The High Court, in a second appeal under Section 100, cannot re-evaluate evidence, focusing only on substantial legal questions and confirming lower court findings unless proven erroneous.

JUDGMENT :

VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.P.C.” for short) is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree, dated 23.01.2018 in A.S.No.28 of 2013, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram (“First Appellate Court” for short), confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 13.03.2013 in O.S.No.38 of 2008, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Alamuru (“Trial Court” for short).

2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.38 of 2008 before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.38 of 2008 with a prayer for eviction and vacant possession of the plaint schedule property; for arrears of rentals at Rs.2,500/- per month from January, 2004 onwards; for future damages at Rs.2,500/- per month from 1^st December, 2006 and for costs of the suit.

4. The learned Trial Judge decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the defendant in the above said suit filed A.S.No.28 of 2013 before the First Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Judge dismissed the appeal by confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendant in the suit approached this Court by way of second appeal.

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 in O.S.No.38 of 2008, is as follows:

The plaintiff is absolute owner of the plaint schedule building bearing Door No.4-185, consisting ground floor and first floor, situated at West Khandriga Village, Kapileswarapuram Mandal. In the year, 1995 the plaintiff leased out the ground floor of plaint schedule building to the defendant, who is no other her own brother, on oral lease on monthly rent of Rs.400/-. The defendant started Kirana business in it. Later, the rent was enhanced from time to time and it was enhanced to Rs.2,500/- per month from the month of June, 2004 and she issued receipts to defendant for payment of rents. Later, the defendant occupied the first floor of the schedule building and since September, 2002 the defendant has been enjoying the entire plaint schedule building. The defendant made irregular payments up to the end of June, 2004 at Rs.2,500/- per month and later stopped payment of rents. Since the defendant had committed default of payment of rents, the plaintiff and her family members requested him to vacate the building and deliver the vacant possession. In the month of May 2006, the defendant promised to vacate the plaint schedule building by the end of June, 2006, but failed to vacate the same and filed a false suit in O.S.No.146 of 2006 before the trial Court for permanent injunction against the plaintiff herein. The plaintiff herein issued a legal notice on 04.09.2006 to the defendant calling upon him to vacate the property by 5^th of October 2006, the defendant received notice and kept quite. Again she issued another notice on 09.11.2006 to the defendant calling upon him that his tenancy will be determined with effect from 30.11.2006 and deliver vacant possession of plaint schedule building, but he kept quit and that the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

7. The defendant filed written statement before the trial Court denying the material averments in the plaint. The brief averments in the written statement are as follows:

The defendant took the plaint schedule property on oral lease in the month of February 1995 on monthly rent of Rs.400/-, later the rent was enhanced in the year 2000 from Rs.400/- to Rs.500/- per month. He paid rents regularly without any default, but in view of the relationship between him and the plaintiff, he had not obtained any receipt from the plaintiff for payment of rents. The present rent is only Rs.500/- per month but not Rs.2,500/- per month. The plaint schedule property is consistin