HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 28-01-2010 SECOND APPEAL Nos.1104 of 2007 & 1105 of 2007 Between: Mustafa Khan. …Appellant. And: M/s.Shakthi Agencies, represented by Partner Om Prakash Gondodiya. …Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH SECOND APPEAL Nos.1104 of 2007 & 1105 of 2007 COMMON JUDGMENT: S.A.No.1104 of 2007: This Second Appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 24-2-2007 passed in A.S.No.106 of 2006 by the learned 1st Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 13-4-2006 passed in O.S.No.9 of 2002 by the learned 3rd Senior Civil Judge at City Civil Court, Secunderabad. Appellant herein is the plaintiff and respondent herein is the defendant before the trial Court. The status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. Originally, the plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.9 of 2002 before the trial Court seeking to recover possession and mesne profits. The trial Court having observed that the notice dated 20-09-2001 is not prematured and bad in law and the plaintiff is entitled to order of eviction of the defendant from the plaint schedule premises and that since there is no positive evidence on record to establish that the suit premises will fetch Rs.20,000/- per month in that area, the plaintiff is at liberty to file a separate application under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC for ascertaining mesne profits, decreed the suit directing the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule premises along with fixtures and fittings set out in the schedule ‘B'’ annexed to the lease deed, directing the plaintiff to file a separate application under Order 20 Rule 12 C.P.C. for ascertainment of mesne profits. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred the appeal in A.S.No.106 of 2006 before the lower appellate Court wherein the learned Judge while answering points 1 and 2, having observed that when there is a tenancy from time to time being enhanced undoubtedly, it can be said that the quit notice dated 20-9-2001 under Ex.A.1 is prematured and consequently, the plaintiff is not entitled for decree of eviction in his favour and so far as the damages or mesne profits claimed by the plaintiff , it is also negatived in view if the findings on points 1 and 2, allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second appeal is filed. S.A. No.1105 of 2007: This Second Appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 24-2-2007 passed in A.S.No.108 of 2006 by the learned 1st Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 13- 4-2006 passed in O.S.No.259 of 2004 by the learned 3rd Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. Appellant herein is the defendant and respondent herein is the plaintiff before the trial Court. The status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. Originally, the plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.259 of 2004 before the trial Court for specific performance of lease deed. The trial Court having observed that in view of the findings on issues in O.S.No.9 of 2002, the plaintiff is not entitled for specific performance of the lease against the defendant, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred the appeal in A.S.No.108 of 2006 before the lower appellate Court wherein the learned Judge while answering point No.1 observed that in view of the findings in A.S.No.106 of 2006 and also in view of the facts elicited from the evidence of the owner that he was accepting the enhanced rent at 5% without any protest, can undoubtedly be held that the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of lease as prayed for and consequently the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court is set aside, allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second appeal is filed. Today, when these two Second Appeals are listed today, the learned counsel for the appellant in both the Second appeals submitted that the cause in these two appeals do not survive and hence, he may be permitted to withdraw the two Second Appeals. Permission is accorded. Accordingly, the appeals in S.A.Nos.1104 of 2007 and 1105 of 2007 are dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. _______________________ Justice G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 28-01-2010. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH SECOND APPEAL Nos.1104 of 2007 & 1105 of 2007 Dated 28-01-2010