HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR SECOND APPEAL No.453 of 2010 Date: 12.05.2010 Between : Sri Satya Srinivasa Jewellery Mart, a firm rep.by its Partner Pedamallu Gopalakrishna, s/o. Manikyala Rao, Hindu, 52 years, Occ: Business, D.No.6-88, C.S.No.9-25-52, Gunduvari Street, Rajahmundry, E.G. District and others. … Appellants And Kokkirala Nagasrirama Prasad … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR SECOND APPEAL No.453 of 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellants-defendants as well as learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff. 2. This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 02.03.2010, in A.S.No.148 of 2006, passed by the V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari, Rajahmundry, (for brevity “the lower appellate Court”), dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree, dated 05.06.2006, in O.S.No.423 of 2004 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, (for brevity “the trial Court”), decreeing the suit, whereby and whereunder both the Courts below concurrently ordered the appellants-defendants to vacate the plaint schedule premises. 3. The appellants had filed a suit for specific performance of oral agreement of sale, which was heard along with the suit for eviction filed by the respondent. The suit filed by the appellants for specific performance was dismissed by the trial Court, whereas the suit for eviction filed by the respondent was decreed. No appeal was preferred as against the dismissal of the suit for specific performance, but the appeal was preferred only against the decree of eviction passed by the trial Court. Under the impugned judgment dated 02.03.2010 of the lower appellate Court, the said appeal was dismissed and the only question raised about the validity of issuing notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was held against the appellants. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the notice issued to the appellants is not in conformity with the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. But, the finding of the lower appellate Court, however, says that the notice dated 14.7.2001 under Ex.B-1 had terminated the tenancy of the appellants with effect from 31.8.2001. Therefore, more than 15 days time was given to the appellants and the said notice is clearly a valid notice and is in accordance with the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and no substantial question of law can be founded in the said ground. Hence, the question of law framed by the appellants under Ground No.2 (a) of the Memorandum of Grounds is answered against the appellants. 5. In the absence of any other ground available in favour of the appellants, much less any other substantial question of law, this second appeal is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. 7. However, in view of the fact that the appellants have been carrying on business in the scheduled premises for quite some time, I deem it appropriate to grant time till 31.10.2010 to vacate the scheduled premises, subject to the following conditions: (a) The appellants shall file an undertaking before the trial Court on or before 15th of June, 2010 that they shall not alienate or transfer or create any third party interest with regard to the scheduled premises and shall handover vacant possession to the respondent-landlord on or before 31.10.2010; (b) They should also undertake that they shall pay the arrears of rent, if any, and shall continue to pay the monthly rent towards the scheduled premises upto 31.10.2010. __________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR 12.05.2010. Msr HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR SECOND APPEAL No.453 of 2010 12.05.2010 (Msr)