THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1450 of 2011 Dated:14.12.2011 Between: S.M.Abid. …Appellant. and Gorella Kannamma, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1450 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appellant is the second defendant. The suit, being O.S.No.407 of 2006, filed by the first respondent herein (hereafter, the plaintiff) against respondent No.2 (hereafter, the first defendant), the appellant and respondent No.3 for eviction from the suit schedule premises, being shed bearing No.85-6-38, in an extent of 400 square yards situated at V.L.Puram, Rajahmundry, was partly decreed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Rajahmundry, directing eviction and to pay the arrears of rents. The second defendant alone filed A.S.No.135 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry. The same was dismissed on 08.07.2011, aggrieved by which, the present Second Appeal is filed. The plaintiff alleged that she is the owner of the suit schedule property having acquired the life interest under the Will dated 12.03.1987 executed by her husband, late Surya Rao, in which vested remainder was left to the three sons of the plaintiff in equal shares. The suit schedule property was leased out to the defendants for a rent of Rs.4,500/- for a period of one year from 01.01.2004 to 30.11.2004. Even after expiry of the lease, the defendants did not vacate the premises nor paid the enhanced rent at the rate of Rs.9,000/- per month as agreed by them on 01.02.2004. Therefore, she issued a legal notice and filed the suit for eviction. Defendant Nos.1 and 3 remained ex parte, and defendant No.2 alone contested the suit. He questioned the jurisdiction of the civil Court contending that the monthly rent being Rs.1,500/- the matter has to go before the Rent Controller. The trial Court framed as many as ten issues, which were recast into eight issues. During the trial plaintiff examined five witnesses (P.Ws.1 to 5) and marked Exs.A1 to A12. The second defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Ex.X1. The trial Court relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and came to the conclusion that the monthly rent being Rs.4,500/- the jurisdiction of the civil Court is not ousted; the notice issued for eviction is valid and accordingly decreed the suit. On appeal by the second defendant, the learned first appellate Court confirmed the decree. Counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court relied on the oral evidence ignoring the documentary evidence which is contrary to Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. He would also contend that both the Courts below did not appreciate the evidence in the proper perspective, and therefore, the findings are liable to be set aside. After thoroughly perusing the judgments of the Courts below, this Court is convinced that the only serious challenge of the second defendant to the suit for eviction was the ouster of the jurisdiction of the civil Court. In support, he pleaded that the rent was Rs.1,800/- per month and not Rs.4,500/- per month. On this question, both the Courts below appreciated the evidence and recorded the finding of fact that the rent is Rs.4,500/-. That being so, a question of law would not arise, much less, substantial question of law. The Counsel would request that the appellant/second defendant may be granted some time to vacate the premises. This is opposed by the Counsel for the first defendant/caveator. The trial Court while decreeing the suit directed the appellant herein to vacate the premises within two months. The first appellate Court while dismissing the appeal, however, did not grant any time for vacating the premises. Taking this into consideration, this Court is of considered opinion that a month’s time can be granted to the appellant to vacate the premises. Subject to condition of filing an undertaking before this Court within a period of one week from today, one month time is granted to the appellant/second defendant to vacate the suit schedule premises and handover possession to the first respondent/plaintiff. Subject to the above direction, the Second Appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 14.12.2011 vs