The High Court's review is limited to possible errors in the findings of facts by lower courts, ensuring that the law governing tenancy and eviction is sustained.

Judgment:

VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

The Second Appeal No.264 of 2015 is filed by the plaintiff in respectof the finding given on mesne profits by the First Appellate Court. The Second Appeal No.286 of 2015 is filed by the defendant No.1. Both the second appeals have been filed against the decree and judgment, dated 28.02.2015 passed in A.S.No.32 of 2014 of XI Additional District Judge, Tenali (“First Appellate Court” for short). The said A.S.No.32 of 2014 is filed against the decree and judgment, dated 03.04.2014 passed in O.S.No.24 of 2012 of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali (“Trial Court” for short).

Since both the second appeals are filed against the decree and judgment passed by the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.32 of 2014, this Court clubbed together for being pronouncement of a common judgment.

2. The appellant in S.A.No.264 of 2015 is plaintiff and respondents are defendants 1 and 2; the appellant in S.A.No.286 of 2015 is 1^st defendant, the 1^st respondent is plaintiff and 2^nd respondent is 2^nd defendant in O.S.No.24 of2012.

3.The plaintiff in O.S.No.24 of 2012 initiated action before the Trial Court with a prayer for eviction of 1^st defendant from the plaint schedule property and for Rs.84,000/- towards arrears of rent and for damages of Rs.30,000/- per month from 01.02.2011 onwards with costs of the suit.

4. The Trial Court dismissed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved of the said judgment, the unsuccessful plaintiff filed A.S.No.32 of 2014 before the First Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Judge allowed the appeal setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Aggrievedthereby, the 1^st defendant in the suit filed S.A.No.286 of 2015 whereas aggrieved by the non-granting of mense profits, the plaintiff in the suit filed S.A.No.264 of 2015.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments are as follows:

The plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property from Malla Kasi Viswanadham under an agreement on 18.02.2006 and later under registered sale deed, dated 17.07.2008 for a valid sale consideration of Rs.5,28,000/- and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The 1^st defendant has been in physical possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule shop as he was inducted as tenant by K. China Gopaiah, who was the original owner of the plaint schedule property in the year 1990 and later as per the mortgage deed executed by K. Madan Mohan in his favour. There is a covenant in the said sale deed to pay that unpaid sale consideration of Rs.2,25,000/- in future directly to the mortgagees i.e., defendant Nos.1 and 2 to whom K. Madan Mohan mortgaged schedule property and executed registered mortgage deeds for Rs.1,25,000/- on 17.04.2004 to 1^st defendant and for Rs.1,00,000/- on 19.06.2004 to 2^nd defendant. For which his vendor and mortgagees also agreed to receive the mortgage money directly from the plaintiff. The plaintiff redeemed the mortgages of defendants on 04.06.2010 and 08.06.2010 respectively. The plaintiff agreed with 1^st defendant for adjustment of rents to appropriate for mortgage money and lease period was up to discharge of mortgage money. After redemption of the mortgage, the plaintiff, K. Naga Seetha Ramamma and B. Usha Rani issued letters on 30.09.2010, 17.12.2010 and notices on 26.12.2010 and 03.01.2011 and terminated the tenancy of 1^st defendant from 31.01.2011 and demanded to vacate the schedule shop which is n