KOLLIPARA SUBBA RAO Vs. BHEEMANAPALLI SREENIVASA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the lessee of the respondent in respect of a shop in Vijayawada town. He established jewellery shop. Mentioning that the appellant committed default in payment of rents, the respondent got issued a quit notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short 'the T.P. Act'). Stating that his demand was not acceded to, he filed O.S. No. 714 of 2005 in the Court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, for the relief of, a) eviction of the appellant from the premises, b) recovery of arrears of rent, from 01-11-2004 to 31-03-2005, and c) direction to the appellant to pay the damages for occupation of the premises @ Rs. 4,800/ - per month, with effect from 01-04-2005, till the date of delivery of premises. The appellant did not dispute the factum of his being the lessee of the premises. However, he pleaded that there are no arrears of rent, and that he is not liable to be evicted. The trial Court dismissed the suit, through its judgment dated 18-09-2006.

(2.) The respondent filed A.S. No. 38 of 2007 in the Court of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Tract Court), Vijayawada. The appeal was allowed on 06-04-2010. Hence this Second Appeal, under Section 100 of C.P.C.

(3.) Sri V.V.L.N. Sarma, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court dismissed the suit on finding that there are no arrears of rent, and that the quit notice marked as Ex.A-3, is defective, and that the lower Appellate Court reversed the decree passed by the trial Court, without there being any proper basis. He contends that the notice was defective and inoperative in law, inasmuch as it did not contain the signature, either of the respondent or his counsel. Learned Counsel has also made elaborate arguments, touching on the merits, such as, payment of certain amount to one Sri D. Durga Reddy, the erstwhile tenant.