, THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM S.A. No. 972 of 2011 Dated. 20–08-2011 Between: Sri Guvvala Vijaya Kumar Raju …Appellant Vs. Sri Abbibneni Dvakar …Respondent S.A. No. 973 of 2011 Between: Sri Guvvala Vijaya Kumar Raju …Appellant Vs. Sri Abbibneni Dvakar …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM S.A.Nos. 972 & 973 of 2011 Dated: 20-08-2011 ORAL COMMON ORDER: These second appeals are by the same defendant. S.A.No. 972 of 2011 is against the order of rejection dated 27-06-2011 in A.S.No. 224 of 2009 by the learned VII- Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, being an appeal preferred against the decree and judgment dated 12-08-2009 in O.S.No.494 of 2006 on the file of learned II-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. The suit was filed by the respondent herein for eviction of the appellant from the schedule property; and for delivery of vacant possession to the respondent, along with the articles mentioned in the agreement dated 12-01- 2004; a telephone; for recovery of Rs.52,800-00 towards arrears of rent from July, 2005 to March, 2006; for a direction to the appellant to pay the telephone bills for October, November and December, 2005; for payment of rents at Rs. 6,600-00 per month from April, 2006 till vacating the suit schedule property; and for payment of Rs.13,200-00 towards damages per month from January, 2006 till vacation of the premises and for costs. The trial Court allowed the suit as prayed for. In the appeal however while confirming the eviction ordered by the trial Court, the lower appellate Court reversed the relief granted by the trial Court insofar as payment of arrears of rent is concerned and the other reliefs, except awarding of costs. S.A.No. 973 of 2011 assails the judgment, also dated 27-06-2011 of the learned VII-Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, rejecting A.S.No. 223 of 2009 preferred against the judgment and decree dated 12-08-2009 of the learned II-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, dismissing O.S.No. 1040 of 2007 (old O.S.No. 217 of 2006), which was a suit filed by the appellant herein for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the same property covered by S.A.No. 972 of 201. The Courts below concurrently found that the respondent was the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property; that there was no extant lease deed between the parties; that as a consequence, the lease must be construed as one from month to month; that a quit notice was put in the course of transmission by the respondent addressed to the appellant herein by registered post acknowledgement due, to the same address as is given by the appellant in his suit O.S.No. 1040 of 2007 (old O.S.No. 217 of 2006), filed by the appellant herein for the relief of permanent injunction and the said postal communication having been returned with an endorsement that the addressee was not found, must be construed as substantive and sufficient service. For substantially the same reasons, the appellant’s suit for permanent injunction (new O.S.No. 1040 of 2007; old O.S.No. 217 of 2006) was also rejected and this was confirmed by the appellate Court. This Court discerns no error in the application of law; no perversity in the appreciation of evidence or infirmity in the analysis leading to the conclusions recorded in the two appeals preferred by the appellant herein, warranting interference in the second appeals. No question of law, let alone a substantial question of law is either pleaded or made out, warranting entertainment of these second appeals. The second appeals being without merit are accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission, after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the caveator for the sole respondent in the respective appeals. No costs. __________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Dated: 20-08-2011 Pvks/*