C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) RESPONDENT, who is the landlord of the plaint schedule property, filed O. S. No. 3853 of 1987 on the file of the Court of V Assistant judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking eviction of the appellant from the plaint schedule property after giving notice to quit under Section 106 of Transfer of Property act. Appellant filed a written statement, inter alia, contendiang that the notice to quit is not valid. The trial Court, accepting the contention of the appellant that there is no proper notice to quit, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent preferred A. S. No. 147 of 1989. The learned i Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases - cum- Additional Chief Judge, City civil Court, Hyderabad, who heard the appeal had by the judgment under appeal, allowed the same and directed eviction of the appellant from the plaint schedule property. Hence this second appeal by the defendant in the suit.

( 2 ) THE only point for consideration in this appeal is whether there is valid service of the notice to quit on the appellant?

( 3 ) THE main contention of Sri V. Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellant, is that since notice to quit sent by the respo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document