CHITTAJALLU SRINIVASA RAO Vs. NARMADA JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the lessee in respect of the premises bearing No.11-49-311 of Vijayawada, belonging to the respondent. The lease was commenced in the year 1995, which was from month to month. The respondent filed O.S.No.2348 of 2001 in the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, for eviction of the appellant. The suit was opposed by the appellant stating that substantial amounts were paid as advance and that there was a subsisting lease. The trial Court decreed the suit through its judgment, dated 28.03.2005. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed A.S.No.236 of 2005 in the Court of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada. The said appeal was dismissed on 04.06.2007. Hence this second appeal.

(2.) Sri P. Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court and the lower appellate Court erred in holding that Exs.B-2 and B-3 through which, the advance rent was paid were not proved. He contends that the respondent did not enter in the witness box and that fact was sufficient to hold that Exs.B-2 and B-3 are proved.

(3.) Sri A. Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the lease was validly terminated by issuing notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short 'the Act') and both the Courts on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence held that Exs.B-2 and B-3 are not proved at all, and as such, the concurrent findings arrived at by both the trial Court and the lower appellate Court do not warrant any interference.