ORDER :

This second appeal arises against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.90 of 2014 on the file of Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-X Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry dated 24.01.2018 confirming the judgment and decree in part in O.S.No.752 of 2007 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry dated 07.10.2014.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

3. The appellant herein is the appellant before the lower appellate court and the defendant No.1 in the suit before the trial court. The respondent No.1 herein is the respondent No.1 in the appeal before the lower appellate court and the plaintiff in the suit before the trial court. The respondent No.2 herein is the respondent No.2 before the lower appellate court and the defendant No.2 before the trial court.

4. The respondent No.1 initiated action in O.S.No.752 of 2007 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry seeking eviction of the appellant and the respondent No.2 from the suit schedule property and delivery of possession with the payment of damages, arrears of monthly rents and costs. The case of the respondent No.1/plaintiff is that he purchased the suit schedule property which is part of the building bearing D.No.31-1-35, situated at Jandapanja Road, Rajahmundry from Smt.Gowrisetti Srilakshmi who mortgaged the said house for the need of some money. The same was purchased under a registered sale deed dated 27.04.2005 bearing document No.3899 of 2005 for a valid sale consideration of Rs.12,09,000/-subject to mortgage. After the purchase the respondent No.1/plaintiff discharged the mortgage and took the possession of the said house. But the appellant and the respondent No.2 as defendants did not vacate the suit schedule premises and defaulted in payment of monthly rents of Rs.3,000/-per month. Then the respondent No.1/plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendants on 10.04.2007 to vacate the suit schedule premises for which they have given a reply notice on 17.04.2007 and the rejoinder was given on 17.05.2007. Then another notice was also issued dated 22.10.2007 for which the defendant No.1 issued a reply notice dated 26.10.2007.

5. On the other hand, the case of the appellant and the respondent No.2/defendants is that the monthly rent as originally fixed by Smt. Gowrisetty Srilakshmi was Rs.525/-and they paid the rents to the original owner Smt. Gowrisetty Srilakshmi upto January, 2000. As the leasehold shop was got affected during the road widening work, the defendants got the schedule property premises renovated by incurring a sum of Rs.1,51,500/-for which the owner agreed to share 50% of the costs amount and she also took Rs.5,000/-from the defendants as such she became due a sum of Rs.80,750/-in total to the defendants and she agreed to appropriate a sum of @Rs.525 per month to clear the dues till it is completely discharged. As the scheduled premises was not substantially renovated, the suit for eviction is not maintainable and the quit notice issued by the plaintiff is not maintainable.

6. On completion of the pleadings, the trial court framed the issues and examined PWs.1 to 8 for the plaintiff and Exs.A1 to A29 were marked for the plaintiff and DWs.1 to 3 were examined for the defendants and Exs.B1 to B17 and Exs.X1 to X7 were marked.

7. The material on record shows that DW1 in his cross-examination admitted that in the month of June, 2006, DW1, DW2, DW3 and two others and the plaintiff had a sitting and discussed, wherein the plaintiff informed that he purchased the suit schedule property and as such DW1 came to know about the change of ownership in the month of June, 2006. The defendants got marked Ex.B6 – letter/karnama dated 14.02.2000 which says that Smt. Gowrisetty Srilakshmi consented to make repairs/lab etc by the defendant No.1 as the shop was removed in the road widening work and on the same day she received