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.

JUDGMENT :

V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 20-08-2018 in A.S.No.20 of 2013 on the file of the Judge, Family Court- cum-III Additional District Judge at Srikakulam, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 04.02.2013 in O.S.No.56 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Srikakulam.

2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.56 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Srikakulam. The sole-respondent died during the pendency of the first appeal before the First Appellate Court and her son was brought on record as the respondent No.2 in the first appeal proceedings.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.56 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Srikakulam, with a prayer for eviction of the defendant from the plaint schedule property as a trespasser as lease period was over on 21.08.2005 and also to pay Rs.2,600/- per month towards damages from September, 2005 for unauthorized occupation and for costs of the suit.

4. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Srikakulam, decreed the suit with costs directing the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule property within 3 months from the date of decree and deliver vacant possession to the plaintiff and also directed to pay damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.2,600/- per month from September, 2005 till the property is deliver to the plaintiff. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendant in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District Judge at Srikakulam, dismissed the first appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendant/appellant approached this Court by way of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second 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.56 of 2006, is as follows:

The plaintiff is the owner of the plaint schedule property and the defendant took the plaint schedule property under lease for his business purpose to run a photo studio under the name and style of ‘Satish Photo Studio’ for rent from the plaintiff. Thereafter, the defendant executed a rent deed agreeing to pay the rent of Rs.2,000/- per month on 10.09.2003, for the period of two years and the said lease period was over on 31.08.2005. The plaintiff further pleaded that after expiry of the lease period, a fresh lease would be executed, taken for further two years on the enhancement of the rent by 30% per hundred per year in the present rent of Rs.2,000/-. However, the defendant did not come forward to execute the fresh lease deed after expiry of the lease period i.e. on 31.08.2005, nor the defendant handed over the possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff and the defendant became trespasser, who is in unlawful possession of the property from 01.09.2005.

While so, the plaintiff gave a registered legal notice to the defendant on 27.10.2005, through her advocate to vacate the plaint schedule property. The defendant received the same and gave a reply through his counsel on 09.11.2005 stating that he has been in possession of the property from February, 1995 onwards, with a rent of Rs.500/-, which has been extended from time to time up to the yea