A second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC is maintainable only if it involves a substantial question of law; concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court cannot be disturbed unless they are perverse.

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri Apurva M Gokhale, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Surya Balu Mahendra, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the entire record.

2. The second appeal is preferred aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 14.12.2022 in A.S.No.214 of 2018 passed by the learned XXVI Additional Chief Judge, Civil Court, Hyderabad (‘First Appellate Court’), confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (‘Trial Court), in O.S.No.1973 of 2015 dated 02.08.2018, wherein a suit filed by the respondent/respondent/plaintiff has been decreed with costs directing the appellant/appellant/defendant to vacate the suit schedule property consisting of Flat No.101, 1st floor, Lalitha Residency bearing municipal No.16-2-67 and 68/108 Akbar Bagh, Malakpet, Hyderabad.

3. The background facts of the case are that the respondent herein filed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.87,000/- upto 31.07.2015 and for damages to be recovered from the appellant. The respondent is claiming to be the owner of suit schedule property having purchased it from the appellant under a registered sale deed document No.4101 of 2014 dated 30.09.2014. After purchasing the suit schedule property, the respondent entered into a rental agreement dated 01.10.2014, permitting the appellant to continue in occupation of the suit schedule property for a monthly rent of Rs.12,000/-. Having entered into rental agreement there was continuous default on the part of the appellant in payment of rent and therefore, the respondent got a legal notice issued dated 22.06.2015 with a demand to the appellant to vacate the property and to hand over vacant possession. Further, there was a demand for payment of arrears of rent of Rs.54,000/- till May, 2015. In spite of receiving the legal notice, the appellant failed to respond and therefore, suit for eviction has been filed.

4. The appellant herein opposed the suit claim, alleging that these registered sale deed was executed for the purpose of security for a loan amount of Rs.8,00,000/- taken by her from the respondent. There was never any sale transaction between the parties, but only a loan transaction. Further, the rental agreement between the parties is a forged document. The appellant denied her signatures on the rental agreement. The appellant was paying Rs.42,000/- per month to the respondent towards installments of the loan. There is no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. When the respondent tried to evict the appellant illegally, she filed O.S.No.735 of 2015 and obtained status quo order in I.A.No.72 of 2015 dated 22.04.2015. As such there is no cause of action for filing the suit for eviction and the suit is meant for grabbing the appellant's property as such denied the suit claim.

5. The learned trial Court examined the respondent's claim for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits, on the basis of oral evidence of the respondent as P.W.1 and documents marked under Exs.A-1 to A-5 in support of the suit. Further, the appellant was examined as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.B-1 and B-2 documents. After examining the contents of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court came to a conclusion that the respondent proved the suit claim and there is failure on the part of the appellant in proving the defence, as such, the suit has been decreed.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant herein preferred A.S.No.214 of 2018 before the First A