex.A-1, which was an unregistered and insufficiently stamped document. 6. It is his contention that when the said document was sought to be marked, the same was allowed by the trial Court and the defendant approached this Court by way of a revision C.R.P.No.3954 of 2008. In the said revision, the plaintiff appears to have informed this Court that he would not rely on the said document, inasmuch as, there was a better evidence available on record in order to prove that he had title over the suit schedule property. 7. Therefore, the suit was tried and basing on the other evidence on record, which has been adduced by both the parties, de horse the original document that was sought to be relied on in order to prove the ownership, the trial Court passed the decree in favour of the plaintiff and the same had been confirmed by the lower appellate Court after appreciating the evidence on record. 8. From the above, what appears is -- the document which was sought to be relied on by the plaintiff was withdrawn from the record in order to prove ownership over the suit schedule property and independent evidence had been adduced de horse the said document and therefore, the trial Court had to consider the evidence on record and accordingly considered the whole material on record, both oral and documentary, and decreed the suit. 9. The lower appellate Court also had confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court on merits and for the said reason, the ground that is being urged before this Court by the defendant cannot be treated any longer as a substantial question of law. 10. Furthermore, the basic thing that cannot be ignored is -- the defendant is not denying the status as a tenant and if he pleads ignorance about his owner and particularly when he is not pointing out as to who was his owner, the ground that is being raised in the present appeal cannot be taken into account and the plea of the tenant, in such a case, particularly when he is not able to prove the owner other than the plaintiff. 11. Further, when the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit schedule premises is accepted by both the Courts below basing on the evidence on record and the defendant is admittedly being a tenant, it is highly inexpedient for this Court to interfere with the remaining facts or questions of law, which have been dealt with on all aspects, including the present question. 12. No other substantial question of law is involved, hence the second appeal is devoid of any merit and accordingly the same is liable to be dismissed. 13. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment under appeal. 14. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances, particularly in view of the fact that the defendant-tenant is carrying out some business in the plaint schedule premises, I feel it expedient to direct him to vacate the same on or before the 09th January, 2011 and he shall give an undertaking before the trial Court to that effect. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 09th July, 2010. Ak THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Second Appeal No.580 of 2010 09th July, 2010. (Ak)