THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO S.A.No.38 of 2010 DATE: 22.12.2010 BETWEEN: Shivkumar .. Appellant And Vissam Shetty Yadagir and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO S.A.No.38 of 2010 JUDGMENT: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. This second appeal is filed by the 4th defendant/tenant. The 1st respondent/landlord instituted a suit for eviction after issuing a quit notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, which is marked as Ex.A.3. The finding of the trial Court by its judgment dated 25.06.2008 in O.S.No.733 of 2004 for eviction of the appellant was confirmed by the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, by its judgment dated 07.09.2009 in A.S.No.143 of 2008. This second appeal was admitted initially by framing the following substantial question of law: Whether the single notice of eviction under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is sufficient seeking eviction for different properties. It is a settled proposition of law that a single notice of eviction under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is not sufficient to seek eviction for different properties. But the real controversy in the instant case is whether the quit notice relates to both the premises or only relates to premises No.3-4-401 or for premises bearing No.3-4-399. This question was raised before the Courts below and this question is purely a question of fact. The learned trial Court clearly held that PW.1 stated in his chief-examination that the defendant is tenant in respect of the ground floor only on a monthly rent of Rs.700/- and Rs.596/- for the first floor, the total of which comes to Rs.1,296/-. The trial Court also categorically held that in the notice dated 23.04.1993 the appellant did not plead that there were two separate tenancies in respect of the two different premises. The learned trial Court specifically held in its judgment that in Ex.A.3 – quit notice, dated 16.04.2004, the respondent/plaintiff has clearly mentioned that the appellant is the tenant of building consisting of ground floor and first floor. The recitals of Ex.A.3 clearly show that though the premises No.3-4- 401 is only mentioned, the premises is clearly described as the premises comprises of two rooms, hall and passage in the ground floor and the entire first floor situated at Tobacco Bazar, Secunderabad. Referring to the said recitals in Ex.A.3, the learned trial Court had categorically held that the description of the property obviously indicates that the quit notice is in respect of the entire premises which was leased out to the appellant on a monthly rent of Rs.1296/- (Rs.700/-+ Rs.596/-) and the mere mentioning one assessment number of the premises does not invalidate Ex.A.3-quit notice. The leaned trial Court thus held that there is no dispute about the identity of the property from which the tenant was sought to be evicted under Ex.A.3 notice as per the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, repelled the contention of the appellant and ordered his eviction. The findings of fact and law recorded by the learned trial Court were confirmed by the appellate Court. As already stated above, the issue involved is purely question of fact which was held against the appellant by concurring findings arrived at by the Courts below. The findings arrived at by both the Courts below are in accordance with the pleadings and evidence before them and the findings cannot be said to be perverse or not based on the evidence. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present second appeal. The appeal itself is not maintainable. Therefore, the second appeal fails and accordingly it is dismissed. Two months time is granted to the appellant to vacate the premises from the date of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ Date: 22.12.2010 R. KANTHA RAO, J kvrm THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO S.A.No.38 of 2010 DATE: 22.12.2010