THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM SECOND APPEAL No.1179 of 2009 Dated:29.10.2011 Between: V.Rajesh, S/o.Sri Koteswara Rao. … Appel And Gudipalli Ranga Rao, S/o.Late Sri Narayana Murthy. ... Respond THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM SECOND APPEAL No.1179 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This misconceived second appeal raises no substantial question of law warranting consideration. The concurrently unsuccessful defendant assails the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2009 of the learned II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, rejecting A.S.No.28 of 2008 and confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2007 of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, in O.S.No.936 of 2005. The respondent herein filed the suit against the appellant herein for his eviction from the plaint schedule shop No.10-5-11/2, Ramnagar, Visakhapatnam, on several grounds including that the property was leased on 01.09.1993 for the purpose of business on a monthly tenancy and for a period of eleven months; that the defendant had been irregular in the payment of rents from the inception of tenancy; he paid rents up to December 2004; thereafter committed default in payment of rents from January 2005; and that despite issuance of Ex.A1 – legal notice, dated 02.12.2004, the defendant did not vacate the premises. Relief of eviction was sought in the circumstances. The trial Court and the lower appellate Court held that a valid quit notice was issued; that the defendant had committed default and the landlord was entitled to obtain the relief of eviction. Before the lower appellate Court the appellant herein raised a plea for the first time that as the last agreed rent for the premises between the parties was Rs.2,100/-, the value of tenancy being below Rs.3,500/-; as per the amendment to Section 32(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (Rent Control Act, for brevity), amended in 2005, the civil court has no jurisdiction and only the Tribunal constituted under the Act that has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the claims of the landlord seeking eviction. The appellate Court rejected this contention on the ground that this plea raised for the first time in appeal and therefore ought not to be entertained. Be that as it may, on the admitted factual scenario, the schedule premises was let out to the appellant herein in September 1993. There is no material on record to disclose the age of the building constituting the premises. Section 32 of the Rent Control Act as amended by A.P.Act No.17 of 2005 disapplies the provisions of the Act inter alia to any building constructed or substantially renovated, either before or after commencement of the Act after fifteen years from the date of completion of such construction or substantial renovation. Whether the provisions of the Rent Control Act would apply to the schedule premises is a question of fact that ought to have been pleaded by the appellant herein in his written statement, which he did not so plead. It is not a pure question of law. There is thus no material and evidence to justify a conclusion of the issues falling outside the domain of the civil Court’s jurisdiction; and within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunals constituted under the Act. In any view of the matter, no question of law, much less, a substantial question of law arises for consideration in this Second Appeal, wherein reappreciation of the evidence and reconsideration of the concurrent findings of the fact recorded by the Courts below is projected. There being no merits, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. ________________________ (GODA RAGHURAM, J) 29.10.2011 vs