IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR SECOND APPEAL No.565 of 2011 BETWEEN Mohd. Ibrahim. …APPELLANT AND M.A. Rahiman Siddiqui and three others. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR. LAXMAN BATCHU Counsel for the Respondents: MR. T.V. KALYAN SINGH The Court made the following: - JUDGMENT: This is a tenant’s appeal against the concurrent decrees of eviction whereby the suit of the respondent for enforcing Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short ‘the Act’), was decreed. 2. The relationship of the landlord and tenant between the appellant and the respondents is not in dispute and the quantum of rent of Rs.5,000/- per month is also not in dispute. The quit notice – Ex.A3 dated 29.12.2003 terminated the tenancy of the appellant with effect from 31.01.2004. The present suit O.S.No.253 of 2004 filed on 18.03.2004 before the trial Court was resisted by the appellant/tenant contending that the quit notice issued by the owners is not valid, as the owners had already executed General Power of Attorney – Ex.A2 in favour of P.W.1. The tenant also contended that they are solely depending on the business carried on in the suit mulgi and that the present suit came to be filed with a view to seek excessive enhancement of rent. The jurisdiction of the civil Court was also disputed on the ground that the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, applies. However, on evidence led by the parties, the trial Court framed as many as five issues and answered all the issues in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. On appeal, being A.S.No.63 of 2008, the lower appellate Court held that the tenancy being oral it was terminated in accordance with law under Sections 111(h) and 106 of the Act and there are no infirmities. The contention regarding GPA that he has exclusive right to deal with the property was negatived holding that the respondents/owners are also entitled to terminate the tenancy notwithstanding the GPA given to P.W.1. 3. In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant contends that notice of termination itself is defective in view of the admitted position of the owners that they had executed a registered GPA in favour of P.W.1. 4. I am unable to see any infirmity on that ground as it is well settled that even if a principal executes a power of attorney authorizing the agent to do certain acts, the principal himself is not divested of his legal authority and title to deal with the subject matter on such attorney. Notice - Ex.A3 issued under Section 106 of the Act is clearly valid even in terms of the amended provisions of Section 106 of the Act and both the Courts have found that the said notice validly terminated the tenancy of the appellant. I am, therefore, unable to see any question of law much less substantial question of law arising in this appeal. 5. The respondents/landlords counsel appearing on caveat is also heard and he fairly submits that he has no objection if one year’s time is granted to the appellant to vacate the premises in view of his existing old business. 6. Taking into consideration the said offer of the learned counsel for the respondents, the appellant is granted time till end of June 2012 to vacate the suit schedule premises subject to condition of the appellant filing usual undertaking before the trial Court within two (2) weeks from today undertaking that he shall pay all the rents up to date including arrears, if any, on due dates and further undertake that he shall not alienate, transfer or otherwise create third party interest with regard to the suit schedule property during the period so granted, as above. In default of filing an undertaking, the time granted for vacating the premises shall not be available to the appellant and the decree of the trial Court shall become executable immediately. Subject to the above, the second appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J June 17, 2011 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order in three (3) days (B/o) DSK