THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3264 OF 2011 02.09.2011 Between: Pydah Rammohana Rao …Petitioner AND Manepalli Satyanarayana @ Baburao And another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3264 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is plaintiff. He instituted O.S.No.517 of 2001 for recovery of arrears of rent in a sum of Rs.2,860/- with subsequent interest and for recovery of rent due in a sum of Rs.8,500/- for a period from November, 1999 to March, 2001. The suit was dismissed by Judgment and decree dated 07.09.2006. The petitioner was also unsuccessful in A.S.No.234 of 2006. As the value of the suit for recovery of money is less than Rs.25,000/-, the second appeal would not lie. Therefore, this revision petition is filed. The plaintiff/petitioner herein contended that he is the owner of building bearing door No.21-1-4, Jawahar Street, Kakinada; the defendants who are tenants took a portion of the same on lease in 1986 on a monthly rent of Rs.500/- per month; though the rent is payable by first of succeeding month the defendants were irregular in payment of rents; the plaintiff and defendant settled the amount due; it was agreed to be paid by the defendants duly executing a letter to that effect; though the defendant paid certain amounts on 05.04.1997 and 20.04.1998, the balance of arrears and subsequent rents were not paid. The second defendant filed the written statement which was adopted by the first defendant. He denied the suit claim. The second defendant alleged that he has been paying the rent in accordance with the agreement, there is no stipulated date of payment, and therefore, it was agreed that the rent shall be paid as and when the plaintiff comes to Visakhapatnam and in case he does not turn up; the amount is to be deposited in his Andhra Bank Account. The second defendant also alleged that he was forced to sign a letter dated 08.08.1996 agreeing as if an amount of Rs.7,860/- is due. During the trial, the Court tried four issues. The plaintiff examined himself as sole witness and marked four documents. The second defendant gave evidence as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B.1 to B.14. After considering the evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove his case that the defendants are liable to pay the amount. Having regard to the admissions made by P.W.1, as well as Exs.B.7 to B.14, rent receipts, the trial Court recorded a finding that no arrears are due from the defendants. These findings are affirmed by the appellate Court. In this revision petition, the only submission made is that both the Courts below failed to appreciate the material on record properly. This Court has perused the Judgment of the trial Court as well as appellate Court and does not find any force in the submission made by the counsel for the plaintiff. Both the Courts below have appreciated evidence correctly and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove the suit claim. The civil revision petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 02.09.2011 Pln