THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.572 of 2011 ORDER: The plaintiffs, who were unsuccessful in the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court filed the instant Second Appeal. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. The second plaintiff is the mother of the first plaintiff. The plaint case is that the first plaintiff took the suit schedule non-residential premises (item Nos. 1 and 2 of suit schedule) on lease on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- and paid Rs.20,000/- as advance. The lease commenced in 1998. The first plaintiff is running a medical shop and second plaintiff also took the property on lease where she was running a cool drink shop. In December, 2003, the defendants, who are the landlords, asked the plaintiffs to vacate the premises. It was further alleged that the owners made attempts to forcibly dispossess the tenants. Therefore, the suit for injunction was filed. The first defendant filed written statement. During the pendency of the suit, he died and his legal representatives, defendants 3 to 6 were added as legal representatives. Be that as it is, while denying the plaintiffs’ case, the defendants pleaded that the plaintiffs committed default in making payments; item 2 of plaint schedule is in the occupation of one Appalanarasamma by the time, item No.1 was leased out to the first plaintiff 1998; the 2nd defendant filed eviction petition, being R.C.C.No.22 of 1992 against Appalanarasamma before the Rent Controller, Rajahmundry; the same was allowed, and pursuant thereto, delivery was taken on 21.2.2000, and thereafter, it was leased out to the second plaintiff. The defendants also asserted that they never threatened the plaintiffs with forcible eviction. The trial Court framed the only issue as to whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of permanent injunction. During the trial, the first plaintiff deposed as P.W.1 and marked five documents as Exs.A1 to A5. Md. Sultan (Defendant No.1) deposed as D.W.1. On a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs has no cause of action to file the suit and dismissed the same. In the plaintiffs’ appeal, being A.S. No. 146 of 2009, the Court of the VIII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Rajahmundry reconsidered the evidence and dismissed the appeal observing that the plaintiffs did not approach the Court with clean hands and suppressed the real facts. The counsel for the appellants would submit that both the Courts failed to give importance to the admission made by the defendants in the written statement that the suit schedule items 1 and 2 were leased out to the plaintiffs and the denial of the decree of permanent injunction is erroneous. The submission of the counsel is misconceived. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs alleging that the defendants are threatening to dispossess them without following due process of law. Both the Courts after appreciating the evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to prove their claim; and that the case set up is false. It is only a question of fact and not a question of law. Further a perusal of the judgment of the appellate Court would show that the learned Judge rightly observed that any act of landlord should not render the protection afforded by the law to the tenant illusory. This itself would show that sufficient safeguards were provided to the tenants. The Second Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 05.11.2011 pnb