THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI SECOND APPEAL No. 904 of 2011 O R D E R : This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2011 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar, confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2009 in O.S.NO.458 of 2005 passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, R.R.District. The defendant is the appellant herein. O.S.No.458 of 2005 was filed by the respondent herein (herein after referred to as the plaintiff) for ejectment of the appellant (herein after referred to as the defendant) from the suit schedule premises and recovery of arrears of rents. The case of the plaintiff was that the plaint schedule premises which is a shop situated at Huda colony, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District was let out to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- on 05.11.1993. The tenancy was for a period of 11 months and thereafter from month to month starting from first day of every month and ending on last day of the month according to English calendar. The rent initially agreed was enhanced from time to time up to Rs.1,600/- per month. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that the tenancy was terminated by the end of month of December, 2003 by issuing a quit notice dated 09.12.2003. The said notice was sent by registered post with acknowledgment due and also by certificate of posting. Though the defendant received the notice sent under certificate of posting, the notice sent by registered post was returned. In spite of the said notice, the defendant did not vacate the premises nor paid the admitted rents. Hence, the suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears. The defendant in his written statement though admitted the tenancy, contended that the plaintiff used to collect the monthly rents in advance and more over the defendant had deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards advance and the same was lying with the plaintiff. While pleading that the quit notice was not received by him, it was also contended that the relationship of landlord and tenancy was subsisting and the tenancy was not terminated. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the defendant is a wilful defaulter of arrears of rent. 2. Whether the notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act given by the plaintiff is true, valid and binding on the defendant? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of the defendant and delivery of the possession of suit schedule property? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the arrears of rent and past mesne profits from January, 2004? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the future mesne profits? If so what rate? 6. To what relief? The plaintiff got himself examined as P.W.1 and similarly, the defendant got himself examined as D.W.1. Whereas the plaintiff marked Exs.A.1 to A.3 documents to substantiate the suit claim, the defendant did not produce any documentary evidence. On appreciation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, though the trial Court did not believe the allegation that the defendant committed default in payment of rents, all other issues were answered in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly, the suit was decreed with costs directing the defendant to vacate the suit schedule shop and deliver its vacant possession to the plaintiff within three months. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dated 27.01.2009 the defendant filed A.S.No.71 of 2009 in the Court of the Principal District Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar. The lower appellate Court on re- appreciation of the evidence available on record, confirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and upheld the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Thus, the appeal was dismissed with costs by judgment dated 15.04.2010 granting two months time to the defendant to vacate the suit schedule premises. Challenging the said judgment of the lower appellate Court, the present Second appeal is filed by the defendant. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the respondent/plaintiff. On a careful consideration of the entire material available on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, which are based on proper appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties. Since the existence of jural relationship between the parties was not in dispute and moreover there was a valid termination of tenancy as contemplated under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 both the Courts below had rightly decreed the suit for ejectment. The matter does not involve any question of law much less any substantial question of law. Hence, the interference by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 100 of C.P.C. is not warranted. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant/defendant is hereby granted two months time from today to vacate the suit premises subject to giving an undertaking before the Trial Court that he would vacate the suit premises and handover the vacant possession to the respondent/plaintiff on or before 05.10.2011. Such an undertaking shall be filed before the Trial Court on or before 08.08.2011. _____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 05.08.2011 KLP/YVL