THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED S.A.M.P.No.2550 of 2011 and SECOND APPEAL No.434 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: S.A.M.P.No.2550 of 2011 is filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of C.P.C seeking to record the terms of compromise and dispose of the appeal. 2. When the matter is taken up, learned counsel on either side submitted that the parties have arrived at a compromise and to that effect, compromise memo is filed along with S.A.M.P.No.2550 of 2011. 3. Both parties are present before this Court and are identified by their respective counsel. They reported that the matter is settled in terms of the memorandum of compromise. 4. Accordingly, SAMP is allowed and the Second Appeal is disposed of in terms of the memorandum of compromise. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Dated:23.09.2011 sj The appellant/plaintiff filed O.S.No.58 of 2007 for specific performance of oral lease agreement. The trial Court, after consideration of the material on record, dismissed the same on the ground that the plaintiff did not produce any oral or documentary evidence to prove that the terms of oral agreement of lease were acted upon in between the parties. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff carried the matter in appeal, being A.S.No.24 of 2008 before the XX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. The lower appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the entire evidence and perusal of the material available on record, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that both the Courts below have committed error regarding the date of commencement of the oral lease as 23.12.2005, but as per the plaint it was 01.05.2004. He further contended that both the Courts below ought to have considered the oral and documentary evidence produced by the appellant. 4 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that O.S.No.770 of 2004 filed by the respondent for eviction of the appellant was decreed on 25.07.2006 and the same was confirmed by the lower appellate Court as well as the appellate Court granting time till 30.06.2011 to the appellant to vacate the suit schedule premises and to handover its vacant possession to the respondent subject to payment of rents and therefore, this CRP is liable to be dismissed. 5. The above said contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted on the ground that the appellant had failed to produce any satisfactory material to substantiate the plea that the respondent orally agreed to execute the registered lease deed. Further, the lower appellate Court as well as the appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree by fixing the time for eviction of the appellant from the suit schedule property. 6. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in the second appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, this Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings arrived at by the Courts below, which are based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the grounds mentioned in the memorandum of this appeal, this Court is of the view that no question of law, much less substantial question of law is involved in this Second Appeal, warranting interference by this Court, under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code. 8. The Second Appeal is devoid of merit, and is accordingly dismissed. However, the appellant/plaintiff is granted time till 31.08.2011 to vacate the suit schedule premises and to handover its vacant possession to the respondent/defendant. No costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:29.07.2011 sj