HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED S.A. No. 1192 of 2011 DATED: 09.09.2011 Between: Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited .. Appellant And 1. Smt. Shan Sultana (died) per LRs. 2. Asif Alladin 3. Nafeesa Masood Ali .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2010 passed in A.S. No. 44 of 2009 by X Additional Chief Judge (F.T.C.), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant herein against the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2008 passed in O.S. No. 313 of 2007 (old O.S.No.5497 of 2003) by XVI Junior Civil Judge-cum-IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad whereby the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs seeking direction to the appellant-defendant, to deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property; for recovery of arrears of rent and to grant mesne profits, was allowed. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant and perused the judgments under appeal. It is not in dispute that the petrol bunk is being run in the schedule property by the appellant-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, which is the defendant in the suit, and its lease was commenced in the year 1963. Originally, the lease was for a period of 10 years and subsequently it was renewed from time to time. While so, the 1st respondent-plaintiff issued Ex.A1 – Notice dated 29.04.2003 indicating that the respondents have no interest to continue the tenancy of the appellant, as such, requested the appellant to vacate and handover the schedule property to the respondents. As per the provisions contemplated under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, if the landlord intends to terminate the tenancy, 15 days’ notice is sufficient to terminate the tenancy, and admittedly, in this case, the time given in Ex.A1 to enable the appellant to vacate the schedule property, is sufficient. It is not even the case of the appellant that it did not receive the notice. Therefore, it can be safely held that the 1st respondent- plaintiff followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act by sending quit notice to the defendant, who gave reply under Ex.A2, but failed to establish that Ex.A1 is not a valid notice. Thus, by virtue of Ex.A1 – Notice dated 29.04.2003, the tenancy of the appellant stands terminated from the end of May, 2003 onwards. On an appeal preferred by the defendant in A.S.No.44 of 2009, the lower appellate Court, while upholding the view taken by the trial Court, dismissed the Appeal Suit. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the property from the defendant. Concerning the aspect of determination of the quantum of mesne profits, it is evident that the appellant has not vacated the suit schedule property even after receipt of Ex.A1 – notice. Inasmuch as the defendant, contrary to the statutory notice, has not vacated the suit schedule premises, the lower appellate Court has held that the respondents are entitled to recover Rs.15,000/- per month towards mesne profits for illegal occupation of the premises in question from July, 2003 till the date of filing the original suit i.e. 10.09.2003 together with interest at 18% p.a. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings arrived by the trial Court are in consistent with the view taken by the lower appellate Court in A.S. No. 44 of 2009. For the foregoing reasons, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below in its judgments under appeal, nor is there any question of law, much less substantial question of law involved in the second appeal, warranting interference by this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 19.10.2010 delivered in A.S. No. 44 of 2009 by X Additional Chief Judge (F.T.C.), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. It is made clear that the appellant-defendant is directed to deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the respondents-plaintiffs, within a period of six months from today. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 09.09.2011 bcj