IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1034 OF 2006 Between: E. Durga Babu. - - - Appellant/ Appellant/ Defendant. AND Balusu Ramalakshmi. - - - Respondent/ Respondent/ Plaintiff. The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1034 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is filed by the appellant-tenant challenging the decree and judgment passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District, in A.S. No.3 of 2005 confirming the decree and judgment passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District, in O.S. No.370 of 2001. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-tenant and the respondent-landlady. The trial Court having regard to the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced therein, arrived at a finding that the appellant- tenant has been continuing in possession of the schedule mentioned premises which is a shop, even after expiry of the lease period. Even then, the respondent-landlady issued a valid quit notice to the appellant-tenant under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and also having regard to the issuance of the quit notice, the landlady reserved her right to evict the tenant even before securing rents after issuing the quit notice, it cannot be said that her conduct is waiver of notice to quit. Holding as such, the learned Junior Civil Judge, ordered the eviction of the tenant by decree and judgment dated 21-02-2005, directing the appellant-tenant to evict the premises within two months. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the tenant preferred A.S. No.3 of 2005, which was heard and disposed of by the Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, by judgment dated 23-08-2006. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, confirmed all the findings of fact and law arrived at by the lower Court. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-tenant filed the present Second Appeal. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant- tenant that the findings recorded by both the Courts below, acceptance of rents by the respondent-landlady after issuing quit notice to the tenant amounts to ‘waiver’ and thereby the status of the appellant- tenant becomes ‘tenant holding over’. The first appellate Court referring to the citations of the Supreme Court in Sarup Singh Gupta Vs. S. Jagdish Singh and others[1] a n d C. Albert Morris Vs. K.Chandrasekaran and others[2], wherein it was laid down that the acceptance of rents by the landlord for the period subsequent to the issuance of quit notice does not amount to waiver of the quit notice and that after issuance of quit notice, if the rent is accepted by the landlord from the tenant, tenant will not become a ‘statutory tenant’ or ‘tenant holding over’, confirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court. In fact, the law is well settled on the above-mentioned point and the settled legal proposition cannot raise any substantial question of law to be considered in this Second Appeal. Therefore, confirming the concurrent findings of both the Courts below on question of law and fact, this Court considers that no interference is required in this appeal and accordingly the second appeal is dismissed. However, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant- tenant sought six months time to vacate the schedule mentioned premises, on the ground that the appellant is presently running a footwear shop in the scheduled mentioned premises and it is highly difficult for him to secure alternative accommodation within a short span of time. Considering the request made on behalf of the appellant-tenant, four months time is granted to the appellant-tenant to vacate the premises, from the date of judgment in the present appeal. However, the appellant-tenant is directed to file an affidavit in the trial Court giving an undertaking that he will vacate the premises within a period of four (4) months from today. With the above direction, the second appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J Dated: 23-11-2010. Dsh. [1] AIR 2006 S.C. 1734 [2] 2006 (1) ALD 106 (SC)