HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED S.A .No. 584 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal has been filed aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 28.03.2011 passed in A.S.No. 238 of 2009 by the XIV Additional Chief Judge, (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.8.2008 passed in O.S.No. 176 of 2007 by the III Additional Rent Controller, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. Appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit viz., O.S.No. 176 of 2007. The respondent-plaintiff- Syamala Plaza Welfare Committee, is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule premises and the appellant-defendant is the tenant of the plaint schedule property on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 1600/-. It is stated that due to the attitude of the appellant-defendant the respondent- plaintiff is not willing to continue the tenancy of the appellant-defendant and therefore he got issued legal notice to the appellant-defendant on 20.12.2004 under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy of the appellant-defendant. The appellant- defendant received the said legal notice on 27.12.2004 but he neither issued a reply nor vacates the schedule premises after expiry of termination of tenancy month. Hence, the respondent-plaintiff filed the suit and the trial Court directed the appellant-defendant to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the respondent-plaintiff within three months. Aggrieved by the same, appellant-defendant filed an appeal viz., A.S.No. 238 of 2009 before the appellate authority and the appellate authority dismissed the appeal with costs by confirming the decree and judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal is filed. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant and also perused the entire material made available on record. I have perused the order impugned. The trial court considered the matter elaborately and decreed the suit. On appeal, the appellate court dismissed the appeal with costs confirming the decree and judgment of the trial Court holding that there are no reasons to interfere with the finding of the trial Court It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that in the second appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, this Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by both the courts below. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusing the grounds in the memorandum of second appeal, this court is of the view that the substantial questions of law framed in the second appeal involve appreciation of facts and evidence on record, which both the courts below have elaborately considered. This Court cannot once again appreciate the facts and evidence on record, that too, in the second appeal. In the above circumstances, there is no question of law much less substantial question of law, warranting interference with the impugned judgment by this court. The Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. However, the appellant-defendant is given six months time to vacate the premises. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J DATE: 10.06.2011 KA Note: Communicate by wire at party’s costs.