THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.646 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appellant is the tenant in respect of premises bearing No.37-6-16 situated at Kakinada owned by the respondent. The lease commenced from 1999 and it has been renewed from time to time. The respondent filed O.S.No.1474 of 2004 in the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada for eviction of the petitioner from the premises and for damages at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of the suit till the date of eviction. The trial Court passed a decree on 06.08.2009 directing eviction of the appellant and determined damages at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month from the date of the suit till the date of handing over the possession. The appellant filed A.S.No.148 of 2010 in the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. The appeal was dismissed on 18.04.2011. Hence, this second appeal. Heard Sri M. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant does not dispute the existence of the relationship of lessor and lessee. The respondent got issued a notice under Section106 of the Transfer of Property Act, marked as Ex.A.2. One of the contentions advanced by the appellant is that the respondent is not in bona fide need of the premises. Even if it is true, it does not become the relevant factor. It is only in the proceedings that are instituted under the provisions of the A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 that such a ground would become relevant. Though the respondent claimed damages at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month, the trial Court fixed the same at Rs.1,000/- per month and no appeal was filed by the respondent against the same. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial Court and the lower appellate Court. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that his client may be given reasonable time for vacating the premises. Normally, the requests of this nature would be considered only when the respondent is represented. Since the second appeal is being dismissed at the admission stage, it is felt that the appellant can be granted time till 31.10.2011 subject to payment of rents and leaving it open to the respondent to seek review, if he feels aggrieved by the said condition. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed, however by granting time till 31.102.011 for the appellant to remain in possession, subject to payment of rents and submission of an undertaking before the trial Court that he would put the respondent in vacant possession of the premises on or before 31.10.2011. It is also directed that in case, the respondent feels aggrieved by the facility created by this Court for the appellant to remain in possession up to the said date, it shall be open to him to seek review of the condition. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 23.06.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.646 of 2011 Date: 23.06.2011 JSU