R. BAYAPU REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant in this second appeal is the defendant in O. S. No. 154 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ramachandrapuram, while the respondent herein is the plaintiff in that suit.

( 2 ) THE defendant had taken the suit house on lease in the year 1984 from the then owners of the house viz. , K. Nageswara Rao and K. Bheemasankara Rao, on a monthly rent of Rs. 650/- and he was running his business in that house. He also paid an amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the owners by way of advance and it was agreed that such amount should be returned to him by the owners at the time when he vacates the house. Subsequently, the plaintiff purchased the said house under Exs. A-1 and A-2 registered sale deeds, dated 16-10-1984 from the owners and at the time of such purchase the vendors placed the amount of rs. 5,000/- which was originally paid as advance to them by the defendant, at the disposal of the plaintiff to be returned to the defendant as and when he vacates the house. The defendant later on issued Ex. A-3 notice, dated 5-11-1984 to the plaintiff raising the plea that the lease obtained by him from the original owners was to ensure for a period of 31 /2 years and that the plaintiff may adjust the rent at the rate of Rs. 200/- p. m. from out of the advance amount lying with him. The plaintiff then got issued Ex. A-4 reply dated 11-11-1984 through his advocate specifically contending that the lease was not given for any such specified period of 31 /2 years and it was only a month to month lease and that the defendant was liable to pay the agreed rent of Rs. 650/- per month without deducting any amount and the advance amount of Rs. 5,000/- can be returned to him when he vacates the premises. It was further stated in that notice that the plaintiff was notwilling to allow the defendantto continue as tenant and he was directed to vacate the building by the end of January, 1985. Thereupon, the defendant issued Ex. A-5 notice through his advocate contending that he was willing to pay the rent at Rs. 650/-per month and that he cannot be directed to vacate the premises. Thereupon, the plaintiff filed the suit O. S. No. 154 of 1985 seeking eviction of the defendant from the premises.

( 3 ) THE defendant contested the suit raising various pleas and mainly contending that the premises were originally taken on lease for a specified period of 3 /2 years from 16-5-1984 onwards and it was not a month to month tenancy and as such the plaintiff was notentitled to seekhiseviction even be fore the expiry of the said lease period; that there was no statutory notice issued under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, validly terminating the tenancy; that the plaintiff has also waived his right to seek his eviction by acceptingrents subsequent to the expiry of the period mentioned in the notice and that the suit was, therefore, not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

( 4 ) THE lower Court, however, found that the tenancy was not for any specified period of 31/2 years as contended by the defendant; that it was only a month to month tenancy terminable by issuing the required notice; that ex. A-4 notice issued by the plaintiff isa valid quitnoticeas contemplated under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act and that the defendant is liable to vacate the premises.

( 5 ) THE defendant filed A. S, No. 5 of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, ramachandrapuram, questioning the above said findings given and the decree and Judgment passed by the lower Court and the said appeal was, however, dismissed by the decree and Judgment dated 23-11-1994 thereby confirming the lower Court s decree having agreed with all the findings given by the lower court. The present second appeal is filed by the defendant questioning the said decree and Judgment of the first appellate Court contending that the lower appellate Court has erred in confirming the findings of the trial Court regarding the validity of quitnotice issued by the plaint

Click Here to Read the rest of this document