HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED SECOND APPEAL No. 44 of 2011 JUDGMENT This Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of the learned XIII-Additional Chief Judge, (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 05.10.2010 passed in A.S.No.602 of 2006, whereunder the learned Judge reversed the judgment and decree of the learned VIII-Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 12.04.2006 passed in O.S.No.648 of 2003. Appellant herein is the defendant and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed in the suit. Brief facts of the case of the plaintiffs are that the suit schedule property is an open space surrounded by compound wall with zink shed and it is an ancestral property and the same was leased out to the defendant on 26.10.1993 under a rental deed for a period of 11 months on a monthly rent of Rs.500/- by the father of the plaintiffs. It is stated that after the death of the father of the plaintiffs, the rent deed was executed in favour of mother of the plaintiffs commencing from 01.08.1995 on a monthly rent of Rs.600/-. After expiry of said rental deed, the defendant renewed the tenancy by executing the rental deed in favour of plaintiff No.2 on a monthly rent of Rs.800/- and thereafter the defendant was paying rent of Rs.1,000/-. It is stated that the defendant, with a mala fide intention with the connivance of the A.P. Wakf Board employees in order to grab the suit schedule property, filed applications on 26.03.1997 and 17.01.1998 before the A.P. Wakf Board stating that the Muthawalli of Mosque of Champa Darwaza bearing MCH NO.21-7-762 with its attached properties situated at Ghansi Bazar is a registered and notified wakf property published in A.P. Gazette No.6-A dated 09.02.1989 under the Towliyath of Hafiz Abu Nayeem Gulam Ahmed, later who happed to be the father of the plaintiffs. It is further stated that the suit schedule property is not a Wakf property and that on the misrepresentation of the defendant, the Wakf Board issued proceedings dated 11.08.1998 without conducting any enquiry. Subsequently, the defendant got a notice dated 18.09.1998 getting his own name included as a tenant of the premises and paying a rent of Rs.1000/-for which the plaintiffs filed W.P.No.23348 of 1998 and the said writ petition was allowed on 21.08.2001. It is further stated that the defendant failed to pay the rents regularly to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit being O.S.No.648 of 2003 against the defendant for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property and for recovery of Rs.48,000/- towards damages and Rs.15,000/- towards damages from the date of filing of the suit till the date of delivery of vacant possession. The said suit was contested by the defendant by filing written statement, inter alia, contending that the plaintiffs have no right over the suit schedule property and that he is not a tenant of the plaintiffs. It is further contended that the suit is bad for non- joinder of proper and necessary party and that the defendant sought for dismissal of the suit. During trial of the suit, on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A28 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. The trial Court, on a consideration of the rival contentions and also the entire material available on record, dismissed the suit by its judgment dated 12.04.2006. Against the said judgment and decree, the plaintiffs carried the matter in appeal i.e., A.S.No.602 of 2006 and the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal directing the defendant to vacate the suit schedule property and hand over vacant possession to the plaintiffs by 31.12.2010 and further it is made it clear that the defendant is liable to pay Rs.33,750/- towards arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.1000/- from 01.04.2000 to 24.01.2003 with interest at 6% from the date of decree till realization. The lower appellate Court further made it clear that the plaintiffs are at liberty to file separate petition to ascertain damages from the date of filing of the suit till the date of delivery of vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs under Order 20 Rule 12 (1) ( c ) of C.P.C. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present second appeal has been preferred by the defendant. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-plaintiffs. I have perused the judgment impugned and also the entire material available on record. Admittedly, the defendant has executed rental deeds with the plaintiffs vide Exs.A1 to A5, but for the first time in the year 1997 he addressed a letter to the Wakf Board mentioning that he want to pay the rent directly to the Wakf Board. When the defendant has admitted the execution of rental deeds, the question of denying the tenancy between the tenant and landlord does not arise. The defendant neither filed any document nor adduce any evidence to show that the property in question is a Wakf property. Ex.A26 is the order passed in W.P.No.23348 of 1998, wherein this Court set aside the proceedings of the Wakf Board. The lower appellate Court, by taking into consideration the entire evidence available on record, has rightly held that the plaintiffs have established the jural relationship between them and the defendant. The lower appellate Court further held that since the defendant has admitted that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of one Hafez Abu Nayeem Gulam Ahmed, the question of mis-joinder of parties does not arise at all even though the second plaintiff entered into rental agreement with the defendant. The lower appellate Court rightly held that the plaintiffs are entitled for arrears of rent of Rs.33,750/- at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month from 01.04.2000 to 24.01.2003 from the defendant. The lower appellate Court has given sufficient and cogent reasons while allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. Having considered the submissions made and also on perusal of entire material available on record especially in view of the findings as arrived at by the lower appellate Court, I do not find any question of law, much less, a substantial question of law in this second appeal warranting interference with the impugned judgment by this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I do not find any merit in this second appeal. The Second Appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. However, the appellant-defendant is given one-month time, from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to vacate the suit schedule property in question. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED 02.09.2011 Gsn.