IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 946 OF 2007. Between: M/s. Rajkamal Fancy & Kangans Firm Located in Groundfloor shop covered by Door No. 9-61, Groundfloor, Main Road, Gudivada, Represented by its Managing Partner, Mr.Doddi Karunakara Rao & Anr. … Appellants-Defendants 2 & 3 V/s. Kuchibhota Kamaladevi & Anr. … Respondents-Plaintiff & D-1 Counsel for the Appellants : Sri Brahmadandi Ramesh Counsel for the Respondents : Sri Sivalanka Ramchandraprasad The Court made the following: (Judgment follows next page) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 946 OF 2007 JUDGMENT : This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 04-06-2007 passed in AS.No. 23 of 2006 by the Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada, Krishna district, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 25- 11-2005 passed in OS.No. 271 of 2001 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada, Krishna district. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants-tenants and respondent-landlady. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as “plaintiff” and “defendants”. 4. Originally the lease agreement in respect of the schedule premises, which is meant for business was entered into between the first defendant and the plaintiff, who is the landlady. As per the terms of the said agreement the schedule premises was taken on lease by the first defendant for running Fancy Stores under the name and style “Rajkamal Fancy and Kangans” for a period of eleven months, commencing from 01-01-1994 to 31-11-1994. The rent agreed under the lease agreement was Rs.2000=00 per month payable on the last day of every tenancy month. As per the mutual and written consent of the plaintiff, the lease is renewable from time to time for a maximum period of six years on condition of enhancement of rent by an increase of 25% every two years. 5. After expiry of the period of eleven months, the first defendant was continuing in the schedule premises as tenant and for sometime he paid enhanced rent @ 25% for every two years and was paying Rs.3,910-00 on 01-1-2000. Subsequently, the first defendant became irregular in paying the rent since September 2000 as per the terms of the lease deed dated 01-01- 1994. The plaintiff-landlady got filed the suit for eviction and recovery of rents after issuing notice under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. 6. It may be stated in this context that even six years renewable period expired by December 2000 and according to landlady subsequent to the said date the defendant-tenant is liable for eviction. 7. The plaintiff got issued Ex.A-2 quit notice under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act on 22-1-2000 to the first defendant terminating the tenancy by the end of February 2001 and asked to handover the vacant possession of the schedule premises. Admittedly, the first defendant received the said notice on 25-1-2001 under Ex.A-3 postal acknowledgement, for which the third defendant sent a reply under Ex.A- 5, dated 02-2-2001 claiming that he is the Managing Partner of the second defendant and the first defendant is nothing to do. He also stated that the plaintiff permitted to continue as tenant for another period of ten years and that he paid security amount of Rs.75,000=00. On receiving Ex.A-5, the plaintiff sent rejoinder denying the relationship of landlady and tenant and also existence of lease with the third defendant and also sent reply rejoinder under Ex.A-6 dated 09-2-2001 to the third defendant stating that by the end of February 2001 the tenancy was terminated. The said reply rejoinder notice was received by the third defendant under postal acknowledgement dated 13-2-2001. 8. Both the courts below held that the quit notice Ex.A-2 and A-6 are valid and the defendant-tenant is liable for eviction. Both the courts below also held that the plea taken by the third defendant claiming extension of lease for a period of ten years was not proved by him and also the fact that he paid security amount of Rs.75,000=00 to the plaintiff was not proved. Both these pleas taken by the third defendant were not supported by any credible and clinching evidence and thus they were rightly rejected. The learned First Appellate Court has rightly held that if at all the third defendant paid Rs.75,000=00 as security amount, he being the Income-tax assessee, the said fact would have been reflected in the Income-tax returns filed by him but he did not file any such Income-tax returns. The First Appellate Court recorded the finding that the defendants were not paying rents during the pendency of the suit inspite of the directions of the courts. The damages and arrears have been correctly calculated by the learned trial Court, which was approved by the First Appellate Court and hence they in conformity with the clause in Ex.A-1 lease agreement, which enables 25% increase for every two years for continuing the tenancy. The learned First Appellate Court also recorded the finding that the defendants were withholding rents without there being any reasonable cause and have been harassing the landlady without paying rents by making false pleas and thus, both the courts below were justified in granting increase interest on rents which were illegally retained by the defendants. The judgment and decree passed by the courts below directing eviction of the appellant-tenant in granting damages by granting interest on rents due, do not require any interference in this second appeal. 9. The concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below are based on evidence and sound reasoning and they cannot be said to be perverse or extraneous to the material available on record. This Court will not interfere with the said findings of fact. This court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure will not interfere with the findings of fact in the second appeal unless any substantial question of law is involved for consideration. In the instant case, no substantial question of law is involved. The second appeal, therefore, is devoid of any merit, and accordingly the same is dismissed with costs throughout. The tenant is directed to vacate the schedule premises within a period of two months from the date of judgment in this second appeal. Further the landlady is permitted to withdraw all the amounts deposited by the tenant towards arrears of rent into the court without furnishing any security. 10. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed with costs throughout. ________________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO. 19-07-2011 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 9 4 6 OF 2007 Circulation No. 30 Date:19-07-2011 Court Master : ISL COMPUTER No. 43