HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI SECOND APPEAL No:739 OF 2010 Dated: 13.8.2010 Between: M.A. Siddique ..Appellant And 1. The Mukarram Jah Trust for Education and Learning, Purani Haveli, rep., by its Secretary Mr. Kamaluddin Ali Khan and another. .. Respondents. This Court made the following HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI SECOND APPEAL No:739 OF 2010 ORDER: This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.3.2010 passed by the XI Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, confirming the judgment and decree dated 2.4.2007 passed by the II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S.No.4206 of 2006. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants before the Court below. The case of the plaintiff is as follows: He is the tenant of defendant No.1 under rental deed dated 1.6.2005, in respect of mulgi bearing municipal No.22-3-660, adjacent to yellow gate, Purani Haveli, Hyderabad, on a monthly rent of Rs.300/- excluding water and electricity charges and property tax. Defendant No.2, who is a self-styled social worker, collects money under threat from the persons carrying on business in the locality and as usual, he used to visit the suit property and make illegal demands of money. But, the plaintiff refused to pay the same. On that, the 2nd defendant bore grudge against him and hatched up a plan to evict him from the suit property illegally and on 20.7.2006 at about 6 p.m., the defendants came to the suit property and demanded the plaintiff to enhance the monthly rent from Rs.300/- to Rs.1000/- p.m., and also to pay good will of Rs.50,000/- or else to vacate the mulgi. At that time, though the plaintiff offered rent, the 1st defendant refused to receive the same and therefore, the plaintiff sent the rent through money order. While so, on 22.7.2006 the 2nd defendant along with some persons tried to dispossess the plaintiff. But on gathering of the people, they left that place proclaiming that they would dispossess the plaintiff and on that, the plaintiff lodged a complaint. But, no action was taken. Hence, the plaintiff filed the above suit for perpetual injunction against the defendants, their men, agents, relatives or any other persons claiming through the defendants from illegally dispossessing him from the suit schedule property. The 1st defendant filed a written statement before the Court below stating that the plaintiff is the tenant in respect of the suit schedule property and the lease deed was expired and thereafter the plaintiff is not prompt in payment of rents and he did not pay the rent since April, 2006 and as such, he has become willful defaulter. It is further stated that the plaintiff in collusion with defendant No.2 filed the present suit by making false allegations and as a matter of fact, the 2nd defendant is no way concerned with the suit property and that 1st defendant being a charitable institution is solely depending upon the rents being derived from its properties and that there is no cause of action to file the suit. The 2nd defendant filed a separate written statement stating that he along with one Manzoor Ahmed Khan obtained open land adjacent to premises No.22-3-660 at Sabz Bungalow in the year under joint tenancy and the said Manzoor Ahmed Khan expired and defendant No.2 being tenant of 20 sq. yards of land constructed a shop and started hotel business and in the year 1989, when the officials of HEH tried to demolish the shed constructed by him, he filed a suit and the same was dismissed. It is further stated that in August, 2001, the plaintiff approached 2nd defendant and offered to run business under partnership and agreed to give Rs.1100/- p.m., towards profits and after negotiation, partnership deed was executed on 24.8.2001, but by mistake, the heading is typed as partnership agreement and thus, he is the tenant of the 1st defendant in respect of the suit mulgi. To substantiate his contention, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B8 were marked. The Court below having observed that the plaintiff failed to prove the cause of action either against defendant No.1 or against defendant No.2, dismissed the suit. The plaintiff carried the matter in appeal, wherein the judgment and decree of the Court below were confirmed. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the scope for interference with concurrent findings of the fact while exercising jurisdiction under section 100 C.P.C. is very limited. It is an admitted fact that the property in question belongs to a Charitable Trust-1st defendant. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff is the tenant of the schedule premises. The judgment impugned goes to show that the plaintiff failed to prove the cause of action either against the 1st defendant or against the 2nd defendant. The findings of both the Courts below in all respects are in consonance with the evidence on record and are in proper perspective. 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 appeal is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this second appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari Date: 13th August, 2010 Nn. HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI SECOND APPEAL No:739 OF 2010 13.08.2010