HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI SECOND APPEAL No.555 of 2010 13-09-2010 Between: S.Chandramouli ……….Appellant A.Ashok ……….Respondent HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI SECOND APPEAL No.555 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This is a Second Appeal preferred by the plaintiff, against the decree and Judgment in A.S.No.248 of 2008, dated 27-01-2010 on the file of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, confirming the decree dated 26-08-2008 passed in O.S.No.1702 of 2007 on the file of the V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the suit filed for perpetual injunction against the defendant, his henchmen, and agents etc. from forcibly evicting the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property. 2. The parties are described as arrayed in the suit for felicity of expression. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the tenant of the plaint schedule property belongs to the defendant by virtue of an oral tenancy from month to month, on a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/-. The defendant obtained hand loan of Rs.35,000/- from the plaintiff and issued a post-dated cheque to that effect. The said cheque was dishonoured on 07-02-2007, for which, the plaintiff filed a case against the defendant and the said case is pending. Due to which, defendant developed bore grudge against the plaintiff and with a mala fide intention to avoid the hand loan, he along with his family members and some others came to the plaintiff and threatened him with dire consequences by interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. Apprehending danger in the hands of the defendant, the plaintiff filed the suit. 3. The defendant resisted the suit while admitting the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the plaintiff. He specifically stated that the plaintiff is irregular in paying monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- and that there is no cause of action to file the suit and therefore, prayed that the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. Basing on the pleadings, appropriate issues were framed, mainly in regard to the entitlement of the plaintiff for permanent injunction. The plaintiff in support of his case, examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 and A-2. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the defendant. 5. The trial Court after considering the contentions, opined that there was no evidence whatsoever from the side of the plaintiff to show that he is regular in payment of rents. The only evidence of P.W.1 is not sufficient to establish the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant with a mala fide intention to avoid the payment of hand loan tried to evict the plaintiff. In his chief examination, P.W.1 also did not state anything about this incident. Therefore, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the plaintiff preferred A.S.No.248 of 2008. The learned Additional Chief Judge, after considering the contentions, dismissed the appeal confirming the Judgment of the trial Court. 7. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the plaintiff preferred this second appeal contending that the trial Court did not appreciate the facts or Law in correct perspective. The trial Court ought to have seen that the plaintiff is regular in payment of rents and that the defendant obtained hand loan of Rs.35,000/- from him and failed to discharge the same. Therefore, he prayed that the judgments of both the Courts below are liable to be set aside. 8. The substantial questions of Law that arise for consideration are: 1) Whether the appellant-plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction? 2) Whether the findings of the trial Court are perverse and liable to be set aside. 9. It is undisputed fact that there is a landlord and tenant relationship between both the parties. Though the plaintiff contended that the defendant obtained loan from him, and that the cheque issued by the defendant was dishonoured and due to the said dispute, the defendant along with his henchmen came to the plaintiff and threatened him to evict the schedule property, but he failed to establish the said contention. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court after reappraising the evidence have categorically found that the plaintiff failed to establish cause of action to file the suit and moreover, it can be said that the cause of action mentioned by the plaintiff is nothing but an imaginary one, and therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. 12. In the light of the findings arrived at by both the courts below, it cannot be said that the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction. No substantial question of Law survives for consideration in this Second Appeal. Therefore, I do not see any error or flaw in appreciation of evidence by either trial Court or by the 1st appellate Court. I do not see any merits. 13. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No Costs. ______________________ September 13, 2010 KVR