JUDGMENT :

This second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. is filed by tenants as against landlords. The respondents herein are the landlords. These respondents as plaintiffs filed O.S.No.1303 of 2009 with the following prayer :

“(a) For eviction of the defendants from the plaint schedule property and to deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs;

(b) Directing the defendants to pay arrears of damages of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees ninety thousand only) with interest @ 24% p.a. for the month of October 2009;

(c) Directing the defendant to pay future damages @ Rs.90,000/- (Rupees ninety thousand only) from the date of the suit to till he vacates the schedule property;

(d) For costs of the suit; and

(e) For such other relief or reliefs as the Honourable Court deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. The appellants as defendants filed their written statement. Learned trial Court settled the following issues for trial :

“1. Whether the defendants had spent huge amount for construction of three rooms shed and four rooms in first floor on the existing ground floor on the assurance and understanding between 1st plaintiff and defendant for running the society institutions and that the plaintiffs have no right to ask the defendant to vacate from the plaint schedule property as pleaded at para 5 of written statement?

2. Whether the defendants have been paying rent regularly without any default as pleaded at para 9 of written statement is true?

3. Whether the quit notice issued U/Sec.106 of T.P. Act is legal and binding on defendant?

4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the suit claim as prayed for?

5. To what relief?”

3. In proof of their respective contentions, plaintiff No.1 gave evidence as PW.1. Defendant No.2, who is Secretary and Correspondent to defendant No.1, gave evidence as DW.1 and the Institutions Administrative Officer testified as DW.2. Earlier to the institution of the suit, there was exchange of notices between parties and they were exhibited on behalf of the plaintiffs as Exs.A.1 and A.2. After due trial, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit with costs. Thereafter, the landlords/plaintiffs preferred first appeal in A.S.No.195 of 2013 before learned XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. The defendants in the suit were the respondents there. Learned first appellate Court framed the following points :

“1. Whether the defendants spent huge amount to construct the additional structures in the schedule premises and to level the schedule land as pleaded? If so, whether defendants are entitled to continue in the schedule premises for ever on that ground?

2. Whether the quit notice issued by plaintiffs under Sec.106 of Transfer of Property Act is valid?

3. Whether the defendants are liable to evict from the schedule premises?

4. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of Rs.90,000/- as arrears of damage for the month of October 2009?

5. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for damages @ Rs.90,000/- per month from the defendants for the use of plaint schedule property unauthorisedly?

6. Whether there are grounds to interfere with the findings of trial court?

7. What is the result?”

4. After hearing arguments on both sides and after considering the entire record of the trial Court, the learned first appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the trial Court’s judgment and as a consequence, decreed the suit in the following terms :

“Defendants are directed to vacate the suit schedule premises and handover the vacant possession of schedule property to plaintiffs on or before 27.08.2015. If the defendants are not vacated schedule premises and deliver to plaintiffs as directed, plaintiffs are at liberty to approach the court for the said relief by way of filing execution proceedings. Defendants are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as arrears of damages for the month of October 2009 to plaintiffs for use and occupation of suit schedule property unauthorisedly. Defendants are also dir