LAKSHMANACHARI Vs. RAMAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is before this Court, assailing the concurrent judgments rendered by the Court below.

(2.) THE plaintiff was before the Trial Court in a suit filed seeking ejectment of the defendant from the suit schedule property. The Trial Court, by its judgment and decree dated 03.08.2013 has decreed the suit both with regard to ejectment and regarding recovery of the rent, which had remained unpaid. The defendant claiming to be aggrieved by the said judgment was before the lower Appellate Court in R.A. No. 51/2013. The lower Appellate Court by the judgment dated 13.03.2015 has dismissed the appeal. Against such concurrent judgments rendered by the Courts below, the defendant is before this Court, in this appeal.

(3.) THE learned counsel who has entered caveat on behalf of the respondent would however seek to sustain the judgments passed by the Courts below. It is pointed out that the Court below, based on the evidence that was available on record and also taking note of the admission of the defendant, had arrived at the conclusion with regard to the jural relationship and in that light has arrived at the conclusion that the notice terminating the tenancy issued has also been served in accordance with law and therefore the Courts below have arrived at an appropriate conclusion. It is pointed out that when both the Courts have concurrently arrived at the conclusion based on the evidence available on record, the finding of fact recorded by the Courts below would not call for interference in the second appeal.