IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI SECOND APPEAL NO : 1086 of 2009 DATED: 18.12.2009 Between: M/s Santosh Enterprises rep., by its Prop: R.N. Anjaneyulu. ..... APPELLANT AND B. Nagabhushanam .....RESPONDENT HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI SECOND APPEAL No.1086 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal arises out of the decree & judgment, dated 29th September, 2009, passed in A.S.No.117 of 2008 by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 6.6.2008 passed in O.S.No.834 of 2004 by the learned I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the suit. Originally, the plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.834 of 2004 for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agents from interfering or dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows: The plaintiff is the tenant and the defendant is the owner of the suit schedule property. The defendant let out the same to the plaintiff in the year 1989 for carrying on business in the name and style of M/s Santosh Enterprises, dealing in sales and services of Generators, Diesel Engines and other Agricultural Motors. They entered into an oral lease agreement in the year 1989 initially for a period of two years on a monthly rent of Rs.800/- per month and that the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards refundable deposit and the defendant acknowledged the receipt of the same. Subsequently, the lease has been extended from time to time orally and the plaintiff enhanced the rent as demanded by the defendant and the present rent is Rs.1,650/-p.m. In the year 2001, the defendant approached the plaintiff to provide additional deposit of Rs.20,000/- to extend the oral lease for a further period of 10 years, for which he agreed and paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- by way of cash on 24.11.2001 and the defendant passed the stamped receipt. The plaintiff upon the assurance given by the defendant for extension of the lease for a period of ten years, obtained dealership of various companies. While so, when the plaintiff offered rent for the month of May, 2004, the defendant surprisingly refused to receive the same. Then, the plaintiff sent the rent of May, 2004 by money order, which was refused by the defendant who further tried to evict the plaintiff from the suit schedule mulgi by adopting unlawful methods. The defendant-landlord filed the written statement contending that the plaintiff executed a rental agreement on 6.4.1989 in the name of M/s. Rama Krishna Enterprises and the agreed rent was Rs.850/- p.m., and that the plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs.35,000/- through cheques and the same was recorded in the agreement. The plaintiff also executed another rental agreement on 4.9.1997, by which, the period of lease was extended. The present monthly rent is Rs.1,650/- per month. Subsequently, neither the defendant has agreed for extension of lease nor the plaintiff deposited an amount of Rs.20,000/-. But, however, by fabricating and forging the signatures of the defendant the plaintiff has pressed into service the alleged receipt for Rs.20,000/-. The plaintiff paid rents only upto April, 2004. Apart from that, the plaintiff is irregular in payment of rents and hence, he got issued a quit notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act on 30.7.2004 terminating the tenancy by 31.8.2004 and after receipt of quit notice, the plaintiff sent a banker’s cheque along with a reply notice for a sum of Rs.6,600/- for the month of May, 2004 to July, 2004. The defendant has been requesting the plaintiff to vacate the schedule premises to set up business for his sons. In January, 2004, the plaintiff informed that he was searching for another premises to vacate the schedule property and hence, the defendant’s son started the business under the staircase. But, the plaintiff has been postponing for vacating the premises and he stopped paying the rents. After termination of tenancy, the plaintiff is a trespasser from 31.8.2004 and he is liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month for the suit mulgi from 1.9.2004. Hence, the defendant prays to direct the plaintiff to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property. On the other hand, the plaintiff filed his rejoinder for the counter claim of the defendant contending that the lease was extended for a period of 10 years and he paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- in the year 2001 and the present rent is Rs.1,650/- per month and he also filed a suit in O.S.No.188 of 2005 seeking specific performance on the basis of oral lease agreement and that the defendant has no right to issue a quit notice during the subsistence of the lease. Apart from that, the defendant has no cause of action to make the counter claim. Before the Court below, P.Ws 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A12 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B11. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Court below dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff while decreeing the counter-claim of the defendant and directing the plaintiff to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the defendant within three months. Hence, the plaintiff carried the matter in appeal. On re-appreciation of the evidence on record, the appellate Court while concurring with the findings arrived at by the Court below, dismissed the appeal. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the lower appellate Court is not justified in confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Court below by allowing the counter claim made by the defendant/landlord in original suit and in the absence of any evidence, fixation of mesne profits at the rate of Rs.4,000/- is not sustainable and that the landlord agreed to give three months notice in Ex.B3 to vacate the rented premises and therefore, the quit notice under Ex.B6 is bad in law. In the present case on hand, both the Courts below gave concurrent findings as to the claim of the plaintiff and the counter claim of the defendant. The scope for interference with regard to the concurrent findings on facts while exercising jurisdiction under section 100 C.P.C. is very limited. The material available on record coupled with Exs.B1 to B3 establishes the case of the defendant. The findings arrived at by both the Courts are clear, cogent and clinching and they are based on quaint reasoning. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that there is no perversity in finding of fact or no misconduct in collection and evaluation of evidence. Apart from that, the grounds raised in the appeal, do not constitute any substantial question of law. In view of this and in view of the concurrent findings of the Courts below, I see no merits in this second appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this second appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. ______________________ Justice T.Meenakumari Date:18th December, 2009. Nn HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI Second Appeal No.1086 of 2009 18.12.2009