( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 15-11-1989 passed in AS No. 25 of 1983 on the file of the Sub-Court, Gudivada, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 8-9-1983 passed in OS No. 112 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Gudivada in Krishna District.

( 2 ) THE appellant herein is the first defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said suit OS No. 112 of 1982. The parties are being referred as they are arrayed in the suit.

( 3 ) THE respondent-plaintiff filed the said suit for eviction and for delivery of possession of the suit building bearing Door Number 3/114 situated in Gudlavalleru village along with the adjacent open site, for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation of the said building. It is the case of the plaintiff that the first defendant took the suit building on lease from the plaintiff on 1-7-1977 for a period of 11 months for the purpose of running a shoe shop on a monthly rent of Rs. 150. 00 apart from electricity charges and executed an agreement of lease. The first defendant failed to vacate the premises on the expiry of the said lease and thus continued as tenant-holding over and rent was enhanced to Rs. 210. 00 per month from 1-3-1980. The first defendant sub-leased the southern portion of the building to the second defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 100. 00. The first defendant also committed default in paying monthly rent from 1-12-1980. Hence the plaintiff issued registered notice to the defendants on 20-1-1982 terminating the tenancy and claiming arrears of rent and also damages for use and occupation at Rs. 400. 00 per month and the first defendant issued a reply with false allegations. Hence the plaintiff filed the suit for the reliefs as stated supra.

( 4 ) RESISTING the claim of the plaintiff, the defendants 1 and 2 filed their written statements. The first defendant admitted the tenancy but he pleaded that he took the suit premises on lease on 1-7-1975 on a monthly rent of Rs. 210. 00 and that he gave Rs. 2,520. 00as advance to the plaintiff and that he was not in arrears of rent and that he has not sublet any premises to the second defendant and that he is not liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 400. 00 per month. The second defendant also pleaded in his written statement denying the alleged sub-tenancy, but he pleaded that he stored cement in a portion of the suit building for a little period with the permission of the first defendant without paying any rent and that he vacated that portion of the suit building in November 1981.

( 5 ) THE trial Court settled the following issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction and for possession? (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to arrears and damages and if so at what rate? (iii) To what relief?during the course of trial, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW1 and marked Exs. A1 to A5. On behalf of the defendants 1 and 2, they got themselves examined as DWs. 1 and 2 and marked Exs. B1 to B19. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidene on record, the trial Court found on issue No. 1 that the first defendant is liable to be evicted from the suit building and that the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the same and on issue No. 2 that the plaintiff is not entitled for arrears of rent from 1-12-1980 onwards, but he is entitled for arrears of rent from 1-1-1982 onwards and for future damages for use and occupation at Rs. 250. 00 per month. Consequently, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs against the first defendant directing eviction of the first defendant from the suit building and also to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 250. 00 per month from 20-3-1982 till the date of delivery deducting the amount already deposited into Court.

( 6 ) AGGRIEVED of that judgment and decree, the first defendant preferred appeal AS No. 25 of 1983. The lower appellate Court on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record