1. This Second Appeal is filed by the appellant assailing the judgment in A.S. No.142 of 2008 dated 12-09-2011 passed by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, whereby and whereunder, the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment in O.S. No.252 of 2007 dated 24-07-2008 passed by the learned III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

2. Appellant herein is the defendant and respondents Nos.1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs before the trial Court. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are landlords, are wife and husband and the appellant is their tenant.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrayed before the trial Court.

4. O.S. No.252 of 2010 was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property, recovery of arrears of rent for 10 months and for future mesne profits at Rs.15,000/-per month from September, 2005 onwards till possession is delivered. The trial court was pleased to decree the suit observing that the plaintiffs have terminated the tenancy of the defendant by issuing notice of termination under Ex.A-4 dated 28-07-2005 as the defendant has committed default in payment of rents, and, as such, the plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of possession of the suit schedule property from the defendant.

5. Assailing the judgment of the trial Court, the defendant carried the matter in appeal in A.S. No.142 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. The lower appellate Court after hearing both sides and after re-appreciating the entire evidence and other material on record came to the same conclusion as that of trial Court and accordingly dismissed the appeal confirming the trial Court’s judgment. Aggrieved of the same, defendant preferred this appeal.

6. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the defendant – appellant, submits that it is an admitted fact that the plaintiffs wanted to demolish the suit schedule premises in order to make new construction and requested the defendant to vacate the suit premises. He submits that though a fresh rental agreement was not executed, Ex.A.1 – Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 11-08-2004 entered into by the parties, could have been treated as rental agreement in the light of sub section (1) of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1956. He also submits that the defendant is liable to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.2,200/-per month rather than Rs.2,500/-per month, as agreed in Ex.A-1 -MOU, since the area allotted by the plaintiffs after reconstruction of the suit schedule property is less than what they have agreed in Ex.A-1 -MOU. He further submits that in view of the clause in Ex.A.1 -MOU that the tenancy was agreed to be for a period of 5 years, the same could not have been terminated, as such, Ex.A-4 legal notice, by which, tenancy of the defendant was said to have been terminated by the plaintiffs, is illegal and both the Courts below failed to notice the same and erroneously decreed the suit of the plaintiffs observing that the tenancy is from month to month and terminable by either party by issuing fifteen days’ notice.

7. Sri P. Shiv Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents – plaintiffs, supporting the concurrent decision of the Courts below submitted that in view of clause -4 in Ex.A-1 MOU that a fresh rental agreement has to be executed after handing over the reconstructed portion i.e. suit property and as the same is not entered into by the parties, the tenancy is from month to month as per sub section (1) of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1956, terminable by issuing fifteen days’ notice by either party and since the defendant has committed wilful default in payment of monthly rents, Ex.A-4 legal notice dated 28-07-2005 issued by the plaintiffs terminating the tenancy of the defendant and demanding arrears of rent as well as future mesne profits i