THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED SECOND APPEAL No. 964 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: The appellant is the defendant. The respondent, who is plaintiff, filed O.S.No.1021 of 2002 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, for eviction of the defendant from the suit schedule shop and for delivery of the vacant possession of the same and also for damages for occupying the shop after expiry of the lease period. The trial court after taking into consideration both oral and documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit with costs by its judgment dated 29.3.2006 directing the defendant to vacate the suit schedule shop and hand over the vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff. It was further held that the plaintiff is entitled for damages for use and occupation of the suit schedule shop at Rs.2,000/- per month from 1.3.2002 till handing over possession of the suit schedule shop. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant preferred A.S.No.139 of 2006 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The appellate court after reappraisal of both oral and documentary evidence on record dismissed the appeal by its judgment dated 09.07.2009 confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.3.2006 passed by the trial court. Challenging the judgment dated 09.07.2009 in A.S.No.139 of 2006, the defendant filed the present Second Appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that the lower appellate court erred in confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court when there is no valid quit notice issued by the respondent under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short ‘the Act’). The learned counsel further contends that the lower appellate court failed to see that the trial court awarded the damages without there being any evidence on record. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that both the courts have given cogent and convincing reasons while holding the quit notice as a valid notice under Section 106 of the Act and the appellant is in unauthorized occupation of the suit schedule shop after expiry of the lease period, which need not be interfered with by this Court. 4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the record. The defendant was inducted as tenant for the purpose of carrying business of selling sanitary items in the suit schedule shop under a lease deed dated 1.9.1983 for a period of 11 months on a monthly rent of Rs.1200/-. There was an understanding for increase of rent of Rs.200/- per month at the end of every 33 months of lease period. The lease has been extended from time to time by increasing the rent. Hence, the tenancy is month to month determinable by fifteen days notice under Section 106 of the Act. The plaintiff got issued notices from time to time demanding the defendant to vacate the suit schedule shop and finally he got issued Ex.A.4 notice dated 4.2.2002 to the defendant determining the tenancy and demanded him to vacate the suit schedule shop, which was acknowledged by the defendant and sent a reply dated 26.2.2002 under Ex.A.5. Therefore, it cannot be said that the notice under Section 106 of the Act is not valid as it is a clear fifteen days prior notice. Once the quit notice is held to be valid, the possession of the defendant over the suit schedule shop after expiry of the lease period is unauthorized. As such, damages were awarded after expiry of the lease period at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month by taking into consideration the commercial area of the suit schedule shop. Therefore, there is no perversity in the findings arrived at by the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. In the circumstances, I do not find any question of law much less substantial question of law that arises for consideration in the Second Appeal. 5. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. There shall be no order as to costs. But however, the appellant is granted six months’ time to vacate the suit schedule shop subject to the condition that he shall pay the monthly rent regularly. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J 23.10.2009 Stp