HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED S.A. No. 113 of 2011 DATED: 09.09.2011 Between: G. Murali Krishna .. Appellant- Defendant And 1. Smt. K. Susheela (died) 2. K. Prateek .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.11.2010 delivered in A.S. No. 220 of 2008 by X Additional Chief Judge (F.T.C.), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, partly dismissing the appeal to the extent of directing the appellant to vacate the suit premises and modifying the judgment dated 02.06.2008 delivered in O.S. No. 929 of 2007 by the Principal Rent Controller-cum-XII Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad whereunder the suit filed by the respondents herein seeking possession of the suit schedule property premises, was allowed. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgments under appeal. Admittedly, the appellant herein, who is the defendant in O.S. No. 929 of 2007, is a tenant in the suit schedule property belonging to the respondents. The lease deed dated 01.12.2002 expired on 30.12.2003 and the same has not been renewed for continuance of the defendant as tenant, but on oral agreement, the defendant is continuing to occupy the suit schedule mulgi. While so, the respondents got issued Ex.A4 - statutory notice dated 03.02.2004 to the appellant as contemplated under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to the effect that the tenancy was terminated and he was called upon to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the premises under his occupation and pay arrears of rent of Rs.3,900/-. In spite of receiving the notice under Ex.A5 - acknowledgement, the appellant has not vacated the premises. Further, the appellant- defendant himself, who was examined as DW1, admitted in his evidence that the lease period of mulgi expired on 31.10.2003 and there is no further agreement fore renewal of fresh lease deed. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that after termination of the tenancy by virtue of Ex.A4 - notice, the defendant has no manner of right to squat on the property in spite of being given sufficient time to vacate the suit schedule property and is bound to vacate the premises and deliver the vacant possession of it to the respondents. Insofar as the mesne profits are concerned, the respondents- plaintiffs are entitled to mesne profits at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month as is evident from Ex.A7 – counter foils of the receipts and the oral evidence on record. With regard to payment of Rs.5,200/- towards arrears of rent from November, 2003 to February, 2004, it is to be held that even though the appellant-defendant claims to have paid rents during that period, there is no documentary evidence to that effect. Hence, the plaintiffs are entitled to recover Rs.5,200/- towards arrears of rent. However, on an appeal by the defendant in A.S. No. 220 of 2008, the lower appellate Court while modifying the judgment of the trial Court, held that the respondents are entitled to recover Rs.2,139/- towards arrears of rent, together with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of the suit till realization. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings arrived by the trial Court are in conformity with the view taken by the lower appellate Court in A.S. No. 220 of 2008, and I see reason whatsoever to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below in its judgments under appeal, nor is there any question of law, much less substantial question of law involved in the Second Appeal, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 19.11.2010 delivered in A.S. No. 220 of 2008 on the file of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. It is made clear that the appellant herein shall deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the respondents within a period of four months from today. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 09.09.2011 bcj