Point of law: The effect of Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) CPC was considered in recording such observations. It was not an instance with reference to application of Order XLI Rule 27(1)(aa) CPC. This clause gets attracted in those cases, where the party seeking to produce additional evidence establishes that inspite of exercise of his due diligence and his best efforts, such evidence was not within his knowledge or he could not produce such evidence in the trial Court.

JUDGMENT :

M. VENKATA RAMANA, J.

1. S.A. No. 416 of 2014 is filed against the decree and judgment in A.S. No. 17 of 2013 on the file of the Court of learned XVI Additional District Judge, Krishna, at Nandigama (earlier A.S. No. 186 of 2011 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional District Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada) dated 03.04.2014. It was presented against the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 69 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama, dated 07.04.2011.

2. The defendant is the appellant in S.A. No. 416 of 2014 and whereas the respondent was the plaintiff.

3. O.S. No. 69 of 2009 was initially presented in O.S. No. 509 of 2003 on the file of the Court of learned Junior Civil Judge, Nandigama for eviction of the appellant from the plaint schedule property and for recovery of arrears of rents. By virtue of orders in Tr. O.P. No. 41 of 2009 dated 09.06.2009 on the file of the Court of learned District Judge, Krishna, at Machilipatnam, it was transferred on to the file of the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama, where it was renumbered as O.S. No. 69 of 2009.

4. S.A. No. 453 of 2014 is presented against the decree and judgment in A.S. No. 19 of 2013 dated 03.04.2014 on the file of the Court of learned XVI Additional District Judge, Krishna at Nandigama (it was earlier A.S. No. 220 of 2011 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional District Judge, Krishna, at Vijayawada). It was in-turn presented against the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 13 of 2006 dated 07.04.2011 on the file of the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama. The defendant therein is the appellant and the respondent in the above suit is the plaintiff in this second appeal. It was a suit filed for specific performance of contract basing on an agreement for sale dated 26.11.2002 executed by the respondent in favour of the appellant in respect of the plaint schedule property.

5. Both the suits were decreed in favour of the respondent and they were also confirmed in the appeals.

6. The plaint schedule property relating to both these suits is:

“A house bearing Door No. 18/121A and assessment No. 2561 situated in Main road of Nandigam village and Mandal, Krishna District.

It shall be referred to hereinafter as the suit house.”

7. Since arguments are addressed in both these second appeals in common at admission stage by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

8. In S.A. No. 416 of 2014 relating to eviction suit, the case of the respondent is that the appellant was tenant of the suit house since the year 1998, on a monthly rent of Rs. 1500/- under a oral tenancy. It is further case of the respondent that the appellant paid rent up to February 2003 and thereafter defaulted from March 2003. There was exchange of notices between these parties and by the legal notice dated 25.08.2003, the respondent terminated the tenancy of the appellant demanding to handover peaceful and vacant possession of the suit house as well as pay arrears of rent.

9. The appellant did not deny the tenancy. However, he contended that the agreed rent was Rs. 1000/- per month to be paid on or before 5th of every succeeding month and that he had paid an advance of Rs. 20,000/-.

10. The appellant also contended that the respondent had agreed to sell the suit house for Rs. 3,61,000/- to him, received Rs. 1,01,000/- towards advance, and balance to be paid on or before 01.03.2003 under an agreement for sale dated 26.12.2002. He further contended that in default of paying the balance amount within such stipulated time, it was agreed that he should pay interest at 12% per annum. He further contended that the respondent had agreed to deduct deposit amount of Rs. 20,000/- from the balance payable at the time of entering this contract and therefore, his liability to pay balance sale consideration stood at Rs. 2,40,000/-.

11. It is further contention of the appellant that on 05.02.2003 he approached the