JUDGMENT:

A tenant is grief-stricken as it has been ordered to vacate the demised premises by both the Courts below and therefore, it appeals to this Court under Section 100 C.P.C.

2. A learned judge of this Court, on 13.12.2013 admitted the second appeal on the following substantial questions of law:

A. Whether the suit could have been filed by the plaintiff who is one of the sons of the land lady (Durga Suseelamma) during her lifetime without pleading in the plaint as to how the plaintiff has become the owner and whether the defendant/tenant can be evicted from the demised premises at the instance of the plaintiff in the absence of quit notice by land lady and consequently whether the decree and judgment of trial Court and appellate Court are liable to be set aside?

B. Whether payment of rent to the plaintiff as agent of the land lady can confer any right to sue the defendant for eviction?

C. Assuming that the quit notice issued by the plaintiff is valid, whether the acceptance of monthly rents for 7 months after issuance of quit notice would not amount to waiver and whether institution of suit subsequently is permissible under law?

D. Whether the Partition List marked as Ex.A.21 would entitle the plaintiff to institute the suit, when it is unregistered and not proved by examination of other members of the family and the attestors mentioned therein?

E. Whether the Courts below are justified in decreeing the suit, which was filed basing on the quit notice under Section 106 of T.P. Act, when the said notice is defective and not valid in the eye of law, as the plaintiff received rents even after issuance of quit notice without any protest which leads waiver of said notice?

F. Whether the findings of the Courts below are perverse, as they have not properly appreciated the evidence on record and the said findings are more improbable and contra to the evidence on record?

3. Respondent in this appeal is the plaintiff. The demised premises is ground floor of the portion situated at Door No.11-25-79, Samarangam Chowk, Vijayawada being bounded by East : Property under the occupation of plaintiff West : Main Road, Samarangam Chowk. North : Sri Vijaya Durga Towers. South : Property of late Patiballa Ramakrishna Rao

4. On 01.12.2009 plaintiff filed O.S.No.1430 of 2009 before learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada seeking for eviction of the defendant from the plaint schedule premises and claimed damages at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per month till the time the premises is handed over. In the plaint, it is claimed that the plaintiff owns the plaint schedule property and it was leased out to the defendant for the purpose of business of the defendant and the tenancy is month to month and by the time the suit was laid, the rent per month was Rs.11,600/-. It is averred that defendant informed the plaintiff that they were shifting their business to another premises and they would vacate the suit schedule property by the end of September, 2009. Despite that, they did not vacate the premises and the plaintiff had come to know that in fact defendant purchased new premises also. In those circumstances, plaintiff issued a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 terminating the tenancy by 30.11.2009. Defendant received it. On 21.11.2009 it got issued a reply notice with false allegations. It is in these circumstances this suit.

5. It is to be seen that defendant is a partnership firm and in the cause tile of the plaint, it is mentioned that this partnership firm is represented by a partner by name Smt. P.Jhansi Rani.

6. The said Smt. P.Jhansi Rani filed a written statement for defendant, whereunder it denied the ownership claimed by the plaintiff and stated that the plaintiff’s mother Smt. P.Durga Suseelamma is the owner of the property and it is from her they obtained the demised premises on lease and the lease is for 30 years and at the inception rent per month was Rs.2,125/- and it has been raised periodically and now the