THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.170 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The respondent is the owner of premises bearing No. 17-3-897/2, admeasuring 250 square yards situated at Dewdi Suryargunj, Yakutpura, Hyderabad. Through a lease deed dated 10.08.2002, he gave the premises on lease to the appellant for establishment of a school. The period of lease expired by May, 2007. The respondent got issued a notice dated 06.06.2007 requiring the appellant to vacate the premises. Correspondence ensued thereafter. O.S.No.3717 of 2007 was filed by the respondent in the Court of II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for the relief of eviction of the appellant from the premises and for recovery of damages. Opposing the suit, an objection was raised by the appellant as to the very maintainability of the suit on the ground that the premises are attracted by the provisions of A.P. Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. According to the appellant, the father of the respondent is the owner and that the respondent has no concern with the premises. Various contentions advanced by the respondent were denied. The trial Court decreed the suit through judgment dated 30.09.2008. The appellant filed A.S.No.340 of 2008 in the Court of X Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The appeal was dismissed on 09.12.2010. Hence, this second appeal. Heard Sri Ch.Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M.Basith Ali Yavar, learned counsel for the respondent. Two issues were framed by the trial Court, namely, whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit schedule property and whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of damages @ Rs.10,000/- per month from 02.07.2007. On behalf of the respondent, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were filed. On behalf of the appellant, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.66 were filed. Decree for eviction was passed and it was left open to the respondent to file application for recovery of damages. The lower appellate Court in A.S.No.340 of 2008 framed three points for its consideration, namely, (a) whether the suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary party i.e., St.Amnes High School; (b) whether lease was renewed subsequent to May, 2007 and (c) whether the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit schedule property as such the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is invalid under law?. The appeal was dismissed. The appellant does not dispute the fact that she is the tenant in respect of the suit schedule premises. However, an attempt was made about the ownership rights of the respondent over the property. The contention of the appellant was that the father of the respondent was the owner and that the respondent has no right or interest in the property. That contention is liable to be rejected without any further verification. The respondent would succeed to the property left by his father. No other third parties have claimed any interest in the property. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the concurrent findings. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that an educational institution is being run in the premises and that it would take sometime for his client to procure suitable premises in the locality. Accordingly, he prays time for vacating the premises. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the said plea. Having regard to the fact that the appellant is running an educational institution in the premises, time is granted for her to vacate the premises till 30th June, 2012, subject to payment of arrears, if any, and deposit of rents on or before 10th of every month. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Date: 23.12.2011 va