Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
Pasumarthi Veera Bhadra Rao, S/O Sathiyya – Appellant
Versus
Chinni Veerabhadravathi, W/o Sathiyya – Respondent
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 1st 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 tr
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.
The court affirmed that a lease is terminated by efflux of time and issuance of quit notices, leading to unauthorized possession by the tenant, with no substantial question of law for appeal.
A second appeal under Section 100 of the C.P.C. requires the demonstration of substantial questions of law; mere disagreement does not suffice.
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.
A second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code requires the identification of substantial questions of law, which was not demonstrated in this case.
A lessee cannot deny the title of the lessor/landlord, and a one-month notice issued under Section 106(1) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is valid for terminating a month-to-month oral lease.
A tenant's long-term non-payment of rent negates claims for automatic lease renewal, emphasizing the necessity of fair conduct in exercising statutory rights.
A tenant cannot acquire title against the true owner, and the rights of subsequent purchasers are protected under law, emphasizing the obligation to vacate upon lease termination.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
