THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.138 of 2008 JUDGMENT: The respondent is the owner of commercial premises bearing No.2-1-48, Prakasham Gunj, Karimnagar Town. The appellant is the lessee in respect of the said premises from the year 1977. The respondent got issued notices, dated 11.09.2003 and 21.09.2011, Exs.A7 and A19 respectively, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short ‘the Act’) terminating the tenancy and demanding a sum of Rs.35,000/-. Since the appellant did not vacate the premises nor paid the arrears of rent, the respondent filed O.S.No.61 of 2004 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar for eviction of the appellant and for recovery of rents. The appellant opposed the suit by raising several grounds. The trial Court decreed the suit through judgment, dated 19.07.2006. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed A.S.No.57 of 2006 in the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. The appeal was dismissed on 05.12.2007. Hence, this second appeal. Heard Sri T.Ramulu, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.B.Bhaskara Lakshmi, learned counsel for the respondent. The relationship of lessee and lessor between the parties herein was not in dispute. However, the main contest was as to the validity of the quit notice and the quantum of arrears of rent. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: 1. Whether the suit quit notice is true, valid and binding on the defendant? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit premises as prayed for? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the arrears of rent and future rents as prayed for? On behalf of the respondent, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A21 were filed. The appellant deposed as D.W.1 and he filed Exs.B1 and B2. On the suit being decreed, an appeal was filed and the lower appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration: 1. Whether the contention of the defendant that agreement agreeing to enhancing the monthly rent to Rs.7,000/- and Rs.8,000/- from the respective dates are forcibly obtained by the respondent-plaintiff and if so whether they are binding on the defendant? 2. Whether there is a proper quite notice issued by the plaintiff? 3. Whether the respondent-plaintiff is entitled for recovery of arrears of Rs.1,35,000/-, mesne profits of Rs.36,000/- at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per month from 01.10.2003 to 31.12.2003 and also for future damages at the same rate? 4. Whether the respondent-plaintiff is entitled for evicting the defendant and for recovery of possession of suit premises? The appellant does not dispute the fact that he is the lessee of the respondent. Since there did not exist any lease deed for a specific period, it was liable to be treated as the one from month to month. The scope and adjudication into the dispute as to the legality or correctness of the notice issued under Section 106 of the Act has virtually been minimised with the amendment to that Section. For all practical purposes, the text or the content thereof becomes relevant once the lessor connotes to his intention to terminate the lease. Assuming that Exs.A7, A14 and A19, which are legal notices issued at various points of time suffered from any infirmity, there is absolutely no ambiguity about the intention on the part of the respondent to terminate the lease. All other minor controversies pale into insignificance. The trial Court determined the quantum of rent and it is brought to the notice of this Court, as of now, there are no subsisting arrears. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that his client may be granted reasonable time to vacate the premises, since his stay in the premises was very long. This request is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the appellant is granted time till 30.10.2012 to vacate the premises, subject to payment of rents regularly and clearance of arrears, if any. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:14.12.2011. kdl