M. Seetharama Murti, J.

This appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC' for brevity), by the unsuccessful defendant is directed against the decree and judgment dated 03.09.2010 of the learned XIII Additional Chief Judge (Judge, Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad passed in A.S.No.534 of 2006. The learned Additional Chief Judge while dismissing the said appeal of the defendant had confirmed the decree and judgment dated 04.09.2006 of the learned Principal Rent Controller-cum-XII Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad passed in O.S.No.956 of 2001 filed by the sole plaintiff (since died) for recovery of possession of the premises bearing No.10-3-7/1, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad, morefully described in the schedule annexed to the plaint, for mesne profits @ Rs.6,000/- p.m. from 01.03.2001 till the date of delivery of possession and costs and had further directed the defendant to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the said property to the plaintiff.

2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant ('the defendant' for brevity) and the learned counsel for the respondents-legal representatives of the deceased sole plaintiff ('the plaintiffs' for brevity). I have perused the material record.

3. At the time of admission of the second appeal, this Court had formulated the following substantial questions of law.

(a) The notification issued by the Government exercising powers under provisions of Wakf Act is not a conclusive proof of title that it is a wakf property in the absence of any challenge to the said notification by the person interested in a competent civil Court within the period of limitation prescribed under proviso to section 6 of the Act?

(b) In view of the amendment of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, as amended by Act 17 of 2005, enhancing the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.3,500/- whether the civil Court jurisdiction is not ousted and the decree of eviction passed by the civil Court is not a nullity?

4. To adjudicate the lis and answer the substantial questions of law, it is necessary to refer to the pleadings of the parties and state the facts that lead to the filing of the second appeal by the defendant.

4.1 The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is thus – The plaintiff (since died) is the owner and the landlady of the plaint schedule non-residential premises. The defendant is a tenant of the plaintiff. As per the terms of the rental deed dated 01.02.1995 the tenancy had commenced from February, 1995. The agreed initial period of tenancy was 11 months. The monthly rent payable by the defendant-tenant to the deceased-plaintiff was Rs.1,400/-. The said rent was exclusive of electricity consumption charges and municipal taxes payable on the property. It was agreed that the rent fixed is to be enhanced by 5% at the end of the period of every 11 months. Accordingly as on the date of the suit, the rent payable by the defendant to the deceased plaintiff was Rs.1,470/-. The month of tenancy is English calendar month. The defendant had deposited a sum of Rs.75,000/- as security deposit and the same is refundable to the defendant at the time of vacating the premises. The defendant had paid rents up to July 1996 and had committed default in payment of rents from August 1996 till the end of February 2001, which comes to Rs.91,656.20 ps. The defendant had failed to pay the said arrears of rent in spite of the repeated demands made by the deceased plaintiff. However, the claim of arrears of rent is restricted to Rs.52,920/- up to February 2001 in view of law of limitation. After adjusting the said amount from out of the deposit of Rs.75,000/- available with the plaintiff, the balance thereof is adjustable towards future mesne profits. The plaintiff had got issued a notice dated 08.02.2001 as per the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, terminating the tenancy of the defendant