THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED SA No.1519 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23-8-2011 passed in AS No.225 of 2008 by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, confirming the judgment and decree dated 23-8-2007 passed in O.S.No.2243 of 2003 by the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. The 1st defendant is the appellant herein. The respondents 1 to 6, who are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.2243 of 2003 filed suit the, inter alia, for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property and for mesne profits etc. Before the trial Court, the 1st plaintiff examined herself as PW-1 and marked Exs.A- 1 to A9. On behalf of the defendants, D1 and D2 were examined and marked documents Exs.B-1 to B-50. 3. It is borne out from the record that there is an admission made by DW- 2 to the effect that the sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property was obtained from the real owner by the 1st plaintiff and her late husband and also that the property in question was leased out by the 1st plaintiff and her late husband to the 1st defendant. Both the Courts below based on the evidence adduced held that there is landlord and tenant relationship between the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant. The tenancy prior to the purchase of the property in question by the 1st plaintiff and her late husband is not germane for the purpose of determination of issue of recovery of possession in the suit. The validity or otherwise of the quit notice under Ex.A-1 was also considered by both the Courts below and held that the 1st defendant cold not show that the said quit notice is otherwise invalid. The plaintiffs claimed the suit property for their bonafide requirement. Both the Courts below also held that defendants 1 and 2 have miserably failed to adduce evidence to show that the plaintiffs does not require the suit schedule property for their bonafide requirement for establishing a policlinic. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below. The lower appellate Court as well as the trial Court on consideration of the entire evidence on record came to the factual conclusion that the plaintiffs-respondents herein validly terminated the tenancy and they are entitled for recovery of possession of the suit property. In view of the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the courts below, I do not see any question of law muchless substantial question of law in this Second Appeal. 5. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. However, appellant-defendant is granted six months time from today to vacate the premises in question subject to giving undertaking to that effect and also paying the admitted rent without fail. No costs. _______________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J Dated: 12-12-2011 Nrg. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED SA No.1519 of 2011 12-12-2011