C. V. N. SASTRY, J.

( 1 ) THESE two second appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment as they arise out of two suits which were disposed by a common judgment. The sole defendant in both the suits, who is one and the same, is the appellant.

( 2 ) THE two suits were filed by two different plaintiffs-landlords against the same defendant-tenant for eviction from the demised premises and for damages for use and occupation. The facts are not in dispute. The suit premises were leased out by the plaintiffs to the defendant for running a school. Initially the leases were granted for one year from 1-5-1990 to 30-4-1991. Subsequently the leases were extended for a further period of two years i. e. , upto 30-4-1993. The agreed rent in one case is Rs. 3,000/- per month and in the other it is Rs. 2,000/- per month. The suits were filed after issuing quit notices to the defendant by registered post on 6-7-1993 terminating the tenancy with effect from 31-7-1993 and claiming damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- per month respectively with effect from 1-8-1993. The quit notices were returned unserved with an endorsement of refusal.

( 3 ) THE suits were resisted mainly on the ground that there was no valid termination of tenancy. The trial Court, however, decreed the two suits holding that there was no need to issue any quit notice as the tenancy ended by efflux of time on 30-4-1993 and that, in any case, the notices dated 6-7-1993 are valid quit notices as per Section 106 of the Transfer of Property act and that the defendant refused to receive the same. The trial Court also granted damages at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month in one case and at the rate of rs. 7,029/- per month in the other case with effect from 1-8-1993. The lower Appellate court concurring with the said findings of the trial Court dismissed the appeals filed by the tenant.

( 4 ) SRI S. Venkat Reddy, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in these two second appeals, has raised the following substantial questions of law: (1) The notice dated 6-7-1993 is not a valid notice as contemplated under section 106 of T. P. Act. (2) The finding that mere is no need to issue any quit notice as the tenancy ended by efflux of time is unsustainable in law. (3) The suit is bad for want of a notice as per Section 26 of the A. P. Education act, 1982. It is also bad for want of prior permission of the Competent authority as per Rule 10 (22) of the a. P. Educational Institutions (Establishment, recognition, Administration and control of Schools under Private management) Rules, 1993. The learned Counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that he is not questioning the finding of both the Courts below that the defendant refused to receive the quit notice which was sent to him by registered post and also the quantum of damages awarded by the courts below.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-plaintiffs has submitted that the view taken by the two courts below on points 1 and 2 formulated above is perfectly correct and sound and the second appeals are without any merit. So far as point No. 3 is concerned, the learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the same having not been raised in the two Courts below cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time at the second appellate stage. He further submitted that, in any case, the said contention has no substance as neither section 26 of the Education Act nor rule 10 (22) of the Rules relied on by the counsel for the appellant has any application to the instant case. Point No. 1

( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that the contractual tenancy came to an end by 30-4-1993. Thereafter the plaintiffs got issued quit notices under Section 106 of the t. P. Act on 6-7-1993 through their Counsel to the defendant by registered post with acknowledgment due. The same were, however, returned unserved as refused. It is useful to extract

Click Here to Read the rest of this document