( 1 ) THE only substantial question of law that falls for consideration in this Second Appeal is whether the appellate Court was justified in refusing to consider the validity of G. O. Ms. No. 636, general Administration (Accommodation-A) department, dated 29-12-1983 on the premise that the said issue has already been decided by a Full Bench of this Court in M. Sreeramulu v. Tahera Yousuf Kadri, 2000 (3) ALD 173 (FB), and in not examining the validity of the said G. O. in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Malpe Vishwanath Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 2 SCC 1.

( 2 ) A few facts, which are relevant, may be noticed as under:

( 3 ) THE appellant is the defendant/ tenant. Respondent No. 1/landlord filed a suit in O. S. No. 3756 of 1997 on the file of the learned XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil court, Hyderabad for delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property, for arrears of rent and for future mesne profits. It was the case respondent-plaintiff that he is the owner of flat bearing No. 5-9-12/1/b-4, Samrat complex, Saifabad, Hyderabad. He let out the said flat to the appellant-defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/-exclusive of maintenance and electricity charges, water tax etc. The tenancy is from month to month and the rent is payable by the end of every calendar month. The appellant agreed to deposit the rent in the Recurring Deposit Account of the respondent, but he was irregular in depositing the rent. As per the account copy of Andhra bank, appellant did not deposit rent from april, 1995 to March, 1996. Thereafter also from April, 1996, appellant failed to pay rents. Therefore, respondent-plaintiff intended to discontinue the tenancy of appellant and issued a quit notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on 23-5-1997 terminating the tenancy with the appellant by 30-6-1997 and also demanded the appellant to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the property by 30-6-1997. The appellant-defendant resisted the claim of the respondent-plaintiff and stated that the notice dated 23-5-1997 is not in accordance with the stipulation and it is not tenable for the respondent-plaintiff to call upon the appellant-defendant to vacate the suit premises with effect from 1-7-1997. The demised flat has been constructed more than 20 years prior to the filing of the suit. The agreed rent has been Rs. 1,000/- per month. So, in view of G. O. Ms. No. 636, dated 29-12-1983, the Rent Controller has jurisdiction to grant the relief, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter and the suit deserved to be dismissed due to inherent lack of jurisdiction. There is no dispute as to the tenancy between himself and the respondent. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues framed for trial: 1. Whether the quit notice dated 23-5-1997 validity terminated the tenancy of the defendant ? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property ? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the arrears of rent of rs. 30,000/- from April, 1996 to June, 1997 ? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim future mesne profits ? 5. To what relief ?

( 4 ) BEFORE the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, he examined himself as P. W. 1 and got marked Exs. A1 to A12. On his behalf, the defendant examined himself as d. W. 1 besides examining D. W. 2 and got marked documents - Exs. B1 to B20. On an elaborate consideration of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs directing the appellant-defendant to deliver the vacant possession of the suit property within three months from the date of judgment i. e. , 20-2-2001. The suit was further decreed for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards arrears of rent. The suit was also decreed for future mesne profits @ Rs. 2,000/- per month from the date of suit till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document