MADURI SATYANARAYANA Vs. SINGAMSETTI VEERABHADRASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in the suit is the appellant. The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the defendant from the plaint schedule property and for recovery of an amount of Rs. 233/- towards rent or damages for use and occupation of the suit site. The plaintiff's case is that a vacant site was leased out to the defendant on a rent of Rs. 50/- per month, that the plaintiff issued a notice on 16-1-1978 terminating the tenancy and, therefore, he filed the suit.

(2.) The defendant resisted the suit by raising various contentions. The first contention is that the Lessor was the plaintiff's father, but not the plaintiff and so, the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit. The second contention is that the property that was leased out is not a vacant site, but it is a building within the meaning of Rent Control Act as there was a structure therein when the property was leased out. The third contention is that the notice to quit issued under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act is not a valid notice to quit. The trial Court rejected all the contentions of the defendant and decreed the suit. Against that, the defendant preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court also upheld the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the Second Appeal is filed by the defendant.

(3.) On the first question, whether the lessor is the plaintiff or his father, it is stated that the property belongs to the joint family and subsequently, it was allotted to the share of the plaintiff. Both the Courts below have held that the plaintiff is the lessor and so he has locus standi to file the suit, and that being purely a question of fact on which concurrent findings have been given by both the Courts below, it cannot be interfered in this Second Appeal.