HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.1165 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is filed against the judgment, dated 30-06-2006, rendered by the Court of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool in O.S. No.1378 of 2002, as confirmed by the Court of the Special Judge for trial of Cases under SC ST (POA) Act – cum – VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool, through judgment, dated 28-06-2010. 2. The respondent is the Kurnool Piece Goods Dealer Association and it has a large extent of premises, on which shops are constructed. An open place of 12’ x 8’ was given on lease to the father of the petitioner in the year 1967. Thereafter, he constructed a shed and was conducting tailoring business. The respondent filed RCC No.18 of 1995 before the Rent Controller, Kurnool for eviction, against the petitioner on the ground that he committed default in payment of rents. The RCC was dismissed on 06-04-1999. Thereupon, the respondent filed CMA No.6 of 1997 before the appellate authority. It was allowed on 24-06-2000. The petitioner filed CRP No.3835 of 2000 before this Court. The CRP was allowed holding that the provisions of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’) did not apply to the premises, since what was leased was only an open place. 3. Respondent got issued a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short TP Act’) to the appellant, requiring him to vacate the premises and since the appellant did not comply with that, the respondent filed the present suit being O.S. No.1378 of 2002 for eviction. The suit was decreed and the appeal being A.S. No.96 of 2006 filed by the appellant before the appellate Court wad dismissed. 4. Sri S. Abdullah, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the premises in question is a shed that was constructed by the father of the appellant and as such, the suit is barred under the provisions of the A.P. Rent Control Act (for short RC Act). He submits that though a notice was issued under Section 106 of the TP Act, it is defective and cannot constitute basis for eviction. He further submits that the appellant is eking out his livelihood by the tailoring business and the Courts below ought not to have decreed the suit and dismissed the appeal. 5. In the suit for eviction, filed on the strength of a notice under Section 106 of the TP Act, the appellant did not dispute the existence of the tenancy or the title of the respondent. Some defects were pointed out in the notice. Therefore, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the statutory notice issued by the plaintiff U/Sec.106 of T.P. Act to defendant is valid? If so, the plaintiff is entitled to evict the defendant from the plaint schedule property? 2. To what relief? The trial Court framed the following additional issue on 05-01-2005:- 1. Whether the suit is bad for non –joinder of necessary parties? 6. On behalf of the respondent, PW-1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were filed. On behalf of the appellant, DWs-1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were filed. The suit was decreed on 30-06-1996. In A.S. No.96 of 2006 filed by the appellant, the lower appellate Court framed only one point for consideration, viz., whether there exists any illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court. The appeal was dismissed on 28-06-2010. 7. At the first blush, one tends to entertain a serious doubt as to the maintainability of the suit. The reason is that Kurnool is a Municipal Corporation and the provisions of the Act apply to the premises within its area of operation. The Act prohibits suits for eviction, in case, the buildings are covered by it. It is not in dispute that the rent of the premises is meager and in the ordinary course, the premises are within the scope and ambit of the Act. The record, however, discloses that when the respondent initiated proceedings under the Act by filing RCC, the appellant raised an objection as to the maintainability of those proceedings on the ground that what was leased was only an open land. That plea was accepted by the learned Rent Controller. The appellate authority took a different view and allowed the appeal. However, this Court in CRP No.3825 of 2000 held that the provisions of the Act do not apply to the premises. That paved the way for the respondent to issue a notice under Section 106 of the Act and seek eviction. 7. Though the appellant made a feeble attempt, at one stage, to dispute the very ownership of the respondent over the premises, and pleaded that the land vests in the Municipal Corporation, that stood negatived, on account of the fact that he himself entered into a transaction of lease with the respondent. 8. The appellant sought to point out the defects in the notice issued under Section 106 of the TP Act, but was not able to substantiate the same. Further, with the recent amendment to Section 106 of the TP Act, minor defects, if any, in the notice deserve to be ignored as long as the relationship of lessor and lessee is not disputed. This Court is not able to find any substantial question of law in the Second Appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that a reasonable time may be granted to the appellant for vacating the premises. Normally, consideration of such request needs presence of the respondent before this Court. However, to avoid further delay in the matter, it is felt that the appellant can be granted time till the end of May 2011, by incorporating condition that in case, the respondent has any objection for this, it can file a petition for review before this Court. 10. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed and the appellant is granted time to vacate the premises on or before 31-05-2011, provided that he clears the arrears of rent, if any, before the end of February 2011 and regularly pays the rents. Since this direction is given in the absence of the respondent, it is made clear that if the respondent has got any plausible objection for such a direction, it shall be open to it to file an objection to review the same. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J January 20, 2011. Note: Furnish CC in one week. B/O. KTL/VJL