A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J.

1. The present second appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C.'), is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 4.7.2017, rendered in AS No. 20 of 2013 on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Chittoor, whereby and where under, the learned lower appellate Judge affirmed the judgment and decree, dated 18.12.2012, rendered in OS No. 388 of 2009 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

2. Thus, the appellant-appellant-defendant is combating with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below and, therefore, it is imperative on the part of the appellant to show the patent perversity in the findings recorded by the Courts below to substantiate substantial questions of law.

3. In fact, the present second appeal is coming up for admission.

4. Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s. Indus Law Firm, appearing for the appellant, and Sri O. Udaya Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

5. Normally, the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below do not warrant interference, unless the findings recorded are patently perverse or suffers from patent illegality.

6. A few facts are necessary to refer to before adverting to what has been canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, mostly on the grounds that despite express bar on the jurisdiction of the civil Court under Section 10 read with Section 32(c) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Act'), the Courts below went wrong in entertaining and decreeing the suit, overlooking the specific provision under Section 11 of the Act, ordered for recovery of arrears of rent and more so, drawing parallels between the said Act and A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987.

7. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the Original Suit.

8. Plaintiffs filed OS No. 388 of 2009 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, seeking the relief of eviction of the defendant from the scheduled premises and also to direct her to pay the arrears of rent to a tune of Rs. 36,000/- together with interest at 12% per annum. Their case is that in the year 1998, at the request of the defendant, they let the suit schedule property to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/- and subsequently, enhanced the rent to Rs. 1,500/- per month and in the month of January, 2007, enhanced the same to Rs. 2,000/- per month and the defendant paid the monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/- till December, 2007 and thereafter, committed default. Even elders mediation was conveyed, but it proved abortive. The defendant, instead of vacating the suit schedule property, filed OS No. 317 of 2008 seeking the relief of permanent injunction. Later, on receipt of legal notice, the defendant filed RCC No. 3 of 2008 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, seeking permission to deposit the rents, but, however, defaulted and no amounts were deposited.

9. The defendant denied the allegations made in the plaint, except admitting the tenant and landlord relationship between them and contended that she took the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- about eighteen years prior to the institution of the suit and she has been paying rent of Rs. 1,000/- per month and she never committed default in payment of rents.

10. During the course of trial, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:

"(1) Whether the monthly rent of the suit property is Rs. 2,000/- as pleaded by the plaintiffs?

(2) Whether the defendant committed default in payment of monthly rent since January, 2008?

(3) Whether the defendant filed OS No. 317/2008 and also RCC No. 3/2008 in respect of the suit property and the same are pending?

(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of the defendant from the suit property?

(5) Whether the plaintiff is