THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI SECOND APPEAL No.1231 OF 2010 Dated: 21.01.2011 Between: Pappala Nooka Raju ..... Appellant And Koduri Venkata Siva Subrahmanyam ….. Respondent The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI SECOND APPEAL No.1231 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 08.07.2010 in A.S.No.43 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru, whereunder the judgment and decree passed by the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari in O.S.No.678 of 2000 dated 16.12.2005 was confirmed. O.S.No.678 of 2000 was filed by the father of the respondent herein claiming that he was the absolute owner of the suit schedule premises and that the same was let out to the father of the defendant for carrying on the business in fruits and biscuits. It was further stated that after the demise of his father, the defendant was continuing in possession on paying monthly rent. It was further pleaded that on 23.06.2000 the plaintiff got issued a registered notice to the defendant asking him to vacate the suit schedule premises on or before 31.07.2000. The defendant got issued a reply with false claims and refused to vacate the suit premises. Hence, the suit for recovery of possession together with the arrears of rent and future damages. Pending the suit, the 1st plaintiff died and the respondent herein, being his son was brought on record as plaintiff No.2. The suit was contested by the defendant contending that he had been paying the rents regularly and that the quit notice got issued by the plaintiff was not valid. To substantiate the suit claim, PW.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A3 documents were marked before the trial Court. On behalf of the defendant DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 document was marked. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court recorded a finding that the quit notice was valid and binding on the defendant. It was also held that since the lease stood terminated, the defendant was bound to vacate the property and deliver the vacant possession to the plaintiff. It was also held that the defendant was liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month for each shop from 01.08.2000 till the date of delivery of possession towards damages. Thus, the suit was decreed by judgment dated 16.12.2005 directing delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule premises on or before 28.02.2006. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred A.S.No.43 of 2006 before the Court of the I Additional District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru. On reappreciation of the evidence available on record, the appellate Court by judgment dated 08.07.2010 confirmed the finding of fact recorded by the Court below and dismissed the appeal granting three months time to the defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises. Hence, the present Second Appeal by the defendant. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. On a careful consideration of the material available on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below that the quit notice was valid and biding on the defendant. Since the fact that the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property as a lessee is not in dispute consequent to the termination of the lease as rightly held by the Courts below, the defendant is bound to vacate the suit premises. Apparently, the matter does not involve any question of law muchless substantial question of law. In the circumstances, the interference by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 100 of C.P.C. is not warranted. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant/defendant is granted time to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises, till 30.04.2011. The appellant/defendant filed an affidavit dated 26.12.2010 undertaking to vacate the plaint schedule premises by 30.04.2011 without fail. The said undertaking is placed on record and the Appeal is dismissed with a direction to the appellant to handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the respondent on or before 30.04.2011. Needless to mention that the agreed rents shall be paid till vacant possession is delivered without any default. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 21.01.2011 Ivd